What’s often missed is that everyone was puzzled about the goblins running in terror. Legolas having the face of sheer terror when Gandalf tells them of the Balrog also is great foreshadowing since Legolas is old enough to know that his kin fought firsthand these terrible beings.
Yes I love that. He's the only member of the fellowship who understands the threat - and his reaction shot is a nice little signal to the viewer. I also love his look of confusion after Gandalf falls. Legolas is immortal, and does not understand death, especially the death of a Maiar. Incredible attention to detail.
“In the books” it was Aragorn who was aware of a threat in the Mines. He was the one opposed to the idea of going through it. To Gandalf it was the first option.
the scene with Gandalf falling and cutting at the balrog as they fall mile after mile into the abyss is easily on of the most chilling and jaw dropping scenes in anything ever
I've always thought that if I ever get a tattoo (if I were a tattoo person), it would be that image of Gandalf and the Balrog falling all the way down my arm or something. But I doubt a tattoo could even do it justice.
The scene when Gandalf tells them it’s a Balrog they’re facing has a “blink and you’ll miss it” bit. Legolas’ face is pure terror in his brief close-up. He’s the only one among the fellowship (other than Gandalf) who would have heard first-hand tales of what these things were and what they were capable of. A Balrog would have been a campfire story to the rest of the team. Legolas, on the other hand, KNEW how serious shit just got..
I love that. It's one of the subtle little nods to people who have read the books. And for those who haven't, it still works as a hint that something supernatural is upon them. So crazy how one tiny shot can say so much.
That, and he’s always been seen as stoic and unshakable up til this point. Seeing him so filled with fear really helps sell that serious stuff is about to go down!
I have believed for a long time, and still do, that the Bridge of Khazad Dum scene, is the greatest scene in the history of cinema. Like you said, from the moment Gandalf shouts "RUN", we are on a roller coaster. Each character is given a task, even small, to get through the stairs and across the bridge. They are attacked by Orcs from on high, so we get action, Gimli screams "NOT THE BEARD" so we get a laugh, and the several minutes after Gandalf's fall, twenty years later, rarely fails to get me to cry. And we see all the characters on the rocks of Dumril Dale display their emotions. Aragorn is torn and in shock when he sees Gandalf fall, but after he runs up the steps and out the gates, he changes. You are right, when Gandalf says "lead them" he means he is in charge now, and he has to put his sadness aside and focus on the mission at hand, as the king he needs to be.
My feelings exactly. You raise an interesting point about Gandalf's dialogue maybe being even BIGGER than leading the Fellowship on. Maybe by "lead them on" he's referring to the race of men. That might be overanalyzing, but the script is so well-written that I doubt that double meaning would have been lost on the writers. I think this is why the film is SO re-watchable. There's always some new detail to pick up on.
And all of that accompanied by the great score of Howard Shore! I love the change of music from the moment we see Gandalf fall into the dark abyss to when they finally leave the mines for their first daylight after some time, just to realize what great loss they have suffered.
this foreshadowing works well with alfred hitchcock's art of suspense: You put a bomb in the trunk of a car, you show it, and then you send it into town. In town, you don't show the bomb, you show people going about their day, but you know there's a bomb, and you're waiting for it to go off. You get everyone involved with the subplot-what everyone in the town is doing. Then the bomb goes off once everyone forgets about it.
This one felt like: There is a bomb under a table at a restaurant. The audience knows it is there and that it will go off, however nobody in the film knows about it… except for one character… and this character spends the entire day trying to avoid going to the restaurant time and again, but events keep pressing him to go… and eventually he is forced to enter the restaurant… and set the bomb off.
You know where that storytelling didn't work for me? In The Last of US, episode 7. I love that episode and recently rewatched it. It's a flashback episode and you already know how it ends. But they still cut away to a zombie slowly twitching awake from the noises the kids are making. Then the episode goes on, kids unaware, then the zombie attacks. It feels cliche.
It's actually amazing how good the fire effects look, even after 20 years. The shot where the Balrog leaps up out of the flames and the camera tilts way up - I usually have to rewind and watch it a couple times just to savour the artistry of it
According to the oral history of the film the original Balrog was meh and was rejected, so the designers pulled an all nighter and we ended up with what was in the film.
I love the analysis of Gandalf as the main character in the second act, and your use of the close ups really aids that argument. Kudos! I love it when someone can show me something new or provide a new perspective on these texts that I know and love so much!
@@theartofstorytelling1, that's always been true in spoken language. My generation -- I was born in 1962 -- grew up speaking a language peppered with iconic lines from movies. The only differences now are that both words and images are involved, and that it's easy to share memes globally and instantly.
@@theartofstorytelling1 , the private language I share with my partner is rich with quotes from and allusions to the broader Tolkien legendarium. For example, "Oh no, I can't believe just made things vastly worse for everyone involved" translates to "Fëanor, NO!!", which I once saw proposed as an alternate title for _The Silmarilion_. 😁
Holy moly.. I've watched this movie i don't know how many times, but somehow i never really realized that Frodo didn't know Gandalf was alive even until he destroyed the ring.. that's impressive indeed.
It wasn't mentioned in the video and I think this is also a slight foreshadowing. The quote says "any of you", meaning the rest of the fellowship. Gandalf knows he's the only one who can do anything to it and he's straight-up just saying it. This isn't a goblin, troll, or one of the ringwraiths. It's something far greater.
As a kid in middle school I remember reading fellowship and being excited that Gandalf was accompanying Frodo. He was a wizard, he was powerful, he was the rest of the fellowship's "divine" protection. When he fell to the Balrog it left a pit in my stomach, and I was actually angry that he was gone. My young brain understood that this was just the beginning of the grand adventure and already the strongest member of the fellowship that was meant to keep Frodo safe was gone. The feeling of safety was now gone from the narrative which only made me invest more of myself in the story and it's characters. If Gandalf could fall, so could anyone else. Tolkien was masterful with his story telling, and Jackson captured it perfectly for the film
LOTR is a masterpiece of adaptation. In the books, Gandalf does not know what entity is present in Moria. Though he may have guessed its true nature, this is never confirmed until the Fellowship actually sees it. In the movies, it's somewhat more overt, but we have to remember that non-book-readers are the main audience, and they necessarily need more information to work with for the scene to make a similar impact. And even for book readers, the foreshadowing is effective. So, well done, screenwriters!
That's an interesting point. Adapting the books means not only telling the story for newcomers, but also respecting those who have read the book, and have certain expectations. Such a difficult balancing act, and I'm actually amazed and how well they pulled it off, especially with the Balrog and the mine sequence.
i know this doesn't relate to your point but i still love how a huge portion of the sound the balrog makes is a cinderblock being dragged along the ground. it just seems correct somehow given that it's not a modulated animal sound and feels more elemental-made flesh (but that just my take).
The depiction of the Balrog could be it's own video haha. It's amazing how good it looks, even after 20 years. You're right, the sound of his growl really sells it. Just another detail that shows how much care was put into these films.
This is almost like postshadowing, given that the Fellowship have just fought a *giant squid.* I imagine a few of them are thinking "yeah, no shit," when Gandalf says that.
The way in which they show us the world of the LOTR makes it impossible to forget. Peter Jackson shows us what a beautyfull world exists and what the stakes are.
JRR´s brother actually said in an interview that his brother wouldnt have liked the movies because u can never 100% bring the vision of the author on the screen
One of the all-time great movie scenes. It becomes even more interesting when you read the Silmarillion and you find out that Gandalf and the Balrog are both 'Maiar', and so are essentially the same race of being, albeit taking very different forms.
There is another line of foreshadowing for that scene that I really like. I believe it's a brief scene from the extended cut when the fellowship is approaching Moria and Gandalf pulls Frodo aside to warn him about the ring's growing power. This won't be verbatim necessarily, but Gandalf tells Frodo that there are many powers in this world, some even greater than him, and "...against some, I have not yet been tested"
I'll have to check that out! I know this is heresy, but I'm a bit of a "theatrical cut purist", when it comes to Fellowship, so I've only seen the extended cut around 5 times LOL. One video idea I had was to compare the theatrical and the extended to see what works about each. All in due time haha
Both "Gandalf & Balrog" scenes from the first two movies are peak fantasy to me. I don't think I will ever see anything again on screen, that will come close to them. The execution is near perfection.
I really enjoyed your deconstruction of Gandalf and the Balrog. I also have to agree with you about this confrontation at the Bridge being one of the most compelling scenes in the film - and certainly in the books, as well. As someone familiar with Tolkien's legendarium, it's interesting to note that the deamon inhabiting the Balrog is a Fire Maiar - one of the original lesser spirit entities born before the Valar created Valinor and Middle-earth. The Darklord Morgoth seduced many Fire Maiar to his cause and housed them in the hideous forms of Balrogs, as their reward for aligning with him. In fact, the deamons who would become the Balrogs, had aligned with Melkor even before Sauron joined the with the Shadow. The Balrogs, or Valaraukar - being the Quendi name for these abominations. Morgoth could not create life, he could only mock it. Sauron too was Fire Maiar, but he'd grown too powerful and skilled to become a Balrog, and Morgoth - recognizing a true believer in Sauron's evil and malice - made him his chief lieutenant. The last of the great Maiar to descend into MIddle-earth was Olorin, who would become Gandalf/Mithrondir. In fact, when Gandalf first arrived in Middle-earth at the Grey Havens, Cirdan the Shipwright was revealed to be the ringbearer of Narya - the Elven Ring of Fire." Cirdan gave Narya to Gandalf saying, "You might find this usefull." And so the confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog suddenly seems to be something of a reckoning 9,000+ years and all Three Ages in the making. I'd like to think that Gandalf would have slain the Balrog regardless of the fact that he bore one of the three Elven Rings. Still, I ain't mad that Gandalf decided to keep Narya close when he fought to the death with the last of the Balrogs to survive the War of the Jewels. One last cool thing to point out. The sword Gandalf wields againt the Balrog would have sent a shock of recognition, confusion, doubt, and fear through the beast now known as Durin's Bane; the Balrog who led the conquest and murder of the dwarves in Khazad-dum. Gandalf carried "Glamdring" the "Foe Hammer." Glamdring was the sword of King Turgon of Gondolin. Turgon was High King of the Noldor and also first-cousins with Galadriel and her brothers. Gondolin, also known as the Hidden Kingdom, was the last of the original Noldor kingdoms in Middle-earth. After the discovery of this beatiful and unspoiled Elven realm, Morgoth sent Balrogs and dragons to pull down the walls and murder every Elf in the city and its vale. The Fall of Gondolin is one of the saddest stories in the history of the elves. So!....Imagine the TERROR swirling inside the Balrog, when the beast realized he was facing one of his own kind: the Maiar/Istari Gandalf wielding Glamdring - the sword of Turgon. Gandlalf didn't just slay the last of Morgoth's Balrogs in Moria. Not only did Gandalf avenge Turgon and the horror of the fall of Gondolin, but he also brought closure to the Dwarves of Khazad-dum by slaying Durin's Bane.
This lore is so interesting. One thing I'm curious about - for someone such as yourself, who clearly has a deep knowledge of Tolkien's world, do you feel that the film succeeded in conveying that mythology? The Balrog FEELS epic in the film, but do you think audiences really get the picture of what's really happening in this scene? Because what you're describing makes it, in some ways, even more consequential than Sauron and the ring.
Sauron was not a Úmaiar or fire maiar as you call them. He was a maiar if Aulë. One maiar who potentially could have become one of these was Arien who carried thr vessel of the sun. She was originally a fire spirit like the balrogs but she rejected Melkor. Also as far as I know there is no reference to Olorin being the last maiar to descend upon Arda. Tulkas was the last Valar to descend from the timeless halls but I've never read any maiar being specified as the last.
Very interesting. I never realized how focused Act 2 of the movie was on Gandalf and the Balrog. Act 3 seems to have this heavy, hopeless air about it since, like you mentioned, their guide (and unofficial leader) is gone. I just noticed that Act 2 may also be a pivot point for Aragorn's character too. He wasn't shown as much of a leader up to this point in the movie, so after Gandalf entrusted the Fellowship to him, he really steps up from Act 3 all the way to the end of the ROTK. Incredible storytelling.
I agree that Aragorn's character is different in the final act - he seems to bear the burden of leading the Fellowship more. So many subtle little character changes happen after Gandalf's fall.
One thing you neglected to mention is Gandalf's potential symbolic function as a "light guide" to Frodo, and how that is fundamentally changed soon after this scene. Tolkien's books, of course, weren't originally intended to be a trilogy, but perhaps coincidentally, perhaps very much on purpose, the structure in them is similar to that of Dante's "Divine Comedy", a work which Tolkien must surely have been well acquaintanced with. In the Divine Comedy's first two books, the darkest, Dante has a condemned guide, the poet Vergilius in hell, but in the third book, upon entering paradise, his guide instead becomes the angelic Beatrice. Similarly, for the first book of The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf acts as a "light guide", a trustworthy, positive figure. But his "death" means a shift for Frodo into a "dark guide"; ambigious, twisted, sorrowful - Gollum. Gollum and Gandalf might seem extremely dissimilar, and they are, but Gollum DOES actually know a lot of old lore, and especially in the books, this is very apparent. This dark guide is kept for the rest of the story, signifiying the much darker and more ominous turn that Frodo's journey has taken. It's the reverse of the Divine Comedy, that begins in hell and ends in heaven.
For me, the conflict is also interesting because it's a subtle confrontation of power made through Gandalf's speech and the Balrog's demonstration. Maybe it's me, but I love this kind of confrontation when it's well done. Another one of my favorites is Ged vs. Cob in The Farthest Shore by Ursula Le Guin. They are two powerful wizards but they fight each other through their words. The first time I read it, I cried.
I like that the writers included Gandalf's speech - servant of the secre fire, Flame of Udun, etc - because even if you haven't read the books, it lets you know that Gandalf is more than just a pointy-hatted wizard. He's a supernatural being. The film does a brilliant job of telling you that without "telling" you. Thanks for watching!
6:32 As someone who watched the movies way before reading the books when we first see gandalf actually turn and comfront the balrog on the bridge i had the OMG reaction. It seems like gandalf is extremely outmatched and watching gandalf stand toe to toe with the balrog really cements galndalfs character from a viewing perspective. The confidence in which he speaks his famous line lets you know that really you dont understanding anything 100% gandalf the balrog or the universe that theres something greater happening here and ive always loved that about lord of the rings.
I was thinking about this over the last couple of days after rewatching "The fellowship of the ring". The entire Moria sequence is impeccably crafted. As you've said, even before they go to Moria, Gandalf shows that he's afraid of doing it. He knows what's down there and he does not want to meet it. And then the real tension starts to build. You know something BIG is coming and they slowly increase the feeling of dread until the Balrog makes its entrance. It's a masterclass of film making.
As well as the foreshadowing, I think the overall impact is also enhanced by the, what would you call it, follow-through. It's a beautiful choice--as soon as Gandalf falls, the world goes almost silent except for the poignant music. Suddenly, you and the characters are experiencing a muted world, all the hectic noise and chaos goes away--they're still running, still being shot at, you can hear the quiet 'snap!' of an arrow hitting stone, Aragorn's muted voice urging everyone on, but it's all distanced. The immediate action has stopped mattering in the face of the terrible loss of Gandalf; everything is different now. Doesn't hurt that the sorrowful music is awesome--thank you once again, Howard Shore.
One little detail I personally love about Gandalf's death scene, is the narrative choice to visually see the goblins fire arrows at Aragorn as he leads the fellowship to saftey afterwards. It just gives context to the situation that other films wouldnt have bothered expanded on. It doesnt leave you with the question "well, what about all those 100's of goblins, couldnt they crawl the walls over the broken bridge?" Its followed up with Aragorn's urgency to make for the woods before dark, because he was the only one to see the goblin hoards giving chase. It's a small detail, but the devil is in the details.
That's so interesting, I never made that connection, but you're absolutely right. One thing I learned from listening to the Director's commentary for the films was that Peter, Fran, and Philipa were always thinking about "pushing the story forward". They were always mindful about what was motivating the characters, and this is a great example. I've heard that there is a deleted scene before Lorien where the Fellowship debates whether they can go on without Gandalf. Would be interesting to see what that looked like, and whether it slowed down the momentum.
@@theartofstorytelling1 Thank you. Your video is great btw. That deleted scene would be interesting, because tonely I believe the narrative shift switches to Aragorn as the protagonist after Gandalf's downfall. It would be an interesting addition to see the characters raise the question themselves, and display the first sign of vulnerablity and loss of hope in their quest. Although the film does it expertly, having Aragorn reassert the fellowship to carry on, I'd still be interested in seeing that extra detail.
This was a fantastic breakdown done in a great format and your voice is perfect for narrating/talking about this stuff. Thank you for talking about such an amazing sequence of such a behemoth of a film trilogy where it's easy to overlook. I'm excited to seeing more from you.
I'm glad you brought up the comparison with the Obi-Wan v. Anakin fight. I couldn't tell you much about what happened in that sequence, other than there was lava, and by the end Anakin had lost and became maimed. In Fellowship on the other hand, every shot in the Gandalf v. Balrog fight is impactful. Only a few "blows" are struck, and it is much shorter than the star wars battle, yet it makes a much greater and more lasting impression. Longer fight scenes aren't always better.
Also makes you wonder if the Ani-Obi fight might have been more memorable if there was more dramatic build up in that story, similar to how it was done in this sequence. I don't hate RoTS but I felt there were a few missed opportunities for more drama between Anakin and Obiwan
At no point during that fight do you feel like either character is in any danger, it only ends when the production team decided that the epic battle at the end of the film had reached sufficient length, and one of them had heard that having the high ground was advantageous. Never mind that they've both been at different relative heights multiple times throughout the battle.
@@user-zp4ge3yp2o I literally just had someone today say that the obi vs anakin fight doesn't need to be dramatic because you know the outcome already. What's the point of the 3 movies if the climax it is leading to isn't dramatic?
Also, the Balrog scene is the first (only?) scene where we see the true power of Gandalf. Up until then, he just did fireworks, some telekinese Breakdance with Saruman, made some light with his staff and spoke to a moth. But here he stands, seemingly only by his spoken words the Balrog "cannot pass". He looks like a fragile old man, but yet the Balrog's fire sword simply melts as it hits him. This scene shows us - apart from the foreshadowing - that he is much, much more than we knew previously.
THANK YOU! I had an argument with my 9th grade English teacher (1970) about the prologue to R&J being foreshadowing. She said I was wrong because the story was so well known at the time Shakespeare wrote it the end was common knowledge. Therefore, the prologue was not foreshadowing. I argued that the reader's knowledge has nothing to do with whether the text is foreshadowing or not. It either indicates the future or it doesn't.
Your English teacher is quite wrong. Literary devices function regardless of the reader's knowledge of the text. By her logic, one could say that a "plot twist" isn't a plot twist anymore the second time you read a book. You're correct - the text should be analyzed without regard to the reader's knowledge (though I'm sure there are some post-modern philosophers out there who might take up that argument). I'm glad this video was able to clear up a decades old debate lol.
Ha. I had an argument with a college teacher about whether Hamlet’s mother was evil. I argued my point on the test and she gave me a C. I still think I was right.
This also covers another, equally important lesson, which is Meaningful Character Sacrifices. Ever since shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones became major successes, for a time, many other shows have come out that try to replicate this by offing their characters at the wrong time or simply making them pointless. In fact, even these two shows miss the mark because there have been character deaths that happened at the wrong time and left people outraged out of feeling cheated or underwhelmed. Gandalf's Fall is iconic because it was a character sacrifice that went beyond his own life. It changed everyone in the story. It broke the fallacy of Frodo and the Hobbits, who believed nothing bad could happen because they had Gandalf (Further alluded to when Pippin says, before the Battle of Minas Tirith ,"But we have the White Wizard. That has to count for something."). It forced Aragorn to step out of the shadows and become the leader he was meant to. I would argue that it was the catalyst for Gimli and Legolas's relationship to blossom, now having a strong, emotional bond. And... more fan theory than anything else... Gandalf's power, with the help of Narya, kept Boromir's dark nature at bay until the fateful encounter at Amon Hen.
Not to mention that after the "Run!", we don't actually see the balrog until the bridge, but just a dim light that just grows brighter and brighter to the confrontation.
How the whole scene also related back to Frodo, is that it was HIS decision to go through the mines. He is feeling responsible for Gandalf's fate, because he made the call despite knowing that Gandalf was apprehensive about it.
Yeah making it Frodo's decision is a top-tier writing move. You could just isolate this whole part of the movie and watch it as a single story, and it all works.
I remember my wife asking 'what was the point in regards to the overall story' after watching gandalf just 'die' for the first time, and I asked her to watch the scene again after they leave the mine (and one of my favourite scenes) how everyone is shocked / mary & pippin crying and explained to her when it focused on Frodo that Gandalf's sacrifice changes frodo then and there. Evil is real and powerful, and not even someone as powerful as Gandalf is strong enough to stop it. And in that moment, Frodo truly believes he has to go on to destroy the ring. And alone at that, as he doesn't want anyone else to die and influences his decision to sneak off after Aragorn and him are ambushed by the Urakai. Fuck I love this movie, Fellowship has always been my favourite.
I always thought this line was also foreshadowing: “There are many powers in this world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. And against some I have not yet been tested.” Though it could also include the ring, the nine, Saruman, and Sauron.
In the books Tolkien beats you over the head with foreshadowing. From Aragorn saying he's worried about Gandalf, to the drums calling out DOOM. I don't think it's a coincidence that where Gandalf meets his doom is on the bridge of Kazad-Dum.
The book handles the tension differently. In the book, you already know something bad happened at Moria because Gimli and Gloin specifically came to ask Elrond for help journeying to Moria to find out why they stopped sending messages back, and then Aragorn states that he foresees something terrible will happen to Gandalf specifically if they go into Moria. So, in the book, the tension is not over the Balrog specifically, but over what will happen to Gandalf.
Let’s also remember that Fran, Filippa, and Peter all had one super weapon when writing these movies: Tolkien’s books. I think what they three did was legendary, but like Tom Brady, they also had the greatest coach of all time. One GOAT needs another.
I remember when I saw this scene in cinemas for the first time as well. I was spellbound. If you could either resurrect J.R.R Tolkien from the dead, or travel back in time and bring him forward to the present day, and show him Peter Jackson's trilogy, I think there are things he'd approve of and things he'd disapprove of, but the rendition of the Balrog would probably bring manly tears of pride to his eyes.
The foreshadowing was quite different in the book. It was Gandalf who was leaning toward going through Moria. Gandalf and Aragorn both knew that doom awaited Gandalf in Moria and it was Aragorn who was warning Gandalf about choosing that path. Gandalf had accepted his fate, like Christ setting his face to go to Jerusalem.
The entire Moria sequence is my favourite part of the film. It does such an excellent job of steadily ratcheting the tension. And it is scored wonderfully, definitely the part of the soundtrack I go back to the most. And kudos to the filmmakers for turning "they run down some stairs" into such a memorable setpiece.
There is also a very subtle use of foreshadowing of the fight to come when Gandalf says, “this foe is beyond any of YOU.” It took me a couple of viewings to notice that he didn’t say “beyond any of US.”
For me - having read the books many times - the journey of the fellowship through Moria was the make-or-break part of the whole trilogy. They simply had to get it right. Jackson knocked it out of the park. I even enjoyed the improvement of Pippin knocking all that clanking armour down the well in the tomb of Marzabul.
I had the same feeling - was most excited about the mine sequence. They showed nothing about the mines in the promotional materials, so i was nervous lol. But I guess they were just saving it.
Someone pointed this out to me the other day, but what makes this scene and the part in the book even more powerful is this is the LAST time Frodo sees Gandalf until he is in Rivendell AFTER the ring is destoryed. Frodo completes his entire quest thinking his best friend, mentor, and protector is dead. While everyone else (save Sam, of course) gets to complete their journey with Gandalf at their side.
Yeah that's nuts when you think about it. The one that gets me (someone told me this) is that when Gandalf picks them up with the eagles at the end, he has THREE eagles.... one for Smeagol.
He is right, I believe they are in Gondor. The scene in ROTK just looks like Rivendell to me, and I always say it by mistake. In the book and movie, he is in Gondor.
02:19 When I saw the biopic of Amy Winehouse I cried at the beginning. I knew the end already, but to see the beginning, knowing what was to come, made it so tragic to me.
I think one of the most important parts of the final confrontation is Gandalf meeting the Balrog on equal footing, and opening the abyss of time and awe, while we watch on knowing that there is so much more happening than we understand or realize: "I am an agent of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun! _You shall not pass!_ "
It blows my mind how well Peter Jackson did with this trilogy. Probably won’t be repeated in a 100 years. Also, it blows my mind that Frodo goes on the rest of the story thinking Gandalf is dead. Add the Ring and I feel the weight Frodo carries in the rest of the movies. Very few movies I watch create in me the weight you feel as you watch LOTR.
While you say that Gandalf being the main character of act 2 is correct, it's still very vital to Frodo's story. Gandalf is the only one that makes Frodo feel completely safe especially from the other members of the Fellowship. Gandalf being gone means Frodo knows Boromir will make his move.
Yes! One of the reasons why I always felt FOTR is the best of the three. There's a lot of great action in TT & ROTK, but there's nothing like this masterfully sustained, 45 minutes-long building of tension and foreshadowing. So much to learn from. Peter Jackson at his peak.
That's true - I guess that was the challenge of the second and third films - the fellowship isn't all together, so the narrative has to be split up, and it's harder to structure the drama in this way.
I don't think the weight of the scene is hugely let alone wholly dependent on the build-up. There is an implicit weight to the imagery, confrontation and words. Like even the contrast between Gandalf's size and the Balrog, and yet the implicit power of Gandalf (but the remaining visual and implicit force of the Balrog). One shouldn't be reductive to one "theoretical approach" and exclude obvious things.
Great video! But as a dramaturge I would like to debate and problematize your claim that Frodo arrives at Rivendell at the end of the first act. According to my analysis, the first act ends with Frodo and Sam leaving the Shire. Act two builds on the developing and deepening of plot and character arc. And that is what we see as the journey begins. Then Act Two is traditionally split into two halves, usually having its midpoint at the Point of no return, which is when Frodo says "I'll take the ring to Mordor" at Elrond's council. Then act two continues with the fellowship's journey until the confrontation with the Balrog where the second act ends, just as you say. Also, traditionally, the second act is twice as long as the first and third acts, and this fits the timeline of the film very well. But, never the less. A fantastic analysis of the film making and the building of foreshadowing and tension around Gandalf and the fact that he will confront the Balrog in the end of act two.
It's interesting you point this out, because I debated this when I was writing the script. I agree that Sam and Frodo leaving the Shire feels like the end of Act 1, but it also felt wrong to call the events from Rivendell to Khazad Dum "Act 3". Point take that "second half of Act 2" is probably more accurate. Thanks for watching the video and for sharing your thoughts!
@@theartofstorytelling1 Of course the journey between Rivendell and Khazad Dum is not Act Three. And get me right. This in no way affects your video. Your analysis is brilliant and I will eagerly await new analyses. Because you know this and make very interesting observations. Little nerd journey on film theory: During my studies, I learned that there of course are different ways to build the dramaturgical skeleton of a screenplay. But the most common (at the time), and what I got to learn in detail, was the model that, among others, Syd Field presents and worked with. In short terms: Act 1 approx. 25% of the film. The set up. Contains the presentation part and ends at "plot point 1" where the "journey" (inner or outer) begins. Act 2 approx. 50% of the film. The profounding confrontation that Includes plot and character development. Halfway through, (after investing in new information and new insights about both the antagonist and himself) a decisive change from the hero comes before the second half of the act/the film. It's called the "Point of no return", and the hero decides to continue the journey (inner or outer). Frodo takes on the quest "again" at Elrond's counsel instead of returning home and realizes that this will change his life forever. More developing in the second half of the act. Act 2 ends at plot point 2, moment of despair (Gandalf dies). The final battle is approaching. Time to act despite or because of worse odds. All or nothing. Act 3 approx. 25% of the film. Called the resolution and looks quite different depending on the movie. In Fellowship of the ring we do not approach a final resolution, as for example in Return of the King, but a resolution for the fellowship. Jackson very cunningly inserts Boromir's death already in the first film so that the beginning of two new journeys beckons before the next film. (And of course to give us a dramatic action moment in the end.)
@@raimat66 I had totally forgotten that Boromir dies at the beginning of Two Towers. Yes, you can totally see why that change was necessary. Your insights into dramaturgy are valuable, so thanks for sharing. This is a subject I want to get into more in future videos on my channel. Can you recommend any books or other resources for learning about this? I'm especially interested in what you mentioned about "interpreting" the drama of a story, and I'm also interested in brushing up on the roots of drama, going back to the Greeks etc.
100% agree! Fellowship is my favourite movie! Jackson and co did such a great job with this story. There are a few other foreshadowing examples in Fellowship that I love - Frodo and Sam seeing the departing Elves after they shortly left the Shire "I don't know why, it makes me sad", wow, just wow. And Gandalf blowing a smoke Ship into the smoke ring from Bilbo, depicting the Grey Havens and Into The West, omg.
Yeah! the extended scenes especially, like outside the walls of Moria, Gandalf talking to Frodo about who and what to trust, he mentions that he has not yet been tested against some powers i.e Balrog@@theartofstorytelling1
When watching, I always felt that there wasn't one singular main character to the Trilogy. Rather the whole of the Fellowship are the main cast, with emphasis given to Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn. Arguably, because those are the three most important characters. Good video though, I enjoyed it.
@@theartofstorytelling1 Tolkien disliked allegory, but his three main characters definitely conform to Christian-worldview archetypes and tropes. Deliberately so, in fact. Jesus is sometimes called "Priest, Prophet and King". Frodo conforms to the Priest, who goes on the pilgrimage and carries and suffers under the undeserved burden. Gandalf is the Prophet, who gives supernatural received wisdom, and sacrifices himself and is resurrected from death. Aragorn is the King, who descends under the earth, and raises the cursed dead and removes their curse, and whose hands bring healing. "It was said of old in Gondor, that the hands of the King are the hands of a healer, and so should the rightful King be known." None of that is accidental.
@@peteg475 It's funny you bring this up because I've been thinking that my next LOTR video would be about "religious symbolism" in the films. It would be an exploration of how the filmmakers borrow from the iconography of religion. There are a lot of obvious examples. The Balrog is a good one. But also the shot where the Eagles save sam and Frodo - definitely a heaven/hell thing going on in that shot. Any resources you can recommend?
@@theartofstorytelling1 Nothing at the tip of my fingers, The "Priest, Prophet, King" idea came from somewhere in my reading, Tom Shippey's commentaries and books ("Author of the Century")about all things Tolkien are useful. Tolkien's own thoughts about his Catholic faith influencing his fiction is easily found online, I would think. Plenty of interesting stuff on that topic.
I would also argue the shock of being surprised that Romeo and Julie dieing would cause a majority of people to hate Romeo and Juliette. And that he later added that line in the beginning to subliminally soften the blow by letting the audience be emotionally prepared for the tragedy. Makes a big difference in the over all reception of the play.
I have watched many videos on analyzation of LOTR and this is one of the best. Man, the way you structure the explanations - wow! Much respect, thank you for the content🙂🤝
Thanks so much! The channel is brand new and I'm still figuring out a format that works, and what interests people. So that's great feedback. Thanks for stopping by the channel.
Awesome video ! This trilogy is absolutely masterful in terms of foreshadowing, especially looking at how Fellowship prepares us not only for the 2nd but also for the third movie. This is mostly due to the fact that both three movies were filmed at the same time. The rapid shots of Minas Morgul and Minas Tirith when Gandalf leaves the Shire at the beginning already prepare us for the third movie. During the council of Elrond, when Boromir stands up to talk, you can hear the theme of Gondor that won't be brought back until third movie with the arrival of Gandalf and Pippin at Minas Tirith. In the extended edition, there is this small scene of Bilbo at his home realizing he doesn't know where is the ring and starting panicking and getting angry and finding it right after, which already foreshadows the ring's hold on Bilbo. Even before, during the monologue "Concerning Hobbits", we discover Sam before Bilbo's party while Bilbo says "For all Hobbits share a love of things that grow", already foreshadowing that he is a gardener). As for Gollum, he appears several times throughout the first movie, and during the second part of the movie twice following the Fellowship (during the mines of moria and in the extended edition right after the Fellowship's departure of Lothlorien). Thus, we already know him when he attacks Frodo and Sam at the beginning of the Two Towers. Plus, Gandalf saying Gollum has still a part to play already foreshadows the end of the trilogy with Gollum being ultimately responsible for the destruction of the ring (both because he led them into Mordor and because he took the ring from Frodo at the end). I could go on and on, but this is just some examples of the foreshadowing beautifully done in this masterpiece of a trilogy. Truly the best movies of all time in my opinion.
These are all great examples, and I agree that having them all filmed together probably made a huge difference. I didn't know the one about the Gondor theme playing when Boromir speaks at the council - I'll listen for that on my next viewing. I always loved the little hints of Gollum in Fellowship, especially the bit about him floating on a log, which I remember vividly from the books. I also remember the moment I realized that Gandalf's line about Gollum having "some part to play, for good or ill" was foreshadowing the ending - incredible writing. One last little detail that always gets me teary: when Gandalf arrives with the eagles to save Sam and Frodo, he has a third eagle... for Smeagol. God I'm crying just writing this.
My only questions is, with all the talent we have, knowledge about scriptwriting and the most epic material ever written. How can Amazon managed to make a 2 billion dollar steaming pile of TV show? I don't get it
Honestly that's something I always wonder. Like, you already have a template for what works, and you still miss the mark? If I had to guess, it's probably that there needs to be a singular "author" who is motivated by personal passion. Sometimes you just can't buy that.
I love and know these films so well, and yet there is always more depth to be found! As others have already said in the comments, your claim that Gandalf as the main character of the second act is truly insightful. Now I need to rewatch the Fellowship again to find all the moments of foreshadowing! Thanks for the video!
Thanks so much! I agree there's always something new to learn about these films. I normally don't watch "director's commentary" on movies, but I highly recommend it for these films. I learned a lot from listening to them talk about the challenges of writing the script and telling the story. Gave me a whole new appreciation for the challenge they had, and how well they executed.
In the books Aragorn is the one who doesn’t want to go through the mines and Gandalf is the one who suggest to go. I like the movie part more in this case
It's been so long since I read the books, I didn't remember that. I guess that makes it even more notable that Peter Jackson opted to change the focus to Gandalf. I've been meaning to re-read them, so maybe it's time.
Haha I love that bit where Gandalf stays behind, then comes flying down the stairs, stands up and dusts himself off and basically says "well I tried, let's be off shall we?"
I love how everyone is slightly confused when Gandalf explains what a Balrog is except Legolas who is looks absolutely terrified because while he isn't old enough to have been around in the first age when they were active, he certainly *knows* what they are and lived around those who personally fought and interacted with them.
Gandalf's fall is when Frodo realises no-one is going to save him, he's got to do it for himself. It's the moment we all have to go through as young adults, but written LARGE.
True - if I didn't know that Gandalf fall happened from reading the book, I would have been shocked the first time I saw it in theatres. He's the last character you'd expect to die so early in the story. But I think you're right in your explanation why. It does so much for Frodo's arc.
I much prefer Gandalf looking "older", tired and sinking into himself, when he realises the approaching threat in the mines of Moria (this is also described well in the book), than his cheesy shocked expression in the snow, which is so clearly intended to play to the audience. But you excluded it somehow.
Awesome video. One of these days I picked up my old copy of LOTR and started reading. I noticed that Gandalf actually WANTS to go through Moria in the books, but he's ultimately outvoted. If I remember correctly, even Gimli is against going there... probably because the dwarves most of all knew something horrible happened there. So, all the more respect to the writers for this bold change! When I read it I couldn't believe it, because what we get in the movies makes a lot of emotional sense story-wise.
Thanks friend! Yeah it's interesting that the book is so different, because in the movie it all just feels so natural for the characters and makes so much sense.
I'm curious what you think about this: In the book, Aragorn and Gandalf argue privately about whether going through Moria is a good idea or not. But on the page, Gandalf is eager to attempt going through Moria, and Aragorn is the one who is reticent, even afraid, and has premonitions of doom. He specifically says he's afraid for Gandalf. I know why Jackson inverted it (you explain the foreshadowing of Gandalf knowing what's in there), but in the book, the Company finding the Balrog awake in Moria is a surprise that Gandalf - despite all his wisdom - did NOT foresee. Maybe some hubris there, too. Gandalf was hoping to find Balin's colony, maybe alive and well. I'm wondering if I actually like Tolkien's way better - the idea that the wisest person tragically walks into his own death unexpectedly, despite others warning him. The foreshadowing of doom still exists in the book, but it's on the shoulders of Aragorn, not Gandalf. Also, in the film, when Gandalf says "Aragorn, lead them on" I don't think he's expecting to die. in fact when the Balrog falls, Gandalf starts to walk away, as if he's won. It's the Balrog's whip grabbing his ankle at the last moment which turns things. I think what Gandalf DOES know, is that he's the only one capable of slowing down or stopping the Balrog, so he's the last line of defense as the rest of the Company retreats under Aragorn's leadership to find the exit.
One thing I love about analyzing stories is that they're just that - interpretations. I think what you've written here makes total sense, especially given the deviations from the book that you mentioned. And your point about the whip. I'd love to peek inside the mind of the writers and see their rationale for the decisions in their adaptation.
7:22 I also feel like by showing less action, it further highlights that the reel battle is much more than physical. I do much prefer the original lines in the book though, "You cannot pass" just always felt more powerful than "You shall not pass". it is more in line with the power words have in Tolkien's magic system (how ever soft a system it is). Here i have always interpreted the spell/magic Galdalf is willing into reality is passing here is now an impossibility and saying you will not and shall not feel implied in you can't. So i have always felt shall not is loosely him changing from "can not" to "may not". still love that movie scene and thanks for the deep dive (no pun in tended lol).
That's interesting. I've always wondered why they changed that line in the script. They were very careful about all their script decisions, and I wonder what the rationale was.
I heard some conjecture that the balrog actually can't pass Moria's threshold, and that would imply that what gandalf is saying is literal, essentially saying " you can't pass from this place, so give up chasing us or I'll kick your ass" and the writers thought that kinda makes the balrog less dangerous, and will watchers interpret the " cannot pass" in the literal sense? So instead went with "shall" which is gandalf saying I'M not letting you go any further, that could be the reason I mean it was obviously to make things more transparent I feel.
@@garybyrne5841 I feel like that argument breaks down given that the balrog exits via the winding stair, effectively exiting one of Moria's thresholds (though in tolkien fashion it does die right after so you might be onto something though I personally don't agree). I'll grant you most viewers are not book fanatics like myself and that the distinction of "cannot" and "shall not" is lost on most viewers. I just feel it is one of the first instances where you can see movie Gandalf is nurfed compared to book Gandalf (don't get me started on the palantier and the witch king scene from the extended edition. pure sacrilege! #notmygandalf #LoveIanMckellin). genuinely though thank you for your perspective. I'll look into it. maybe some of Tolkien's letters mention it but its been a while.
@@Margoth195 yeah I'm not saying that IS cannon, but I do think it was changed for transparency, which does seem a bit redundant and that viewers should get it. But knowing the very meticulous nature of Jackson and co on every bit of dialogue, I think that was ultimately why it was changed. That's adaptation it's impossible to please everyone, especially something with such amazing depth and scope as lotr. But I like your unwavering love for gandalf!!
