Viggo Mortensen: The Accidental King

www.foxnews.com ^ | December 12, 2003 | Anthony Breznican

[YankeeinOkieville]

You'd think Mortensen could at least afford a bottle of shampoo now that the movies seem be a success. His greasy strings were such a distraction is TTT. Blech!

[ecurbh]

You'd think Mortensen could at least afford a bottle of shampoo now that the movies seem be a success. His greasy strings were such a distraction is TTT. Blech!

Or maybe he could have borrowed some conditioner from Legolas.

[Sam Cree]

Well, Tolkien considered LOTR to be one book only, dividing it in three and making it a "trilogy" was really an artificial construct of the publisher.

So, I guess I have been thinking of the movies the same way, not as 3 movies, but as 3 sections of just one. Agreed that there is no "leading" character or protagonist, but I don't have too much trouble figuring out that an ordinary hobbit, Frodo, is easily more of a central character than the rest of the heros, important and wonderful though they be.

I guess it makes sense, in a way, that the fellow who comes closest to a Hollywood style "leading man" is a commie.

[Restorer]

If the life expectancy of a non-Numenorian is 91 years (using Eomer's lifespan as the baseline), that makes Aragorn the equivalent of a 38 year-old.

Except that the Numenoreans reach adulthood in the same amount of time as other men. They then stay vigorous until just a short time before their death from old age (assuming they don't "lay down their life") as Aragorn chooses to do.

Thus Aragorn's life consists of 20 years of childhood and adolescence, then 190 years of vigorous adulthood, and (had he not chosen to bail out early) perhaps 5 or 10 more years of old age.

Why can't we arrange for such a life pattern? :)

[BradyLS]

Aragorn the equivalent of a 38 year-old. And Viggo is 45, so I think he is a pretty good fit age-wise.

But Viggo is a 20th Century 45-year-old. I'm thinking his looks wouldn't be so clean nor his skin so fair if he were the kind of man to spend his life seeing the world on foot the way Strider did. But, like I said, the movies never suggest he did any such thing, so yours and Hair's assessments are certainly reasonable.

[Sam Cree]

Yes, but I don't think too many baths may have been taken in ancient times, so from that point of view, all the characters, except the ones in the Prancing Pony, may have been too clean.

[BradyLS]

Agreed that there is no "leading" character or protagonist, but I don't have too much trouble figuring out that an ordinary hobbit, Frodo, is easily more of a central character than the rest of the heros, important and wonderful though they be.

Filmmakers gravitate to the action hero. Aragorn is very much the conventional hero and ideally suited for the films. Making the story of Frodo's journey as readily engaging and still staying true to the story would be no easy task for any director

I don't agree with most things that Roger Ebert has to say about films, but I honestly think he was truer than most reviewers when assessing the The Two Towers. He noted that the story had shifted decisively in favor of Aragorn's portion of the tale. And with the Return of the King, we already know who get the lion's share of screen time in that movie.

I think the story was at its best in the Fellowship. The action will probably be at its zenith in Return. I hope, in the end, I feel that the story of Frodo and Sam will be equal in memory to the story of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli.

[BradyLS]

Yes, but I don't think too many baths may have been taken in ancient times, so from that point of view, all the characters, except the ones in the Prancing Pony, may have been too clean.

True. The other irony is that everyone wears their hair the way Peter Jackson does. That is, when it isn't being long, stringy, and parted in the middle.

[Sam Cree]

FWIW, I think Mortenson's Aragorn is very good.

I'll be somewhat upset if Aragorn emerges as the main character in these movies, though. But I agree with you tentatively that he won't.

I also agree with his son that Viggo is deserving of a "healthy amount of disrespect." But he projects a likable self in the movies, so one can hope that, even though he is a vocal leftist, that he is still an OK person.

[Sam Cree]

Yes, I much prefer FOTR over TTT.

If I hadn't figured that out before, it was really brought home to me when I noticed that while I can still watch FOTR over and over, I am pretty well tired of TTT for the time being, after one and a half viewings of the DVD.

[BradyLS]

If I hadn't figured that out before, it was really brought home to me when I noticed that while I can still watch FOTR over and over, I am pretty well tired of TTT for the time being, after one and a half viewings of the DVD.

My experience pretty much matches yours. I saw Fellowship in the theaters 6 times and never grew tired of it. After I saw Two Towers once, I had no desire to see it again until I began to wonder if I had seen the same movie that others were raving about. I had-- and it didn't sit any better. I thought the opening was stunning and the film very good until they reached Edoras. I found it odd, for example, that nobody cheered when Theoden finally emerges from the Golden hall. His people, simply go to their knees. Afterwards, when Aragorn finally goes over the cliff, I knew I'd had enough. Whatever it was, for me, it wasn't Lord of the Rings. Just some action/adventure that Jackson set in Tolkien's universe.