The old woman spent a horrible night because she forgot to take her allergy pills. Yuck. I'm feeling like a very old, worn-out cleaning rag.
Funny that so many people should be upset by bad behaviour at the cinema--I always thought I was becoming old and reactionary.
I remember that, when I had to take dancing lessons at age 16, at Vienna's oldest dancing school, each of the participants received a reprint of "Der Neue Elmayer", a kind of 'young people's guide to good manners'. The book originally dated from the fifties, and many things were hopelessly outdated. Like, e.g., that young men have to wear suit and tie when going to the cinema. Especially in times like these, when wearing suits at work isn't compulsory anymore, and therefore many men don't possess one (or can't afford one) superficial nonsense like this ought to be thrown into the dustbin labelled 'unnecessary'. The problem, however, seems to be that people have thrown most of their manners into the same dustbin, although they are easily affordable and don't make life more difficult. Why, for example, does everybody appear to be under the impression that being late for cinema is OK? It's a damned nuisance, especially in winter when you have to balance your coat, popcorn and water on your knees, having to rise twice or three times, so as to let latecomers take their seats. At concerts, theatre, opera etc. they don't let you in anymore when the performance has already begun. And opera tickets are a bit more expensive than cinema tickets, so cinema-goers wouldn't lose as much by having to stay outside as they do if they're late for a concert.
Last night when I saw RotK, people kept trickling in during the first ten minutes, and between nacho-scrunching, clothes-shifting and talking it was almost impossible to hear what the actors were saying, except when they were shouting.
Late-coming, making phone calls, talking etc. during the performance just shows so much disrespect for both the public and the movie. I think it's that disrespect that annoys me so much.
And now, as if I hadn't already bored people enough, a few thoughts about the film: I really have to re-read the books some time. Because I don't remember them being so repetitive. In RotK, we don't see anything we haven't already seen in the previous 2 parts, including epic battles, Sam vs. Gollum, and many other elements. I suppose that's because they had to cut out so many subplots, which make the books more vivid and the recurring elements merely similar but not the same. Without real in-depth knowledge of canon, this is the aspect I'd call the only major flaw.
Viggo Mortensen was never one of my favourites (by now, he downright annoys me), and personally I wouldn't say he's a good actor. He has that detached, absent air and he's very one-dimensional, something that can't be said about canon!Aragorn. 'Noble' is nice, but not enough to make a compelling character.
What struck me as strange was that, although all three parts were shot contemporaneously, the third one has a more contrived, artificial feel to it. For the first time I noticed that they were using children to double for the four hobbits in scenes where they're seen from behind. Minas Tirith sometimes had a very cardboard-y look. The Nazgul seemed clumsy. I'm sure I would have noticed the same things in the previous films, had they been there, because I saw each of them four or five times and knew about the children.
The most moving scene (maybe even more so at the second viewing) was the one with Faramir and his father, and the ensuing desperate assault on Osgiliath, with that marvellously cut sequence of the riders storming forward, the Steward eating and Pippin singing. Because of Faramir's terrible, broken sadness I regretted even more that the Eowyn/Faramir subplot was merely alluded to, recognaizable only to those who'd read the books.
Nuff ranted, now I think I should go about my domestic duties.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
