6-02-03 Latest News

Tehanu @ 6:47 am EST

Translated by Eledhwen.

King Jackson

Despite being buoyed up by the lasting worldwide success of the first two parts of his cinematic adaptation of LOTR, Peter Jackson is not resting on his laurels. Still totally invested in and passionate about the project, the director doesnít hesitate in returning to TTT to defend his creative choices and justify the differences between his film and the original book.

Q: Did the fact that your producers, New Line, offered you extra credit following the success of FOTR cause unforeseen difficulties?

A: Well, weíd already done that the first time, for FOTR. We brought the actors back together for three or four weeks for extra shooting, but it was planned from the start. Itís also planned for next year. New Line offered us more credit so that we could include more digital effects. Initially we only had 600 effects of that sort budgeted for on TTT, and we ended up with 800. I think that satisfied them. Itís clearly the success of the first film that made them happy enough to give us that financial support at the last minute.

Q: So itís not true to say, as weíve often heard, that the three films were shot and finished at the same time?

A: We shot for fifteen months and had the three films in the can at the same time. All weíve filmed since are extra scenes.

Q: Have these films occupied your whole life?

A: Absolutely. Iím in the middle of editing ROTK at the moment. I canít really allow myself a break. However postproduction is a great thing to do. In this job, films are often 12 weeks in postproduction. You finish the film and 12 weeks later itís released. In our case, we filmed the three films two and a half years ago, as if they werenít three films but one, very long one, nine hours of scene after scene, end to end. And now postproduction is taking a year. Itís great to have such a long period of postproduction because it allows us to really fine-tune the film. There are also lots of scenes animated by computer, which means this year canít be totally devoted to editing the films, and in any case that wouldnít take all this time. But integrating digital scenes eats up time.

Q: Did the studio have more input for the second film than the first?

A: Theyíve always left me well alone. New Line have really been good from that point of view. I think there are various reasons. Apart from Ordesky, I donít think many people in the studio really immersed themselves into LOTR. I donít think many of them have even read the book. They didnít really make many comments on the scripts, which were already fairly confusing and complicated for us, so I donít think they were really able to make many observations. And also we were a long, long way away over there, down in New Zealand, and they never came to see us during the shoot Ė we were abandoned, left to ourselves. Theyíve always been great and thatís helped us make the films. Being left alone is really a directorís dream.

Q: Can you highlight the differences between the first and second films for us?

A: I think that the second film in a trilogy, in any cinematic trilogy, absolutely has to obey strict rules. Of course we based our film on the book, but in Episode 2 (I shouldnít use those words, someone else already has), letís say the second part, in the second part, therefore, complications occur. We began the journey in FOTR; whoever the hero is, their quest begins in the first film. In the second film, things have to get harder, the forces of evil have to begin to close in. Things really have to seem much harder, so that the audiences ask themselves how the devil are they going to finish their adventure in the third film, given the events of the second. Itís a way of preparing the way for the grand climax of the third film. Effectively itís a sort of convention, second films by their very nature are darker because you have to apply the pressure, the vice has to close around the characters.

Q: Why did you add Aragornís agony scene?

A: We did that for several reasons. Iíll have to try and re-assemble my thoughts to explain it, because itís two years since we wrote those scenes and Iím now so used to them. From memory Ė youíll surely know more about this than me, because itís ages since I read that part of the book Ė but from memory, it doesnít seem to me that much happens on the journey between Edoras and Helmís Deep. Also, it happened that one thing which we really wanted to do Ė for me, at least Ė was a scene with a warg attack. Iíve always found those creatures great, but Tolkien only refers to them once or twice in the book. In any case, he never makes much use of them. I wanted to show them. I wanted to show a fight scene with the wargs. We thought that that moment was ideal, and that it would inject more danger into that part of the story. Once weíd decided that theyíd be attacked, from the point of view of the narrative structure of the film, we wanted to change the atmosphere, to make things more sombre. So we thought that to fake Aragornís death would be a good way of scaring the audience and for him to ask himself questions about the future. At that moment weíre in the middle of the film. We loved being able to introduce a negative moment and a reversal of fortune at that crucial point. Later on we realised that this also gave us the chance to film a surreal scene with Arwen. A moment where she connects with Aragorn as he lies unconscious. You know, one of the big differences between the book and what weíve done is the character of Arwen. We werenít just looking to enlarge her role in the story, but in fact she doesnít even appear in TTT, in the book in any case Ė the two characters are geographically separated. We wanted ways of showing their link, their connection, without them actually being side-by-side. So our method was to use flashbacks which showed moments before the quest began.

Q: And you think there arenít enough episodes like that in the book, is that it?

A: Most of the key episodes in the book are in the film. In my eyes, I suppose, the second book of Tolkienís novel is the weakest. There are scenes in the film that arenít in the book, absolutely. We specifically decided to develop the character of Gollum further, and then thereís this battle with the wargs which isnít even in the book. Above all, we wanted to expand upon and develop threads which the book suggests but doesnít explore.

Q: [Unreadable Ė something about Arwen?]

A: Yes, that too. Weíd already taken that liberty in the first film. The character of Arwen, played by Liv Tyler, has little importance in the book. She literally only appears on three pages out of a thousand. We constructed a story for her which lasts throughout the three films. Fundamentally, we were faithful to the book, the situation is the same Ė sheís in love with Aragorn. We loved that idea of bittersweet love where a mortal Man, who will age and die, is in love with an immortal Elf who will never age. That dilemma is profoundly sad. Thatís how Tolkien wrote it. All we did was develop that aspect of the story more than he did.

Q: Were there cuts which you didnít want to make?

A: There always are. But now that DVDs exist things are easier. Weíve just released the DVD of the first film and we were able to insert 35 minutes more than the theatrical version. Iím sure weíll do the same with the second film. That way, things are less annoying. So if thereís a scene which I really like a lot which was impossible to put in the theatrical version, I know that itís not lost and that people can see it later on, thanks to the DVD.

Q: Did you think about doing a prologue or a sort of resume of earlier episodes at the start of the films?

A: No. Iíve always been against that idea. Iíll tell you why. My point of view rests on the theory that only a tiny fraction of the audience for the second film wonít have seen the first. I donít want the first five minutes of the film aimed at only a small proportion of the audience. I saw things differently. For me, the viewer is someone who saw FOTR, who left to have a little popcorn break of one year and then came back to see the rest of the film. I wanted unity and continuation.

A: Thereís been a lot of talk about how the success of your film stems from the fact that fantasies like this are popular at the moment Ė do you believe itís a question of fashion?

Q: I donít know. That would effectively mean that science-fiction and stories based on technology have become less popular. Itís also being said that demand for those sorts of films keeps on rising, and weíll have to wait for more heroic fantasy films to be released. I suppose in a way the success of Harry Potter and of our films only confirms that. But I doubt it. I think that LOTR is timeless. Tolkien wrote his novel between 1937 and 1949. It was a period of unbelievable torment for the whole planet. Fifty years later, we find ourselves in quite a similar situation. Nothing has fundamentally changed, and I fear that in another fifty years nothing will really have altered. Weíre human, and weíll always fight each other, weíll continue to attack each other and cause each other great pain. Much of LOTR deals with those themes and so I think itís a work which will never age and will remain outside fashion.

By Marion Ross and Karen Butler.

John Rhys-Davies

Used to supporting roles, John Rhys-Davies has made films with the best directors. Witty and self-deprecating, the actor playing Gimli saw in Peter Jackson all the qualities required to make him great amongst the greats.

Q: At what moment did you discover that youíd also be playing a tree in LOTR?

A: Itís sad, isnít it! My whole career has been spent on set, and now Iíve become part of the set! (Laughs) Peter Jackson came to see me one day and asked me if I was interested in doing the voice for Treebeard, and I said yes. And you know, I was much more stressed by the idea of voicing Treebeard than all I endured playing Gimli. Gimli is quite simply marvellous, all an actor has to do to find the character is to read the book. Itís all a combination of the way he uses his weight, what he looks like, the way he moves, thatís what leads you to portray him. But on the other hand, you canít act Treebeard as heís described in the book, not only because heís the oldest creature on earth but also because heís so slow; that would kill the film.

Q: How was Treebeard shown?

A: We needed a way of showing all that, the age and the difficulty he has in going back to his oldest memories, but we couldnít make him senile because thereís also the scene where he is enraged by the evil he finds at Isengard. I spent four or five weeks on him. We tried everything; the only restriction we imposed was that there would be only one voice. But how can a tree talk? A vegetable doesnít have lungs, so we imagined that heíd breathe in more than out to form words. In a way, that seemed more natural. Then we thought about accents, and we decided it would be more natural if he had touches of accents from here and there, a little from everywhere. After that we had to assemble all these elements and try to make a rustling of leaves mixed with roots and branches cracking. It was mad. I wonít tell you how many hours and days we spent on that assembly.

Q: Do you appreciate what Peter Jackson has done?

A: There again, you see the mark of genius of Peter Jackson. There are so many other things in this second film that it would be easier to cut Treebeard. A walking, talking tree is an intrinsically risky idea. Wisdom would say that you cut those scenes and tell the public that there were already so many things to see that a choice had to be made, and that you could very well do without Treebeard. But that would have been cheating with Tolkien. So, doing that scene was a risk, but we had to try. In New Zealand, at every press conference, I came over like a madman because nobody understood what I was trying to say. I was the first person to talk like that because of my past experience of big films. You end up knowing when a project will succeed, but instinct. I think weíve succeeded in making one of the great epic films of all time. When you see it all together, youíll know that Peter Jackson has made a masterpiece. The scale of this film is such that Iíve never seen its like before in my life, and Iíll probably never see it again.

Q: Youíve worked with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas?

A: Yes, and it was a lot of work, but theyíre not alone. I also worked with J. Lee Thompson who unfortunately died recently and who I adored to the point of worship. He was the stereotype of the director who has forgotten more about cinema than young directors will ever learn. Iíve worked with Blake Edwards too. I have a pretty precise and documented idea about what makes a good director. This little Hobbit from New Zealand thatís Peter Jackson has all it takes. He has imagination and he can do everything, right down to the tedious task of preparation. In two weeks, he managed to succeed in convincing me that his film, which made me nervous to the point of wanting to find any way out of it, was in fact the masterpiece of which Iíve become a passionate defender. I remember being there in New Zealand, telling anyone who would listen that we were in the middle of making a film that would be far more important than Star Wars. When youíve seen all three films, youíll know that you have had the privilege of seeing one of the best, most extraordinary films that youíll ever see. Until some cretin decides that he hasnít got enough imagination for his own project and proposes remaking it ...

By Honie Stevens

Viggo Mortensen

As ROTK puts him in the spotlight, the actor Viggo Mortensen talks to CineFilm(s) about his casting and what he has gained from LOTR. When everything hangs by a single thread ...

Q: Did you know the novel?

A: Before the films, you mean? No. I got a telephone call and the next day I was on a plane with this huge book on my knees (laughs) trying to read as much as possible before finding myself in front of the cameras.

Q: When they cast you, did you hesitate because it meant a part for three years?

A: Oh, yes. When they called me I was as flattered as I was shocked.

Q: They called you in Los Angeles, at your home?

A: Yes, I was at home with my son and I hesitated. It was of course a huge opportunity, but having to leave the next morning for such a long time, when I didnít know the book and I knew the other actors had been there for weeks, even months, rehearsing, horse-riding and fencing ... Theyíd already got used to the location, the rest of the crew, their costumes and all that. They had been shooting for two weeks. Professionally I felt at a huge disadvantage and I was scared I wouldnít match up. You know, you always want to make the best contribution possible. It was evidently a very important project. And then, there was my son. If I went, Iíd be away from him a long time.

Q: How old was he?

A: He was eleven. When I put down the phone, he asked me what I was talking about and I said nothing, just this thing, LOTR. Heíd already discussed it with his friends who had read it and he himself had begun to read it. He told me it was a great book and I should do it. I explained that would mean me being away a very long time. And then we argued. No ... we didnít argue as such, it was great to have his approval even after Iíd explained it would last a long time, a really long time, and actually itís lasted even longer than that. The breaks we were supposed to have during the second half of shooting never happened. I didnít even have a holiday. Even if it was good to have his approval, I still had to decide for myself. I thought it was ridiculous, really, to join something like that in such an impromptu manner. I thought hard for two hours and finally decided to do it. And that didnít leave me long enough to read the book. (Laughs.) I finally decided to do it because I knew Iíd always have it on my mind somehow. Itís the sort of thing, the sort of challenge Iíve always been waiting for and that was stronger than me. But if I hadnít accepted to do this film, I know Iíd have been kicking myself afterwards for my cowardice, Iíd have lost self-esteem if I hadnít even tried.

Q: Why did it happen so quickly?

A: There was another actor, but he was much too ... He was younger than me. He was the same age as the guys who play the hobbits. That was a definite disadvantage in his position. What I understood was that his departure was a mutual decision. Theyíd have had to make him look older all the time, heíd have had to play the role giving himself the air of having long experience. You know, Strider isnít just someone whoís older than the others, no, heís much older. Heís of a race whose life expectancy is double that of [other] men. In fact, heís nearly 90 years old, heís been around a while, and even though many people he meets in the second film, like Thťoden, seem much older, in reality Aragorn fought alongside the father of this king when the latter was just a baby. Itís weird, but he doesnít appear that way.

Q: Apart from having taken 18 months of your life, what did making this film bring you?

A: I discovered that New Zealand and her people were unbelievable. There was a fantastic crew and a superb group of actors. There was a real work atmosphere, everyone had their sleeves rolled up and there was no room for someone with an attitude or the sort of behaviour you sometimes see on big films. It was really a team effort, and thatís even more important for me than the final result. I enjoyed myself and I shared lots of experiences with these people, I realise what we did and Iím proud of it. If all of that shows on screen, I mean the good with the bad, everything that was difficult, hard, everything we contended with from day to day, step after step, all the little victories in the construction of Middle-earth to make it real, then it was worth the effort.

By Robin Lynch.

Andy Serkis

Andy Serkis is the voice of Gollum, the horrible creature of LOTR. But apart from his vocal performance, the actor was able to lend his features and his gestures to bring the former possessor of the Ring alive.

Q: Were you thinking of one or two characters?

A: Just one. Gollum is one character but he has a personality with several facets. Heís not two different characters at the same time. Heís like me. I know, Iím completely schizophrenic. (Laughs.) What I mean is that most of us are like that. Everyone has many sides and our personalities have the tendency to emerge according to the circumstances of our lives. For example, if youíre stuck in a traffic jam, youíre a real Gollum whereas at home with your two-year old youíre wonderfully tender. Thatís it, and itís something I felt deeply, that even from the publicís point of view, if youíre going to spend time with this guy you need to understand him and not just be happy thinking heís a villain. Heís a real character whoís living through torture. Played that way, the audience can understand him and even feel a little sympathy for him.

Q: Was your voice synthesised one way or another or was it really your own? In that case, it must be hard to produce such a grating sound in your throat.

A: Yes, it was quite hard, but you get used to everything. My vocal cords became like stretched leather. They became insensitive. But once again that was part of the process of discovery, by imagining ways to express his pain. Gollum is nicknamed Gollum because of the sound he makes in his throat. Itís because of a contraction in his throat and I wanted to suffer that contraction myself, I wanted it to be a sort of muscular memory, a tightening as if a T-Rex was biting the neck. For me it was a symptom, an automatic suffering from the memory of having strangled his cousin to take the Ring. Itís also a demonstration of the grip the Ring has on him. I started off thinking of him as very animalistic, because JRR Tolkien describes him very precisely in zoological terms. I have cats. I donít know if you have cats, but when they have a furball in their throat, you see them convulsing, their whole body convulses to get rid of the furball and they make a funny sort of sound, a little like gollum, gollum.

Q: When you saw Gollum in the film, did you recognise yourself?

A: Totally, yes! And people who know me will recognise me too because theyíll see my mannerisms. My wife will know me (laughs) because the characterís face is modelled on mine and thatís exactly what Peter Jackson wanted. He wanted to borrow my qualities as an actor. In fact, it really is my performance.

Q: I heard that a scene had been shot where we see you smoking and talking with Jar Jar Binks, can you tell us about it?

A: Yes, yes, itís a thing that was done at the beginning of the year. Iím very impatient to see the finished product because itíll be animated on top of the motion capture we did. The idea was of an online interview where people were asking Gollum about his daily preparation for work. The telephone rings and itís his agent whoís just got him a place on a talk show. There, Jar Jar arrives, Gollum asks him how he is and Jar Jar answers that heís just auditioned for the part of Dobby in Harry Potter but his ears werenít big enough.

Q: Were you very disappointed that the scene of Gollumís transformation was cut? I think I understood that itíll be in the third film in any case, but were you annoyed that it wasnít used in the second film?

A: Yes, and if I didnít know that the scene would be in the third film, Iíd be irritated. I donít know if everyone knows that in fact youíll see me, in the film, in what should have been the second film, transforming myself into Gollum after the murder of Dťagol. You see the evolution, the fall into madness and you see Gollum aging more and more and then finally the transformation is complete. Yes, I was disappointed when Peter Jackson told me that it wouldnít be in the second film because he thought it would stick better in the third.

Q: Will this scene in the third film be a flashback similar to what was envisaged for the second film?

A: Theyíll find a way of doing it so it works. In a way, itíll be quite good because it will allow people to better know Gollum. Itís like an unveiling, a sort of revelation.

By Debbie Bean.