Bakshi v PJ A Contest of Scripts

{{Much as I dont like the look of Bormoir there is a logic behind the choices at least- one set by Tolkien really.
The idea seems ot be to try to convey to the reader something about the people represented using a visual shorthand, as there is simply not the time in the film to explain further or allow for much in the way of backstory and set up.

Hobbits of course are reminiscent of English rural folk of all classes, the Rohirrim are remarkably similar in appearance, dress and culture to Anglo-Saxon Britain.

In Baksh is case he took this a few steps further. So Strider, the ranger, tracker and woodsman and hunter looks like a native American, because from the 30's- 60's in film and tv those sort of roles were usually given to the 'red indian' character.
With Boromir we have an attempt to associate Gondor as a seafaring race with warrior tendencies- which is true if you go back to the final decades of Numenor, when they were landing along the shores of ME in massive raids and then creating settlements- just as the Vikings did.

So whilst I dont like the visual look they went for in lots of cases, there is at least some logic to it.
And on the plus side the character of Boromir was voiced by Michael Grahame Cox (who in his day also looked the part) and he does an excellent job, and as he also voiced Boromir in the excellent BBC Radio adaptation made before the film so he knows the part very well, and does a great job of bring the right context to Baskhi's truncated script. }}

{{Couldnt find it on youtube so had to quickly edit and upload it myself Took about 10 mins to do all that, and best part of an hour to upload it! Why is there still such a discrepancy between upload and downloading speeds?  }}

Yeah, that's nice.

That's interesting about Bakshi's choice of character portrayals, I often wondered about that. In the end it was one of those artistic choices that failed by its silliness. If he had been more subtle about it the subliminal effect may have worked.

{{If they'd put trousers on Aragorn I think it would have worked on that level for that character. Though the choice to skirt him might also be a desire to convey something about him. In the book at the Inn we are first introduced to him via Barliman who comments on his long legs and how he goes about them everywhere and that his nickname is Longshanks. And the first visual description we get of Aragon in the inn features those long legs stretched out in front of him. The choice may have been made to emphasis Aragorns legs and goings about on them.

I think this thinking even extends to the character designs of the hobbits. Many have felt Sam is 'ugly' and I dont think this is an accident. Sam is working class and his physical experience is meant to help convey his different stature to the others.
Merry and Pippin by comparison, being wealthy and upper class and what passes for nobility in the Shire, are drawn almost like cherubs, with no facial blemishes or particular oddities. Frodo, being in-between, being from the upper end of the middle-class is visually between the two, he has the rounded cherubic features of Merry and Pippin but some of Sams more angular features, such as his chin.



The idea of class being represented by physical blemishes goes back a long way- Shakespeare was using it in Henry the V for Bartole, with his face of blemishes and red eruptions, and the rugged and scarred Pistol- both bottom of the class pile. }}

Sam is a Neanderthal!!

Enjoyed listening to that Petty.

Plus that picture! We wants it!

{{ Vid comparing Bakshi and PJ.
Beyond the visual differences, for me the big tell that PJ was more influenced by Bakshi than Tolkien is that the structure of PJ's films, the scenes choices and the placement are almost identical to Bakshi.
And whilst Bakshi retained more of Tolkiens original dialogue he did not follow the book story in FotR in particular, and every change he made to accomodate the time he had to tell the story in is present in PJ's. The only place that structure exists for LotR's is in the Bakshi version, not in Tolkien. }}

I liked the film but this guy sure didn't. Enjoyed the videos though. Quite funny in parts.

Dear God, I did have a giggle at these I thought they were good fun & thank gawd for people like Bakshi. He started the ball rolling, raked up interest, gave us something to criticize because we are too used to things being cleaned up, fine lines & sanitised. I actually like the rough nightmare quality of this animation. Its weird, daft, crude & WTF all in one film but at least its honest. The actual story might be tinkered with but the animation is pure 60's weird

Nope, can't stand Bakshi. No real interest in watching all this but the few spot checks just confirm why I can't stand that version.

In that first video, which movie is the first piece of music from? I'm really feeling Troy, but I wasn't sure.

Anyway, the commentator speaks too quickly for me, in an annoying way. His comment that Jackson's LotR is the "best possible adaptation" isn't quite right either of course.

Fun videos though.

Edit: damnit no I don't think it is Troy. Not The Four Feathers, not The Gladiator, not Lawrence of Arabia. It's gotta be James Horner still, right?

Gosh so annoying. Can anyone help me out?

That 1st little snippet sounds a bit 'biblical' ? As tho it should be in a film about Moses ? I clicked on the info on the youtube video, it states what music & from where but, none of it seemed applicable to that little piece right at the beginning. Bit of a pain isn't it.

{{ Bakshi's work needs to be seen in context. He got a pittance to make it on, Bakshi got 4 million, PJ got 93 million, even accounting for inflation thats a massive gulf and Bakshi had one film just over 2 hr long to tell the story of two and a half large books- and within those constraints he still managed in many places to stick closer to source than PJ, use more genuine Tolkien dialogue and to produce some impressive visual ideas in my view (and presumably in PJs view too given he nicked a fair few).
I still prefer Bakshis first encounter with the ringwraith over PJ's- in PJs a ringwraith is just a bloke in a robe with some armour underneath, its not other-worldy, its not disturbing, Bakshi's choice to interpret 'wraith' from the root of the anglo-saxon word- a twisted thing, and present it as such made it way creeper and more unsettling and gives for me a far closer feel to the book in that first encounter and how unnerving it is for reader and characters.
Had Bakshi been given the time (he wasnt the studio insisited the film be released in Nov of its release year regardless if it was finished or not, which it wasnt, and against Bakshi's pleas they refused to title it part one) the budget and the offer to make three films as PJ was by New Line, I have no doubt Bakshi's script would have been far, far superior to PJ's, as often what is there is already much closer. Im also amazed there was not a sequal made, given the low cost of the film film at 4 million to make and its returns of over 30 million it was a massive financial success.}}

The wraiths in Bakshi are wrather comical. Their curled fingers and slow-motion gyrations more maudlin than menacing.

azriel wrote:That 1st little snippet sounds a bit 'biblical' ? As tho it should be in a film about Moses ?  I clicked on the info on the youtube video, it states what music & from where but, none of it seemed applicable to that little piece right at the beginning. Bit of a pain isn't it.  

Yes, Biblical! I was thinking along those lines. Either something sword and sandals or else a 19th-century period British piece. But the recording sounds too clean to be from an older film. I'm almost of a mind that the first snippet of music, before the Family Guy clip, is a different piece of music than the piece that plays after Family Guy and before Fritz the Cat.

Edit: WHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?????????

The wraiths in Bakshi are wrather comical.- orest

{{They never struck me as comical, especially not when I first saw it as a youngster- just very disturbing, which for me is what they should be, distrubing, unnatural, in Striders words, 'neither living nor dead'. And something neither living nor dead should be uncomfortable, off. All I get from PJs is bloke in a robe.
I think maybe Bakshi's verion is a touch overdone now I am older, like much of the animation in the film there can be sometimes too much exaggeration, but the basic idea of making them unnatural in their movements and sounds I think is a solid one.}}

Yes as a child I would feel differently, I imagine. This is how I feel now, after the movie has aged so much.

Rejoice oh my people, for a rando on Youtube has shone the light of youtube linked truth upon this conundrum!

Here is where the clip of music is from:



Both pieces are in the first couple minutes.

Gorgeous piece by the way.

Yeah, Vaughn Williams is very evocative and quotable. He would have been a good film composer.

Why is 1/4 of the orchestra separated? I supposed they are trying to use the accoustics of the place to maximum advantage.

I believe that they compose a second group in addition to the usual number of players.

Ah, it's instructions from the original score. The idea is to imitate the different divisions of an organ, which often have pipes in different locations.

Well done Forest ! I applaud you ! That, is actually a lovely piece of music

Indeed indeed, but I am merely the messenger. Somebody on Youtube sent me the link.

{{ I find his two sidekicks playing characters just really annoying. I much preferred it when he just reviewed things sitting at a desk on his own.
Overall its a reasonably fair take on Bakshi's version though. }}