sielwolf's Journal: Tha Art o' Storytellin'

This is a combo JE as I've been broadband-less for the last two weeks. So I'm gonna tackle both music and movies in one fell swoop (the other fact is that I hadn't seen a really memorable movie since Rules of Attraction).

So anyway, I mentioned on my "Whoop! I'm a full TA now!" entry that I was going to grab the GZA Legend of a Liquid Sword. In the second of attempted screwjobs by Best Buy, they tried to sell it to me for 11.99 when it was clearly 9.99. The cashier had to make a big production of going onto "The Floor" and checking it out. Yeah... I was lying and hoping you wouldn't notice...

Now I've always contended that Liquid Swords was the premier Wu-tang solo joint: Tical was most popular, Only Built 4 Cuban Linx was the most acclaimed and Return to the 36 is closest to my heart. But Liquid Swords is the most robust and thematically sound. The other solo albums were like Wu-family events but Liquid Swords was less so: it was GZA's pure and simple. Of course all the originators on Enter the 36 were on there, but tell me once where they outshined GZA on his own tracks (unlike Ghostface massacring everything on "Criminology")? The RZA's the heart, Meth is the face, but GZA is definitely the head.

So that's why I was jazzed about Legend of a Liquid Sword, especially after the singles "Knock Knock" and "Fame" blew up in the underground. But what about the whole album? Well the first thing you notice is that, like all post Wu-tang Forever albums, the production is almost RZA-less (sans one track) and, for most part, lacking even the Wu Elements. Now that's when it really begins to bother me as one of the most reassuring things is knowing the quality of the beats will be top-notch. So I know the bumps won't be classically grimey, but at least give me some quality! And I guess that is the biggest tick on this album: the tracks are hit ("Silent", "Fam") or miss ("Autobio"). How the hell am I to enjoy something that lacks appropriate thump? Sure, the Neptunes seem to show that a fat bassline isn't necessary (see Mystikal's "Bouncin' Back" or "Grindin"), but there was something carrying the bottom. Hip hop is at is best when it is a coordination of good beats and good rhymes: one or the other cannot carry a track.

Still I can say I enjoyed the bulk of this disc. And it would get a high rating... if it wasn't for a few odd choices. First, I can't be the only one who thought this "Shanti White" on "Stay in Line" was Nelly Furtado. How bizarre is that? Finally this disc has an "Explicit Lyrics" tag on the front... so why are the Fucks in the chorus of "Knock Knock" bleeped? Actually, the disc seems almost completely profanity free. Did Best Buy pull a Wal-mart on me?

In the end: Good, not great. Won't be a primary fixture in your collection but still a good bookend.

So now it's time for my rant on The Two Towers. Why? Well I think it's important to get some dialogue out there. Polarized reviews ("Loved it!" "Hate it!") don't give us a good view on things... and besides, I had an odd feeling after seeing it opening day.

Now I enjoyed it... but... *sigh* Ok, the crux of my unease: The Two Towers is three cocurrent plotlines and as such requires a certain sophistication to make anything more than a Dragonball Z-esque fighting montage. Even more difficult is that all three are differing degrees of conflict:

• Frodo+Sam+Gollum: personal study of addiction, free will, and loyalty
• Merry+Pippin+Treebeard: discussion of isolationism versus allying against a greater "evil"
• Aragorn+Legolas+Gimli: straight up swordplay against hordes of orcs

Now Tolkien was smart about this. He interwove the stories and this had two important results. First was that there was a lot of linkage between the dialogue and action in the three plots leading to the themes and motifs of the series. What it also created was a uniform crescendo towards a shared climax and resolution.

These two points were severely lacking in the film. Instead the movie was an uneven mongrel in terms of story. Too often you were following a plotline only to then go to another and be reminded of something ("Oh yeah... the Ents" or "Oh yeah, Frodo"). This lead to Frodo seeming as less of a lead and Merry and Pippin almost disappearing completely. Even more so, the fall of Isengaard was treated as almost more of an afterthought.

At the end I thought two things: "Oh... I guess the battle of Helms Deep is over" and "So.... is Saruman defeated or something?" My friend had to explain to me that "No, Isengaard is not destroyed but the war machines are".

Peter Jackson fell into the same trap as the most recent Harry Potter: he was more concerned with getting as much of the plot points in and not making a coherent film. I'm sorry but the two media have unique strengths and weaknesses. It was just plot point, plot point, plot point with little to no unification.

Sure, there was token talk of the "two towers" but that was discarded for more warg attacks and expository dialogue. *sigh*

If I was doing it: I would bring up and continually reference the Link between the two towers, how this Link represents the Bond that will enslave the free races and that it must be Broken. And it is Broken through the mobilization of peoples united in apathy, addiction (Frodo/Gollum), natural indifference (the Ents), and political isolationism (Rohan). These three themes would show how from the individual to the nation can and should turn itself against a true and malevolent evil.

Hell, I love Faramir and all (his brother is my favorite character in the series) but consider him a casualty when making a more robust film.

And that is the true goal. Why is Empire Strikes Back not bad? The key is that it could survive a vaccuum. You can watch it, not seeing A New Hope and still appreciate it.

The Two Towers is indecypherable without FOTR: it is all crescendo and exposition with no form of its own. And no one can talk about it as a great film on its own individual merits.

*Sigh* and it is disappointing. Now don't read me wrong: I enjoyed it. But it could have been a lot better, and a lot better by reducing it a good deal. Streamline it and simplify it. It's too bad. Jackson did a great job making Gollum out. Little things like that. But in an attempt to put in everything, the cast of dozens is stretched paper thin. And, sadly, this sort of movie is the best one clouded with prior knowledge. It is hard to decide if you "know" that fact because you knew it before hand or if the movie told you.

I can imagine my cousin saying "Why was Gimli giving Legolas such a hard time". Of course I could say that they are becoming close friends. But the movie probably has three lines of dialogue between the two. After Boromir and Gollum, the Legolas/Gimli friendship was the most interesting aspect of LOTR. I guess I'm too interested in character.

GZA Legend of a Liquid Sword ***
LOTR: Two Towers **1/2 (on its own merits, *** if you take it as a chapter in the whole trilogy).

LotR stuff

[memfree]

[Peter Jackson] was more concerned with getting as much of the plot points in and not making a coherent film ... he Legolas/Gimli friendship

I agree with you, but I think I liked it a lot more than you did. I went in after hearing several critics caution: "This is just a second act; it has problems". Besides that, I'm trying to avoid criticizing anything about the film's ability to tell a compelling story because I think the movie is more akin to a James Bond film than to the books. Taken as a mindless Action Movie, TTT was pretty fun. Taken as a piece of Art, I have to admit it sucked on most every level except visuals. So... I'm going for "Action Movie".

Those who will see it won't be disuaded by reviews, and those who won't see it don't care who loved it. The films are much weaker than the books (TTT more so than FotR), but I want to assume that time constraints left them with little choice. They changed lots of things to reduce the number of people/places/events. It is a shame that in the interest of getting the 3rd film set up, they abandoned story dynamics, but the films are not the books -- they're just visualizations based on the books' world.

I haven't noticed the movie depict ANY particular friendship between the elf and dwarf. Nor have I felt that there was any particular animus between those two races (just a minor attitude of "our race is better than yours" here and there -- and from just about anyone of any race). There was one bit in TTT where Legolas takes an action which could be construed to be somewhat defensive of the dwarf, *but* it could also be viewed as the elf feeling superior to his opponent. In fact, I felt the movies made them seem more like competitors that only wanted to best each other -- not as a budding friendship. I can imagine a conclusion so far from the books that the best attitude the pair reaches is to grudgingly realize that since they are fighting for the same thing, they don't need to continue their pissing contest.

Re:LotR stuff

[sielwolf]

PJ did hit some of the Legolas+Gimli dynamic

• Their running counts of how many Uruk-hai they've killed at Helm's Deep
• The "Don't tell the elf" when Aragorn and Gimli jump on the Uruk-hai outside the gates
• Um... that's about it ;)

Re:LotR stuff

[memfree]

I thought of both of those as negative indicators. I didn't feel like they were bonding but feuding in those bits.

*spoiler below*

When the (ahem) 'outcasts' of Rohan surround our heroes and Legolas draws his bow, one might assume that he was insulted by the comment about the dwarf's height. On the other hand, one could think he was yet again letting his ego override his common sense -- reacting in a "only I get to mock the folks I must accompany" kinda way.

Re:LotR stuff

[subgeek]

you do get legolas stepping up to defend gimli when the riders surround them. he doesn't draw his bow until gimli is insulted. and when legolas asks gimli if he wants a box, gimli laughs, so at least there is a sense of a friendly interaction there.

but yes, the second movie fell short of my expectations. the first time i saw it, i kept wondering if peter jackson had actually read the book at all. characters are completely different. events are changed. i am hoping that when the 4 dvd version of TTT comes out, the movie will flow a little better. i felt that the longer version of FOTR is better. it will probably take more than 35 minutes of extra footage this time, though.

Re:LotR stuff

[memfree]

yeah, I understand that Legolas was sticking up for a friend, and yeah, I get that PJ *meant* them to be friends. I'm just needlessly quibbling because I wanted the characters to... I dunno, smile at each other more, or otherwise display more outward camaraderie instead of all the competitive and/or violence based interaction. I felt like the typical buddy movies (pick any cop action movie) adds more friendship in between light-hearted jabs than we got in TTT.