Beutlin wrote:Voronwë the Faithful wrote:And I would largely say the same thing to you that I would to Frelga. I don't think he loves Tolkien the way we do (though some on the production do), though I think he likes Tolkien a lot. But I think that he loves filmmaking, and takes it very seriously, despite his excesses. Certainly as seriously as other great modern directors, like Alfonso Cuaron or Terrence Malick (or even David Lynch, since his name just came up). The fact that I don't care for those filmmaker's style doesn't prevent me from realizing that they are very serious about their art, or respecting them for being so.
I agree with that Voronwë dude. And I find this notion that Peter Jackson is just making films to "entertain" people very dubious. I would say a filmmaker does not have to appear like an intellectual in his interviews to qualify as someone who can make profound works of art. So I strongly disagree with this dichotomy between serious, intellectual filmmakers on the one hand (Cuarón, Malick) and adolescent, immature directors (Peter Jackson) on the other.
Edit: And I should add that I found great value in all of these three filmmakers' works. I would say though that I would easily pick Malick over Cuarón for another Tolkien film. The two Cuarón films I watched were powerful, visually striking movies. But I have not felt the urge to rewatch them over the years. With Malick you get the feeling that his movies becomes better (and different) over time. Whenever you enter a new stage in your life, Malick's films feel different, yet maybe even more profound.
Lots of strawmen here, as no one has claimed there is necessarily such a dichotomy. I am simply listening to Peter Jackson's words about how he approaches these films. Peter Jackson is perfectly within his rights to focus on entertaining as broad an audience as possible. And he has said on a number of occasions that this is his primary objective. And he's quite good at it. Indeed, I would say that he takes making entertaining films very seriously, though he doesn't take himself so seriously (a good trait, IMO). But I don't understand why I should be berated for taking Peter Jackson at his word. As he says, he focuses on giving his audiences a slice of cake, and he enjoys himself in the process. He is avowedly (and deliberately) a non-intellectual (and not particularly 'artistic') filmmaker, in that regard, and seems to proudly wear that mantle. And by that, I don't mean that HE is not an intellectual or an artist, as I find him to be highly creative and intelligent (judging primarily by the Appendices material on the Hobbit and LOTR DVDs). What I mean is that he prefers a more popularly palatable emotional form of film-making, and that he does not care overmuch about the "intellectuals" or "artists" in the audience. And I find that when he embraces this style of film-making, that he is at his best (as in DOS, IMO). It is when he tries too hard for higher drama or artistry that he fails, in my view, as it usually feels forced.
In short, Peter Jackson is primarily interested in entertainment. He has said so many times himself, and I take him at his word. To me, his LOTR and Hobbit films bear that out as well. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that approach. He's very good at it.
I just wish that he had tried his hand at adapting books that were less dear to my heart! But I am not bitter about it, as I once was. I admire the man, and find him to be quite an inspiration. In fact, his attempt at adapting Tolkien has inspired me to write a book...
ETA: I also love Malick, and would love to see his take on Middle Earth (and no, I wouldn't expect something that was even remotely 'purist,' at least on a literal level). But such a film would never, ever get financed. That's why I focus on Cuaron, who's probably my second-favorite living filmmaker. I think Cuaron has that very unique ability to combine high artistry with popular appeal.
