Substituting Crying with laughter

[Boromir88]

I'm making this thread partially because I just watched Finding Neverland for the first time and I'm coming right out to admit it I balled through that movie. Johnny Depp was fantastic. If no one's seen it I won't ruin it, I'll just say I broke out the last 15 minutes of the movie. It was an absolutely wonderful and emotional movie about the life of John Barry.

Anyway, with that out of the way, it got me thinking about the LOTR movies. In the end of FOTR, I wasn't busting out in tears but I definitely got watery-eyed as Boromir makes his last stand. In FOTR Jackson did a nice job of balancing humor with emotion. Putting emotion where things should be emotional and adding in timely humor. I really think FOTR has been the pinnacle of Jackson's work so far.

Now with that aside, I get that feeling in FOTR, that emotional feeling, that I just don't get in the other two movies. Because, I think in the other two movies Jackson just excludes any sense of crying/emotion with laughter. Now I can understand adding humor in the movies, all movies I think need a good laugh. However, would it also be wise not to do what he did in FOTR and add in emotion where it should be in the other two movies? I just didn't sense the same. Either, when there should be crying/tears jokes are being spouted off, or there just is no time for crying.

TTT and ROTK there really is no room for emotion. It's like Jackson went with the laugh over the tear and is that necessarily the right thing to do? Should the movies have been more emotional (I guess I should say the last two). Not as in happy/laughter, but as in sadness/crying. For as I watched Finding Neverland it was just a sad, sad, story, yet that's what makes it good, that's what gets you to watch it. Crying necessarily isn't a bad thing. So why did Jackson shy away from the crying and should he have?

ROTK EE is a little better because Eomer is in anguish over Eowyn, but again there's not really enough time to start getting teary eyed, as quickly later it picks back up with fighting and the gimp.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm not sure how much the comic relief does inhibit the sad parts of the second two films. I always thought that the reason I didn't get as teary-eyed was simply because the scenes were not done quite as well.

Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields weren't as grim as I would have liked them to be, and maybe this is because of the humour. I get slightly emotional at Theoden's death. Mount Doom, as well, does it for me only slightly (though I think this is because I found the confrontation at the Black Gate unsatisfying).

Gandalf's fall in Moria and the death of Boromir are more effective on me. I just supposed that these scenes were done better.

[Mithalwen]

I certainly don't shere your feelings about Finding Neverland My sister brought it over Christmas and I only saw it as moving wallpaper while I did other things - boiling a ham appropriately enough - (since Kate Winslet and biopics that are travesties of the truth always annoy me) then my aunt pointed out what huge ears one of the boys had and not even the divine Mr Depp could stop us crying with laughter for the rest of the film.....

As for the lord of the rings trilogy, I think it is natural that there is less emotion in the second and third films and I think that the scene just outside the gates of Moria sounded a slightly false note given that they are far from safe. The first film has no full scale battle scenes. The loss of Gandalf and the death of Boromir particularly are essentially private scenes. I think it is important to remember that British reserve and the stiff upper lip are not myths. Tolkien belonged to a generation that was brought up not to show emotion in public.

The characters do feel deeply but they show it subtly and in realtively intimate environments. It would jar with the book if these warriors who "avenge griefs before they speak of them"
started snivelling in public. The deaths in the later films occor in massive battles with the fate of the world at stake. The devastation is too overwhelming, everyone is suffering. There is no time for "look at me" mourning when survival is still at stake. They just have to get on with it. Laughter is a carthartic substititute for tears (Orwell wrote about the black humour of the tommies in the trenches) and it is also an act of defiance. I thought that Legolas's "you're late "was spot on although I can't say that the plot change that caused it was great). But as Gandalf would say "not all tears are an evil". There is emotion, particularly in the extended version with Eowyn's dream and Gandalf's words to Pippin. I cried during Pippin's song and when Eomer found Eowyn (though the scene in the book when he rides off to avenge her in fell mood and his subsequent discovery of her survival are one of my favourite parts of the book and one I would have loved to see - along with more of the houses of healing). But Jackson chose extended battle scenes over character development and emotional depth so you get the movie shorthand of Eomer and Pippin's battlefield wanderings - they worked in context but it is relatively superficial.

Given that so much was cut, adding more overt emotion to the mix would not be a high priority for me.

[Glirdan]

As much as I hat to argue with you Boro, I'm afraid that I must. I do agree that TTT doesn't have that emotion (sadness/crying) in it like FOTR does, but that's because the Elves weren't supposed to be there in the first place. And there really isn't anything that emotionaly in that movie except for when Haldir died. None the less, I must say that I do still get a little because he was my favorite secondary character, after Eowyn and Faramir.

In ROTK however, I must say that movie does have the emotion in it. I do agree with Mith that Théoden's death wasn't anything to cry over because of all the losses that are happening (supposed death of Eowyn and death of Denethor as well as many others). Mount Doom didn't really have that emotion for me. The reuniting of the Fellowship in Ithilien is what gets me. Probably because of all the horrors that they've all gone through and Frodo wakes up to see Gandalf who he thought was dead. The other part that gets me emotional is the parting at the Grey Havens because it's the last that they will see of Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo, Elrond and Galadriel, all of whom you grow to love through out the series, even if you don't see them all the time.

As is the case with Eomer, Gandalf falling in Moria and the death of Boromir gets me more than the others, but that's because they spent that entire movie (and book) building their characters and then they are suddenly gone. But I wouldn't say it's because those scenes were done better. I think it's probably because of what I have stated earlier in this paragraph: the character build up and then they die. I will agree with Mith on the fact that PJ decided to concetrate more on the battlescenes in the last two movies and left all the character build up in the FOTR.

Now, I know I'm just repeating what's been said and I'm probably also being very contradictive, but I can't seem to gather my thoughts and place them in and orderly fashion, so please bear with me.

[Lalaith]

It just goes to show, different strokes for different folks.
I wept not a drop in FotR and TTT.
However, I cried furiously and copiously in RotK. It started during Faramir's courageously futile mission to Osgiliath and Pippin's song, but the real killer for me was the moment when Rohan arrived as Gondor was about to fall. I was a complete embarrassment to the children who had the misfortune of accompanying me.
However, said children all broke down sobbing at the end, during Frodo's final farewell to his friends, a scene which did not move me particularly.
I think PJ is much better at 'broad stroke' moments, such as the aforementioned "Rohan had come at last". I find his attempts at the close-up-and-personal a bit cringey and cheesy (eg the reunion of the Fellowship with Frodo in bed in Ithilien).

[Roa_Aoife]

I don't if something is wrong with me as human being, but I didn't shed a drop all 3 movies. Certainly I felt sad at Boromir's death, but not teary.

I would like to point out that in the second and third films, it wasa very large number of people dying, as opposed to just Gandalf and then just Boromir. Well, and a whole lot of orcs, but no one really cares about them.

As they say, one death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Why then are there so many tear-jerking war films if a huge number of deaths is somehow too much to cry over?

It's just how the Director chose to direct the film. He could have made it a lot more grim, yet still retained the PG certificate. Maybe he just wanted to concentrate on the glory of battle.

[Mithalwen]

I think there is the distinction between large numbers of "rank and file " soldiers getting killed in a film and the death of a character that the audience has "bonded" with or who has special significance.

[Folwren]

Why did Jackson shy away from crying? Maybe because in a movie, that's harder to do. . .I mean, when he doesn't develope the characters just like Tolkien did, and when he's screwed the story some, p'raps it was harder to do the crying. And then there was the time squeeze. . .but that was because of added stuff they did.

Should he have? No. I think he shouldn't have changed anything, but many people do. I won't complain, though. There were things that happened that made this fault passable. However, there are also things that really disapointed me when he did shy away from it. Like when Frodo was 'killed' by Shelob. . .that part in the book is one of my favorite parts, and it's also the part where I cry the second most (Grey Havens ranking the first). . .and yet in the movie, he gives him about twenty seconds to mourn.

Theoden and Eowyn's death, too. In the EE he made up, a bit, with Eomer finding her. That part was heart wrenching and wonderfully done, but. . .like you said, they went on too fast.

And as for you comment about no sadness/crying in TTT, I have to say that there really isn't all that much in the books, either. The parts that are sad, PJ put in theo ther two movies (Boromir's death and The Choices of Master Samwise). There are a few parts in the book that make me tear up, but not many, and none that are easily put on film.

Just my thoughts. . .

-- Folwren

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Interesting...This post isn't as long or as in-depth as I'd like it to be, since I'm just checking in quickly before I have to leave in a few minutes.

I have to agree with Boromir about Finding Neverland...I love movies that make me cry, and it's definitely my favorite Johnny Depp film.

However, my reaction to ROTK was very different than the indifference that most people in the thread mention. ROTK is a very emotional movie for me. I guess that what one person finds emotionally powerful is not the same as what another thinks.

I think that it takes a certain amount of strength and self-confidence to put the tear-jerking stuff into a movie, though. So much of our culture (at least here in the US of A) is centered around a stiff-upper-lip attitude: crying is a show of weakness, etc. Sometimes powerful emotion in a movie can make the audience uncomfortable. Also, acting intense emotion is a lot harder than performing humor. Some directors take the easy way out. That could mean substituting humor inappropriate to the moment (Helm's Deep and pretty much any other Gimli scene reek of this), or it could lead to scenes that feel less than heartfelt (which I didn't notice much of in the LOTR movies). I'd rather emotion be absent than be fake.

I didn't get the sense that emotion was faked in ROTK or TTT. When it was there, I felt it. Like I said, I pretty much cried my way through ROTK, and the end of TTT was teary for me, too.

That's not to say I'm defending movies that don't make you feel. I think that movies that succeed in the attempt of emotion, like Finding Neverland, and (for me, at least, LOTR), are a rare breed for unfortunate reasons. Though it does make them that much more special, makes real power that much more breathtaking.

[Lalaith]

I do find battle-scenes very stirring, and I also if they are well done, find them incredibly moving - much more so than love stories or "buddy" moments.

Heroic last stands are my particular three-hankie thing. Fighting because you know the cause is right, even though you know you're going to die - so, Faramir and co riding to Osgiliath, or the students on the barricades in Les Mis, whatever. *sniff*

[alatar]

My observation is that PJ took more time developing the charaters in FotR and much much less in TTT and RotK, where many characters, major and minor, become stereotypical 'one notes' (i.e. Gimli the joker, Legolas the skater, Aragorn = hope, etc). I welled up (as close to crying as I'm genetically able) the first few hundred times that I saw Boromir dying (after a while, you get used to it). This same death scene gets skipped when my kids watch it as it's a little to close to the real deal. Battle trolls smashing Gondorians helter-skelter is one thing (like a video game or cartoon), but Boromir lying on the ground near death while the teary-eyed Aragorn hovers over him is another.

PJ shot that scene well, and though I didn't time it, it runs far longer than the 'death of Gandalf' outside of Moria wake and is much much longer than any other death scene in the movie.

Theoden's son gets buried, but who is he?

PJ made us like Boromir by adding moments, especially in the EE version, where you got to know him. In TTT and RotK, not only are we not made to 'like' the characters as much - I'd bet that a dreaded poll would place Boromir above Theoden - PJ does not slow the pace down and 'zoom in' for a moment. Theoden's death doesn't linger; we see it and soon after we're somewhere else.

Also, as stated elsewhere, I think that PJ went for more laughs when he could add them in. My conspiracy theory is that he watched FotR with a live audience, noted when they laughed and decided to 'double' the number of laughs in TTT.

PJ got me with the horns of the Rohirrim, but with little else in TTT and RotK. My eyes were red and watery after seeing the Gandalf vs Witch-King scene on the EE DVDs, but that may have been due to the screaming .

Anyway, all of this scattered rambling can be summed up in that I too wish that PJ maintained the balance of laughter and crying (among other things) as he did in FotR.

[Glirdan]

Also, acting intense emotion is a lot harder than performing humor.

I can completely vouch for this statement. It is indeed a lot harder to act emotionaly, whether it be crying or just a very sad scene. It's really hard to cry because (take this from a Drama minor) you have to cry in between the word in order to make yourself audible. Of course, that can be fixed in a movie unlike in theater. Acting asd is actuallynot as difficult, but it can be hard to keep a straight face. How many times do you think they've had to redo a very emotional scene in any movie?

Now that I think about, I belive, just as Zali does, that even though he changed the movie a lot because of time limits, it still turned out (in my opinion) to be the best movie series that has been released to date.

I must also agree with her statement on that crying during a movie is seen as weakness. Now, I have a little question. Who cried during Titanic? Would you consider that weakness? If not, then why during any other movie would you consider it weakness? It really angers me when people say "Oh your such a wimp for crying during the Lord of the Rings!" There is no difference between crying in Titanic which is based on a real story and things did actuallly happen and crying in Lord of the Rings, which is an entirely fictional series, because people died.

Now I kind of went of track there, so to get back on... I must say that the comic relief moments they have in the books aren't needed such as the TT moment just before the battle. "Would you like me to describe it to you or would you like me to get a box?" I mean, come on. That's just insulting the Dwarf and we all know what happens when you anger a Dwarf. That was the cheesiest comic relief moment I've ever heard. There are also other such moments that weren't needed. It's those times when I wish PJ would have stuck with what was written in the book.

Now, among all this rambling, there is a point to my madness. I agree with this statement from alatar:

Anyway, all of this scattered rambling can be summed up in that I too wish that PJ maintained the balance of laughter and crying (among other things) as he did in FotR.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Glirdan

I can completely vouch for this statement. It is indeed a lot harder to act emotionaly, whether it be crying or just a very sad scene. It's really hard to cry because (take this from a Drama minor) you have to cry in between the word in order to make yourself audible. Of course, that can be fixed in a movie unlike in theater. Acting asd is actuallynot as difficult, but it can be hard to keep a straight face. How many times do you think they've had to redo a very emotional scene in any movie?

But as they are professionals, isn't that their job?

I must also agree with her statement on that crying during a movie is seen as weakness. Now, I have a little question. Who cried during Titanic? Would you consider that weakness? If not, then why during any other movie would you consider it weakness? It really angers me when people say "Oh your such a wimp for crying during the Lord of the Rings!" There is no difference between crying in Titanic which is based on a real story and things did actuallly happen and crying in Lord of the Rings, which is an entirely fictional series, because people died.

The only reason that I cried during Titanic was that the movie seemingly would never end . Please, James, sink the boat so that I can go home! Anyway, what I liked in FotR was that Aragorn could cry - Frodo's not as masculine, and so he's more likely too. Here's a real tough guy, a virtual killing machine in the Hollywood stereotype, yet he still can shed tears (or at least well up) for his fallen brother. That to me was cool.

Now I kind of went of track there, so to get back on... I must say that the comic relief moments they have in the books aren't needed such as the TT moment just before the battle. "Would you like me to describe it to you or would you like me to get a box?" I mean, come on. That's just insulting the Dwarf and we all know what happens when you anger a Dwarf. That was the cheesiest comic relief moment I've ever heard. There are also other such moments that weren't needed. It's those times when I wish PJ would have stuck with what was written in the book.

I actually liked that bit of humor. You're facing an overwhelming force, and things may go bad, and so you joke a bit to ease your anxiety. I would prefer more moments like this (if I had to get so many humor moments) than the dreaded 'dwarven drinking scene.'

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Boromir

Either, when there should be crying/tears jokes are being spouted off, or there just is no time for crying.

First you have to define, what the situation is, when a viewer should cry. Is it when someone dies, when an actor shows a sad emotion or perhaps when something really good happens to a character? Are there moments when the audience should cry, or are the director and actors just offering emotional impulses for the viewers to take or dismiss? Even if the impulses are accepted, people's reactions to them are different depending on many factors, like how well they can relate to the characters, how many times they've seen the film, their current mood, with whom they're watching the film and whatnot. Also, in LotR's case - what if you hadn't read the books before the film? Or what if you had? In any case, different people consider different moments on screen worth of tears, whether they are tears or sadness or joy, and I personally don't feel that PJ would have been "shy" when dealing with emotions in RotK. For example, when I watched the movies for the first time, I didn't shed a tear during FotR and the only thing in TTT that made my eyes a bit watery was Gandalf and Eomer riding down the hill to Helm's Deep. It was RotK that really gave me a new kind of a viewing experience.

TTT and ROTK there really is no room for emotion. It's like Jackson went with the laugh over the tear and is that necessarily the right thing to do? Should the movies have been more emotional (I guess I should say the last two). Not as in happy/laughter, but as in sadness/crying.

I don't feel that there is laughter in the films just to amuse the audience or to create a happy atmosphere, but it's a chance for the viewers to take a breath. Without a little lighter moments every now and then, the films would be very tough to watch. Showing in detail the horror of a war would be rather anxious, and although the wars are a big part of the Lord of the Rings, I've never got a feeling of anxiety from the books, so I'm glad that the movie makers weren't carried away with glumness (of course, it wouldn't even have sold as much, I guess...)

Also, I wouldn't necessarily classify crying with sadness. I cry more easily when something happy happens, and if the scene is visually beautiful and it's combined with a good score, it's all the better. Therefore, to me the litting of the beacons and the arriving of Rohan's army are two of the most emotional moments in the trilogy.

However, I agree that there's a certain feeling in FotR that the other two films lack. FotR's atmosphere is more Middle-earthesque - it's closer to what it was in the books than TTT and RotK's, but I think it's not as much due to the amount of jokes or humorous moments but the quality of them. For example, I loathed Gimli's burping scenes with many other of his "funny" moments in TTT and RotK, but his line in FotR, "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they’re not...", was humorous in a way that would be more appropriate for a decent dwarf. Perhaps PJ and his team stayed true to the books in FotR because it was the first of the three, but after seeing that people liked it, they felt more confident to adapt the story telling to more commercial.

Originally Posted by Alatar

My observation is that PJ took more time developing the charaters in FotR and much much less in TTT and RotK

I agree, but on the other hand, it's understandable. In FotR you are sent to Middle-earth with nine strangers to journey with them to destroy a ring. Of course, you must be told, who your companions are. When traveling miles and miles slowly towards the destination, you have time to get to know them, but in the heat of a battle there's not time to start discussing their backgrounds, relationships and such. It's not an excuse to make the characters act like stereotypes, though. So, I guess that to me the films are emotional enough, but I would have loved to see more different sides of the characters.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Originally Posted by alatar

But as they are professionals, isn't that their job?

Well, yeah, but that doesn't make it easy (I, like Glirdan, act and hope next year to start an acting major). Acting intense emotion is much more rewarding when you finally hit it just right than when you deliver a joke that makes the audience laugh, though, so in the end, it balances out. And Glirdan is right: it is harder than you'd think to keep a straight face, especially if this is the tenth time through, and you and/or the other person in the scene are still forgetting lines.

Originally Posted by alatar

The only reason that I cried during Titanic was that the movie seemingly would never end . Please, James, sink the boat so that I can go home! Anyway, what I liked in FotR was that Aragorn could cry - Frodo's not as masculine, and so he's more likely too. Here's a real tough guy, a virtual killing machine in the Hollywood stereotype, yet he still can shed tears (or at least well up) for his fallen brother. That to me was cool.

That's very true. Sometimes in LOTR it's not so much that something incredibly sad is happening (though often enough it is) as that the characters are devastated and in tears over something. I guess it's an empathy impulse. If Aragorn is crying, you know it's serious.

Originally Posted by dancing spawn of ungoliant

Also, in LotR's case - what if you hadn't read the books before the film? Or what if you had? In any case, different people consider different moments on screen worth of tears, whether they are tears or sadness or joy, and I personally don't feel that PJ would have been "shy" when dealing with emotions in RotK.

I remember vividly that one of the (ten) times I saw FOTR in the theater, I was sitting next to this woman in her fifties, who, it was obvious, had never seen the movie or read the book before. She kept gasping when Frodo got hurt (any one of the times that it looked like he was dead), and then started sobbing when Gandalf fell. Her teenage daughter was looking kind of embarrassed, and I heard her whisper out of the corner of her mouth "Don't worry, mom, he comes back." For this lady, the real emotional impulse came from the fact that she was fond of Gandalf and didn't know he came back later. Watching that scene the first time I saw it, the emotional impulse came from the (re)acting that the remains of the Fellowship did, because I knew what was coming. I still got a little teary-eyed, but much more out of just watching everyone onscreen cry.

I agree, also, with Dancing Spawn's assessment of humor in the movies.

The role of humor in a comedy is to make the audience laugh because that's the whole point. That's where shallow, vulgar humor finds its home, unfortunately. The role of humor in a film like LOTR is definitely to allow a small relaxation before diving into darkness again. Just like there are different kinds of crying, there are different kinds of laughter. Where PJ went wrong was trying to inspire the kind of laughter that a comedy inspires: shallow, situational humor (which is good enough in its place), and not the sigh of momentary relief and quieter, almost nervous laughter that it should inspire. I actually found Gimli's "box" scene to be fairly close to what comic relief in that moment should be...at least in my opinion.

[Goldberry101]

I thought that there was a little too much humor in the second two movies. For example, in the fight at the Black Gate, after they talked with the "ambassador" Gimli makes a smart remark like he had a hundred times throught the movie. This kind of ruined the scene because you had just started to feel sad and worried but then he lightened it all up. This is kind of off subject, but I like in the books how he has that part before it tells that Frodo got away from the tower. In the books, the last you hear of Frodo is that he had been carried away by the orcs, which fit with the mouth of souron telling them that he was captured. However, in the movie he gets away before that so that takes a lot of the sadness out. I would almost say there is too much humor and misplaced scenes in the last two. I know its hard because of the way the books were written, but I still think that you shouldn't have known Frodo had escaped till after the conversation with the mouth of sauron

[Essex]

It depends what your point of view is regarding the Hobbits. If you feel depely for them, as I have reading the books for the past 25 years or so, then there are many places in the books and movies where you will well up.

I cry every time book Aragorn gets down on his knee to the hobbits on the fields of Cormallen, and I CRIED LIKE A BABY when movie aragorn and all of minas tirith bows to the hobbits in the movie, because I am so proud of 'my' hobbits after all they have gone through.

But I'm not sure if I would have had these deep feelings for the movie if I hadn't read the books.

PS Finding Neverland is very good, but not QUITE the tear fest I thought it would be.

[sassyfriend]

Just a question losing Gandalf was a very sad moment in the movie but Aragorn and Legolas didn't cry but in the book they all broke down and wept so why was that changed? I know Aragorn has to lead them on like Gandalf said for him too but just curious why didn't those two cry?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

Just a question losing Gandalf was a very sad moment in the movie but Aragorn and Legolas didn't cry but in the book they all broke down and wept so why was that changed? I know Aragorn has to lead them on like Gandalf said for him too but just curious why didn't those two cry?

If only this was the biggest change... *sigh*


I don't think an emotional movie necessarily needs to make you cry all the time. There are powerful feelings out there that a movie/book can make you feel that don't bring any tears (to give a Tolkieneswue example, I find The Sil deeply moving, though not in the direction of tears; it's more like the irony of it is pulling at you). While I absolutey agree with Boro about the general picture of TTT and ROTK in terms of emotion, I have to say that there are certain scenes that fill you with feeling, though not with tears. Just off my head - Frodo at Mount Doom. I think this is one of the scenes that was well done. But the majority of the scenes were rushed through, ruined, etc., without conveing their emotions.

There are scenes that were meant to convey sorrow, awe, hope, pity, indignaty, and so on and so forth, but they did not. Sometimes they were rushed. Sometimes they were overdone (eg: Denethor), or underdone (eg: Houses of Healing), or the actor did not succeed at getting the message across (eg: Frodo 'saving' Gollum at the Forbidden Pool). To explain the last point, in a movie that is concentrated on plot above all else such small things as glances, facial expressions, mime, and all these other subtle things that show you the thoughts and feelings of the character are ignored or not done well, so the whole point is lost. But I might be nitpicking here, having recently watched an old emotional movie with little action and few words.

[sassyfriend]

I didn't feel much pity for Frodo or Sam oh i liked them well enough at first but then they went downhill from there. I felt more pity for Gollum/smeagol.