Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

As I walked out of the theater after seeing 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers', a woman of approximately fifty years was standing in the lobby talking to (I must assume) her husband. What I could catch of the conversation as I walked by, was that she wasn't completely sure what was going on for some not entirely small portion of the movie. That didn't, however, keep her from pawing at her eyes as I passed.

This little scene, coming just as I was formulating my thoughts on the movie, rather struck me. I was running over some ideas on how I thought this movie was (surprisingly) even better than the first, the reasons for which mostly concerning how Peter Jackson somehow got a better feel for what he was doing. The woman's reaction gave me another thought to dwell on, and that is that this movie 'delivers' better.

There are many reasons for this, not the least of which being that it is simply a darker movie, and thus, it is (I think) a bit easier to 'deliver' from the start. More importantly, I think, in this movie Jackson is finally able to (or finally makes any real attempt to) bring the sub-text forward. In the first movie, the subtext is only sort of accidentally there, and thus, isn't very interesting.


Our second movie picks up where we left off in the first movie. Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Samwise (Sean Astin) are on their own, trying to make it to Mordor in order that they might somehow destroy the ring of power, right under the very nose of Sauron. Merry and Pippin, our other faithful hobbits, have been captured by orcs, and are being taken back to Saruman, the dastardly wizard. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) are chasing said orcs to try and rescue their friends.

We start out, thankfully, virtually introductionless, the only reminder of the first movie being a dream Frodo has about Gandalf's death. In no time at all, we are simply underway again. Frodo and Sam are clearly lost, and haven't a clue how to get where they're going. They soon meet up with Gollum. The encounter manages to rectify their lack of direction problem, but nevertheless leaves them with rather little idea what they're doing.

Merry and Pippin go through the movie mainly by way of having things happen to them. They manage to escape the orcs when an internal struggle begins, only to find themselves in the clutches of a living tree, or Ent.

The main focus of the story surrounds the adventures of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. After chasing the orcs a merry way, they stumble across a large contingent of mounted warriors, the Riders of Rohan, who thus get a chance to give them generally woeful tidings. From there, the three heroes learn that Merry and Pippin escaped the orcs, and meet up with Gandalf.

Gandalf leads our band to King Theoden, ruler of Rohan, who is under the spell of Saruman by way of his own advisor, Grima Wormtongue. After the confrontation between Gandalf and Wormtongue/Theoden, though it's really between Gandalf and Saruman, the restored King must decide how to face the horde of orcs rampaging toward them. The decision is to move his people to Helm's Deep, a nearby stronghold that has always protected the people of Rohan.

And, that's just about the plot, or at least, the giving away as little as possible version.


Much as I liked the first movie, this one appealed to me even more. I think most of the reasons I enjoyed this movie more are simply a result of good decisions, even ones which don't seem like great decisions to many. Though many may criticize the fact that Gimli is largely used for comic relief, and may even criticize the points at which that comic relief appears, I think it was a good decision. This is a movie that needs some comic relief, or perhaps just some relief, somewhere in it, and the moments where Gimli is 'used' in this way are a sort of 'straight man' style comedy that I think works pretty well.

And so it goes throughout the film. There are a lot of choices that have been pointed out by others, and for the most part, I think they're good ones.

We leave off character development of any serious sort in this movie (with the possible exception of Samwise, and the obvious exception of Gollum), and though I think that might have gone either way, it's at least not a bad decision. We're supposed to know these characters already, and the thing can only be so long.

What's best about this movie, is that along with the wonderful epic fantasy that continues to be as good as the first movie, we also get some strong suggestions of the sub-text. In the first movie, we could (if we tried really hard) put together something that was a little deeper than the rather obvious 'nature - good. not nature - bad'. We moved from Hobbiton and their extremely rural ways as the good, to the somewhat less natural (though still good) town, to the destruction of nature and machinery/manufacturing as the bad. If you were really reading between the lines (and had read the books), you might even see the various races and sub-sets of men (or the ideals of the various races) as commenting on the various facets of mankind.

In this movie, now that we're done introducing everything, we get a bit more look at these and other things. Where we thought we knew what nature/natural looked like with the hobbits, we now get the Ents. Tree-like creatures that have endured since time unimaginable, who contrast the non-natural in their 'wisdom', extreme slowness, and avoidance of action. They also give us the idea (perhaps not perfectly translated to the film) that something sufficiently natural immediately spurs in us the idea that it must be 'good'. Not to mention, perhaps something that doesn't exactly qualify as being sub-text, their depiction of unqualified pacifism (and one hobbits momentary attempt at adoption of same) as not only something rather silly, but something no one really believes in anyway.

We also, though briefly, get a more matter-of-fact description of the elves and what/who they are supposed to be, and what it means for them to get involved, and what it means for them not to get involved. When a certain elf dies in battle, and it is rather dramatically pointed to, we now have more to work with than simply that elves are immortal. In the midst of the slaughter of thousands, we feel the blow to that elf, and that feeling is 'delivered' in a way otherwise extremely difficult for a film. We don't even know this elf particularly well, but we know what is truly lost in his death. We know what he gave up, and we know that under some fairly common theory (countered by Samwise's end-of-film speech), he didn't need to be there.

Lastly (though there is much more, but this is the last I will talk about), we get a glimpse of the sub-text of Gandalf. When he returns (is reborn, or dare I say resurrected) as Gandalf the White, we learn how it was as a result of his ultimate battle with evil (itself a result of his sacrificing himself to 'save everyone else'), his very-nearly-dead death, and his time in some sort of limbo. Of course, if you thought he was powerful before, you ain't seen nothing yet. And he returns, naturally, with the accompaniment of some very heavenly light.


Once again, the whole thing is held together by (mostly) great acting. There is still something that is just not quite right about Elijah Wood as Frodo, and in this movie it shows even more than in the first. But, as Samwise is there to help Frodo along, Sean Astin rises to the challenge of pulling along their scenes. Largely underrated, as I've said before, Astin puts forward a very worthy performance. His speech at the end goes a little far, but that's not his fault.

Viggo Mortensen, as it should be, carries the world (movie) on his shoulders, and does a fine job of it. The burden (the ring being removed from his proximity) rests with Aragorn, and he leads, from what position he has at this point, in a fashion that really gives us Strider/Aragorn.


There is so much in this movie to applaud (whether there be some to criticize or not) that it is difficult to give any remotely accurate description of it. There is the battle at Helm's Deep, once again filmed and edited so as to make certain points extremely hard to follow, much to its benefit, which is probably one of the best treatments of a battle for a keep or castle ever made. Gollum is simply a treat to watch in this movie, and his personal soliloquy (which may make people think of Spiderman's Green Goblin merely because of the recentness of that picture) is stunning in the reality of its unreality. It is, to some degree, psychology made manifest in a way that could oh so easily have become something inane or simply laughable, but wins through to become something truly worth watching, and something that takes hold of you.


Though what we have here, if I may paraphrase John Rhys-Davies, is epic filmmaking of a sort that has never been seen before, and is unlikely to be seen again, it is often the subtleties that make this movie, and that are what we notice. The glance back at the fallen flag. Gandalf's quick wink to Aragorn when he retains his staff when they are disarmed. Gimli and Legolas' battle count. These are the things that make this movie not only 'epic', but supremely enjoyable.

There is a darkness at work in this movie. An actual 'deliverance' of the sense of struggle that very nearly achieves an unachievable level of tension. There is a dreariness and morbid foreboding to the film that almost transcends the world of film, in a sense. Any film of sufficiently similar nature, has as its one necessary stumbling block (if you're really cynical) the fact that we simply know the good guys are going to win in the end. In this case, of course, many of us really, really know. 'The Two Towers' tests us on this though. It makes us wonder. It begs for a quick quip by Gimli now and then, because... well, because, good God, how long can you hold your breath?


Peter Jackson may not have a great deal to his credit, but he 'delivers' here. Whatever else might be said about the two 'Lord of the Rings' films we've seen so far, I think it is no great stretch to at least appreciate that these films are as good as they were, or are, ever going to be. Though there may be the naysayers who will find fault somewhere, come what may, and whatever may be left out or changed, the end result (so far) is something that stands, I think, as clearly being a true honor to Tolkien.


It is a movie like no other, and one that, whether it wins out now or not, will most definitely win out over time. It stumbles occasionally, such as with the overly catatonic state in which we first find Theoden, and the overly long (and perhaps contractually obligatory) scenes with Arwen (Liv Tyler), but overall the magnitude of the attempt (and level of success of that attempt, of course), and obvious effort from all fronts triumphs.


There are days I wonder about storytelling. There are days I wonder about the whole idea of writing thousands of words or shooting miles of film in order to try and say something to someone. I wonder, basically, if it even exists at all, in some sense. Is it really, somehow, happening at all? Or, does it merely seem so on the odd occasion? There are days I wonder if you can really put together 10,000 words or so, in just the right order, and make people question themselves. Or even, put together the appropriate length of film, just so, such that you can really entertain people in a 'relevant', intelligent way (or if anyone's even trying anymore). There are days I wonder if you can put the right three words in just the right place, and actually make people cry.

In short, there are days I wonder if you can really mess with people simply by organizing your own thoughts. The day I walked out of the theater of 'The Two Towers' was not one of those days.