Alfonso Cuarón as alternative director of The Hobbit

[Passdagas the Brown]

So much comes down to personal sensibilities. I am not a cinephile and don't have the same appreciation that you do for the language of film. That is, perhaps, why I am more tolerant of Jackson's OTT style; it doesn't offend my sensibilities, and allows me to appreciate the aspects that he does well.

I think that's at the very heart of our differing opinion, actually. Spot on.

People have erroneously labeled me a "purist" for a long time, and I always stressed to them that I am both a Tolkien super-fan, and a lover of film, and that this combination lies at the heart of my intense disappointment with the films. For me, PJ got the "tone" all wrong, and missed so many opportunities to use the rich language of film to tell the story.

Simply put, PJ's films simply "feel" wrong to me. Even when they are literally faithful, they don't feel like Tolkien.

At least, not most of the time. Interestingly, the most Tolkienian moment in the LOTR films for me was a scene that doesn't even exist in the books - Theodred's funeral. In that context, I can imagine a film that is literally not faithful at all, but still captures the spirit of Tolkien better.

That's why I think Cuaron would have been an ideal choice.

[Smaug's voice]

Has Cuaron ever expressed any liking at all for Tolkien's work?

I'm not aware of him saying anything publicly about Tolkien. Honestly, I don't find that to be relevant to his suitability for adapting Tolkien's work to the screen.

Wow, really? If he has no connection to Tolkien whatsoever, I don't see how you are so sure of him doing a great job with a Tolkien film. Respecting the work and loving it is an important part of the process, isn't it? He might have done a good job. He might have not.
The fact is he did not to direct it, while PJ was enthusiastic enough to take up the challenge.
And PJ has a genuine love for Tolkien's work, regardless of the liberties he takes. And that is very apparent whenever we see him onset. Is that disputed?
LotR was once considered unfilmable. So it was a very bold step taken by PJ, given the money that went into the production. The LotR films have been succesful in everyway a film can be succesful. So I doubt it if Cuaron's film could have done bettee in that. As for sticking to Tolkien, Cuaron has a history of taking huge
liberties, so I doubt if purists would like it better than Jackson's. In short, I dont know how you are sure that his version would have been more memorable than Jackson's.

PS: While I really liked the Azkaban film, it wasn't anything exceptional and certainly not the best Potter film for me.
Children of Men, again a very good film but as I saw it a long long time ago, I think the most memorable scenes was the action.
Gravity is actually the first film I truly loved but that again doesn't show me how he is that suitable to direct Tolkien.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Smaug,

I'd only ask that you go back and read all of my posts in this thread. I explain in detail why I believe Cuaron would be a good director for the Hobbit, and LOTR.

His treatment of "eucatastrophe" being a key attribute.

-PtB

[Smaug's voice]

PtB,
I had read near all the posts in this thread save the previous page and
I am still not sure why exactly should he be a good choice for Tolkien.

And as I said, I my ownself didn't find his treatment of eucatastrophe
as exceptional as you say in Children of Men.

And the fact remains. We in anyway don't know about his stance towards
Tolkien. Love and enthusiasm is essential. And I think Tolkien would be dissappointed in the adaptor who has less enthusiasm for making a good adaptation and more to make a good film.

[Passdagas the Brown]

We don't know that Cuaron has low enthusiasm for Tolkien. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that he is interested in the material.

And though PJ seems to like Tolkien, we know that he is a movie geek first and foremost. Unlike Philippa Boyens, his interest in Tolkien is not as deep as some claim.

But I believe that if a filmmaker has an aesthetic and philosophical sensibility that strikes me as Tolkien-esque, that they are uniquely qualified to adapt his works.

Cuaron's main themes, across all his films, are life and lifelessness. Vitality and barrenness. Richness and sterility.

I think those concepts are at the heart of Tolkien's works. Plus, Cuaron's pace camera and photographic style flow in a naturalistic, clean and subtle way that I find appropriate to Tolkien.

IMO, PJ's style is so busy, loud and brash, that it frays my nerves. Tolkien never frays my nerves. And neither does Cuaron.

I think he is the absolute best possible choice to adapt Tolkien.

I hope he gets a chance in a decade or two!

[Pearly Di]

And I think Tolkien would be dissappointed in the adaptor who has less enthusiasm for making a good adaptation and more to make a good film.

Hi there, Smaug's voice ... I am quite sure that Tolkien would have objected to a few elements in PJ's LotR. For example, the disgraceful scene in TTT:EE in which we see Faramir, that most noble of Númenóreans, standing by and allowing his men to beat up a helpless Gollum. This is an awful character assassination of Faramir (and his men) which makes me all rage-y.

But I am not a hater of PJ's LotR: far from it. He got many things right, and for that I am very grateful. I have always praised his passion for his LotR project and the tremendous diligence and dedication that went into it, which showed, and which is partly why the films are as successful as they are. PJ also nailed some major Tolkienian themes, e.g. the Fading of the Elves, obviously a vital element in the overall mythos. But sometimes he caves into silly Hollywood cliché over a subtler understanding. Whereas Cuarón's style is more sophisticated and subtle, rather than beating you over the head, as PJ's very operatic, often over-blown, style does.

That's why I prefer the BBC Grey Havens (from the 1981 radio adaptation) over PJ's version, which drowns me in too much golden syrup.

Fans often think that the best director has to be a fan themselves. I don't agree! A faithful adaptation, i.e. one that honours the spirit of the work (if not the letter) will be the result of the director understanding the important themes, IMO. They don't have to be a fanboy (or girl).

That's why I think Prisoner of Azkaban remains one of the best films in the HP franchise, if not the best. Cuarón really got Rowling's quirky, cheeky humour, an element that seemed to sail right over the heads of the HP purists complaining that 'Hogwarts looked different from the first two films' (as if the non-HP audience would notice or care - and anyway, I thought Cuarón's Hogwarts was an improvement). It is telling that Rowling wanted Cuarón because she really liked his 1995 adaptation of A Little Princess. His style is poetic and visionary: and I agree with Passdagas that that is a perfect fit for Tolkien.

Although Cuarón did make the awful 1998 'Great Expectations'. Which he now regards, rightly, as a mistake. He's come a long way since then. I loved Gravity - best film of the year, outstanding - and am very pleased it's done so well.

[Smaug's voice]

Hello.
I know! Not a few, there were many things wrong in PJ's version. The worst for me being Gandalf's staff broken by Wiki! That's why I never said PJ was perfect. But overall the goods outweighed the bads by a big margin.
I am also not saying that someone has to be a fanboy/girl to make the best adaptation. But a certain level of commitment is needed to get that right. Commitment that comes from loving the work. Which, imo, shows in PJ and co.'s efforts. Very much. Since we know nothing of Cuaron's view on Tolkien can we be sure he would have given that much effort and
hence we would have got something better? It's
all just a possibility.

And on a sidenote. I do not have as much problem with PJ's direction as I have with the script. Filmamir, mad Denny, weak Gandalf. They are not faulty direction. Just bad writing.

[Pearly Di]

I
Since we know nothing of Cuaron's view on Tolkien can we be sure he would have given that much effort? It's all just a possibility.

Well, of course, and people who've read PD James's novel Children of Men do seem less enamoured with Cuaron's movie version than people who haven't read the book. It's fun to speculate on his delivering the goods on Tolkien, though. Cuaron's directorial style combined with an appreciation of Tolkien would make a happy marriage.

And on a sidenote. I do not have as much problem with PJ's direction as I have with the script.

I'm inclined to agree with that. I can very easily forgive PJ's overblown style compared with some of the character gaffes.

[Passdagas the Brown]

And on a sidenote. I do not have as much problem with PJ's direction as I have with the script. Filmamir, mad Denny, weak Gandalf. They are not faulty direction. Just bad writing.

I'm the opposite. Though I don't think PB and J are great scriptwriters, it's PJ's directing style that really sets my teeth on edge.

To me, it's far more frustrating when what's happening on screen is straight from Tolkien, but it just feels all wrong because of PJ's heavy hand.

[Smaug's voice]

Okay, now I am seriously doubting that you are saying so just to make Cuaron appear as a better director!

One can have serious issues with both, but I simply cannot see how PJ's direction undermined Tolkien more than the script. What I know from similar discussions elsewhere, everyone disliked the films because of it's poor script and not direction. I myself am actually never bothered by the direction except perhaps at few minor places. Whatever bits I dislike comes full and straight from the script.

It seems PtB, that we are opppsite on nearly everything about the films.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't mean that it objectively undermines Tolkien.

I just mean that his directing style doesn't, for me, capture the spirit of Tolkien. And because I don't appreciate his style, my annoyance is carried throughout the whole film (with some notable exceptions when PJ calms down), rather than just during the portions where the script is lacking.

Don't get me wrong though. I agree with you about the script! I'm just not a fan of PJ's OTT direction, and swervy camera style.

[kzer_za]

Okay, I watched Prisoner of Azkaban recently, first HP movie I've seen. I thought it had a lot of gorgeous photography. Every outdoor scene looked great, especially at night (do all the movies have such beautiful scenery?), and the circling dementors were especially striking. But the acting was passable at best, and some of the CG (especially Lupin) was really bad. I never really connected with the overall narrative in the same way as the book, but maybe that is due to said acting and CG, which Cuaron probably didn't have much control over.

Having now seen his three major movies (Children of Men, Azkaban, Gravity), I don't really see him as a fit for Tolkien. And I have been a fan of Children of Men for years and own the DVD. Cuaron is certainly good with a camera, but I'm not convinced of his ability to handle a large ensemble cast. And his worldbuilding is pretty economical - Children of Men leaves a whole lot of things unexplained. This is fine for some things, but would it really work for something with as much backstory as Tolkien? One of PJ's great accomplishments, I think, was to make all the exposition accessible and interesting to uninitiated audiences.

Cuaron would create some beautiful scenes out of Tolkien, but I'm skeptical of how well he could really get the story as a whole across.

My ideal alternate director would probably be either a slightly less pessimistic version of 70s-era Coppola, or a version of Roland Joffe that kept making movies as good as The Mission and The Killing Fields. Of course, neither of these exist.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Children of Men leaves a whole lot of things unexplained.

Tolkien does too. It's those hints of distant vistas, and ancient beauties and horrors, that make Tolkien's stories so wonderful, IMO. PJ turns those hints into hammers.

Another reason why I believe Cuaron would have been great.

Though my ideal director is someone with the narrative coherence of a Cuaron, and the visual splendor of a Terrence Malick.

Perhaps they can raise a child together, and have him or her direct a new LOTR or Hobbit in 30 years?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tolkien does too. It's those hints of distant vistas, and ancient beauties and horrors, that make Tolkien's stories so wonderful, IMO.

That is quite true. Indeed, as Verlyn Flieger points out, Tolkien actually pointed this out himself, writing in a letter to his son Christopher, "it is the untold stories that are the most moving" (Letters, 110; Interrupted Music, 142, Arda Reconstructed, 110).

[kzer_za]

Tolkien does too. It's those hints of distant vistas, and ancient beauties and horrors, that make Tolkien's stories so wonderful, IMO. PJ turns those hints into hammers.

I don't know about that - PJ drops plenty of hints of older lore, especially in the EEs. Such as Aragorn singing the Lay of Leithian, the Ring of Barahir, even the Valar get a brief mention or two. He is, however, careful to explain what the audience really needs to know (generally things Tolkien explained in even more detail). For something with LotR's complexity, I think this is a good thing, even if there are times when he could be more subtle.

And maybe it was the actors, but the backstory in Azkaban lacked any weight compared to the book. Sirius Black in particular was almost completely undeveloped. Really the only things that stood out in that movie were the visuals in the outdoor scenes and a decent soundtrack, though a large enough portion is outdoors to make it worthwhile.

[yovargas]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want Malick visuals anywhere near LOTR outside of Elven realms. Let's not forget that Tolkien did write an exciting adventure story that 10-year-olds love, not just a story of quiet poetry and thoughtful ponderings.

After watching the trilogy just recently after a long respite I gotta say that, despite his many flaws, I don't believe anybody could have done a better job overall of filming that novel. Let's not forget that for so long it was thought unfilmable. Just the fact that he got a coherent version of LOTR is in itself a minor miracle that I think very few could have accomplished. That he did so in a way that was such a smashing cultural success would have been nearly unthinkable 15 years ago. And it happened because PJ created this with an enormous amount of love and dedication and that's the part that I don't think will ever or can ever truly be equaled.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want Malick visuals anywhere near LOTR outside of Elven realms. Let's not forget that Tolkien did write an exciting adventure story that 10-year-olds love, not just a story of quiet poetry and thoughtful ponderings.

After watching the trilogy just recently after a long respite I gotta say that, despite his many flaws, I don't believe anybody could have done a better job overall of filming that novel. Let's not forget that for so long it was thought unfilmable. Just the fact that he got a coherent version of LOTR is in itself a minor miracle that I think very few could have accomplished. That he did so in a way that was such a smashing cultural success would have been nearly unthinkable 15 years ago. And it happened because PJ created this with an enormous amount of love and dedication and that's the part that I don't think will ever or can ever truly be equaled.

That's why I said a combination of Cuaron's narrative coherence with Malick's visuals. A pure Malick LOTR would be a disaster.

In other words, a ripping yarn combined with gorgeous (and less frantic) cinematography.

Perhaps I wasn't clear...

And I agree. PJ has love and dedication. But IMO, he's not a great filmmaker and he doesn't understand Tolkien on more than a superficial level.

Boyens may be different, but alas, she is not a director...

[kzer_za]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want Malick visuals anywhere near LOTR outside of Elven realms. Let's not forget that Tolkien did write an exciting adventure story that 10-year-olds love, not just a story of quiet poetry and thoughtful ponderings.

I agree that Malick wouldn't be suited for LotR, but he is capable of doing action scenes. The Thin Red Line is a war movie, The New World has a couple of battles, and Badlands is about a killing spree in the midwest.

[yovargas]

I saw The Thin Red Line....I wouldn't really call those "action scenes"....

[Passdagas the Brown]

I saw The Thin Red Line....I wouldn't really call those "action scenes"....

Agreed. They are much more, and much better, than just action scenes.

In any event, my point was that a marrying of Cuaron's tight narrative discipline and Malick's wonderful cinematography, would be perfect for LOTR, IMO. And perhaps even the Hobbit.