Blockbusters have been around since the 1950s – but Jaws changed the game in the 70s. Since Jaws was released twenty-odd years before I was born, I have become quite affiliated with blockbusters. It seems every year since I was born, there has been a larger than life Hollywood blockbuster film dominating the cinema from months April – August (a trend set by Jaws). Iconic blockbusters ranging from Lion King, to Pirates of the Caribbean, to James Bond, to Marvel’s Cinematic Universe demolition in current day. But one franchise that has always made me question “Is it like the others?” – none other than The Lord of the Rings. I will review attributes – or lack of – of a Hollywood blockbuster, and apply them to The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (LOTR: ROTK) to at last, get an answer I have desired. Is LOTR: ROTK a stock-standard Hollywood blockbuster, or does it break the conformity?
Blockbusters are all about the dollars. It can be argued there has been a transition in debating the quality of a blockbuster film to how well it ranked in the top grossing films. The importance has shifted. LOTR: ROTK was no different when it came to finance — at least, the quantity of funds. LOTR: ROTK had a budget of 94 million dollars, which at the time was astronomical. But the film made the 94 million dollars back, and some more. Box Office Mojo reports the film made an incredible $1 119 929 521. At time of writing, it is the 16th highest grossing film ever, and peaked at second when released.
All this talk of money leads us to question where the money came from. 94 million dollars is huge sum — and it easy to understand why it was needed considering they had to pay a production team of 2400 people and 26 000 extras. Unusual for a blockbuster to use a team of this number. The film is advertised as an ‘American Fantasy Blockbuster’. But, what exactly makes it American? The director? No, New Zealand. Shooting location? No, New Zealand. The cast? Partially. There are Americans, but also English, Danish, Scottish, and Australian to name a variety. FUNDING? No, New Zealand subsidiaries. This is a unique and intriguing perspective for LOTR: ROTK. This ties directly in with Julian Stringer of Movie Blockbusters analysis of Hollywood’s ongoing close relation to global cultures and importance of money. Advertised as an American film could be an insight into the financial or corporate driven necessity of a blockbuster to dominate the U.S. market.
A characteristic of a blockbuster is they are not restricted to a sole source of income. Blockbusters are proactive upon release by strategising a way to become cross-platform successes. Basically, this means how can the film be even more successful beyond the movie, and as a brand. There is no denying LOTR: ROTK (and The Hobbit franchise) fit this mould to a ‘T’. However, LOTR cross-platform success is a little different. Forbes recognise the franchise’s staple products like toys, board games, posters, soundtracks — but credit LOTR for its individuality in regards to co-branding with AIR New Zealand, New Zealand postal stamps and economic tourism impact for New Zealand. In a research survey, 1% of New Zealand tourists claim LOTR: ROTK as a core reason to travel to the country. While 1% seems low, that equates to 33 million NZ dollars. Thus, making LOTR: ROTK a different machine in cross-platform blockbusters.
But what of the deeper layer of a Hollywood blockbuster — if one at all? A.O. Scott, a writer for NY Times entertains the concept of political perspectives in Avatar. It questions and allows audiences to critique character motives and actions, in way of representing current day society. A quote I think is fitting for this notion: “… Like most good popular movies, ‘Avatar’ is accessible enough to invite such debate and complicated enough to keep it unresolved and interesting”.
How does LOTR: ROTK as a Hollywood blockbuster involve politics? Abigail E. Ruane and Patrick James for International Studies Perspective expand on this idea — by praising LOTR’s writing and character development. Thanks to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson, they have created a world with various cultures and social hierarchies. Each character has a different worldview and political stance driven by their race, place in social and economic hierarchy, gender, and sexuality, which can allow audiences to better understand international relations. LOTR has a strong depiction of rationalisation against neorealism. The rational decisions in ROTK lie with Gandalf, while neorealism is presented through Denethor — the steward in charge of Gondor. The vast difference between the two — and the political approach they represent — is summarised in their meeting scene in the halls, where Gandalf plans proactively, and Denethor insists on war. This is a play on power politics and how it is aligned with war rather than peace.
Beyond its box office attraction, marketing and political ambivalence, I feel this is a superb film. An analogy I am drawn to regarding a ‘good’ film — there are lots of different ingredients, and all need to be applied the correct amount. LOTR: ROTK has a range like no other — incredible cinematography with chilling soundtracks, heart-to-heart conversations, epic battles, and combining all, elite storytelling. I am a sucker for storytelling.
Peter Jackson has an incredible technique. When Denethor demands Pippen to sing a song moments after he sent his son to ride to seemed-to-be death… Goosebumps. The cuts between father eating an exotic meal, contrasting with son (and army) facing slaughter — and the final note of the A Capella rendition, tomato dripping down Denethor’s face as a visual metaphor. The perfect mix of all the elements.
To me, the journey the audience takes with the characters is as impactful as the film itself. The distance the viewer travels with Frodo and Sam from The Shire to Mt Doom. From meeting a character like ‘Strider’ sitting in the darkness of a bar (in LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring) to ‘Aragorn’ leading a charge into Mordor is the epitome of satisfaction and completion in a long winding story.
For a Hollywood blockbuster, LOTR: ROTK is so unique as it follows the “rules”, but then redefines them in others. I love the sense of fulfilment, ending on a climax, and the mixed emotions that come with it. To summarise areas where LOTR differs, when Elijah Wood was asked what was it like to work on LOTR, he responded with like an indie film with a 94 million dollar budget. LOTR: ROTK is better than second breakfast… AKA 5 stars.
IF any reader wishes to do some further reading on LOTR, here is a link to a fascinating journal article discussing its depiction of friendship, masculinity and femininity.
References
Box Office Mojo 2017, ‘The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King’. Available from: < http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=returnoftheking.htm>.
Li, S, Li, H, Song, H, Lundberg, C, & Shen, S. 2017, ‘The economic impact of on-screen tourism: The case of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit’, Tourism Management, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 177-187. Available from: < http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=b74ee001-548e-40de-80c4-7b5485130632%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=S0261517716302400&db=edselp>.
Pinchefsky, C. 2012, ‘The Impact (Economic and Otherwise) of Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit on New Zealand’, Forbes. Available from: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/12/14/the-impact-economic-and-otherwise-of-lord-of-the-ringsthe-hobbit-on-new-zealand/#269309ba31b6>.
Ruane, A.E, & James, P. 2008, ‘The International Relations of Middle-Earth: Learning from The Lord of The Rings’, International Studies Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 377-394. Available from: < http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=8ce19024-9b77-4cad-8304-f2d3c02e4d00@sessionmgr102>.
Scott, A.O. 2010, ‘Turncoats Who Become Heroes’, The New York Times. Available from: < http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/movies/awardsseason/07scott.html?mcubz=3>.
Stringer J. 2003, (ed.) Movie Blockbusters, New York: Routledge.
Reasons To Skip This Blog 