The Tolkien Lovers (IMDb) Community

The store for information that is seen on the Internet Movie Data Base Discussion Boards, the topics can be diverse, but generally have to do with Tolkien, Middle Earth and it's depiction on screen.

Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson was born in Pukerua Bay, North Island, New Zealand on the 31st of October, 1961.

Here is a list of films that Jackson has worked on as Director/Writer/Producer:
The Valley (1976), Bad Taste (1987), Meet The Feebles (1989), Braindead (1992), Heavenly Creatures (1994), Forgotten Silver (1995), The Frighteners (1996), The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), King Kong (2005 - announced).

As well as having writing credits on all the films he has directed, he also wrote a film that he didn't direct, back in 1987 he has a writing credit on the film, "Jack Brown Genius". The film was directed by Tony Hiles (fellow New Zealand director) and wasn't released until 1994.

It would seem from his CV in the Internet Movie Data base, that directing and writing his films appears not to be enough! Peter has a longer list of films that he has acted as either a producer or executive producer on. Along with all the films already mentioned above, he has acted in this capacity on: Valley of the Stereos (1992 - co-producer) and The Long and Short of It (2003 - executive producer).

What is clear is that Peter Jackson "lives" movies and film making!

I don't claim that this small "nosegay" is all that will appear on this site about Peter Jackson (I reserve the right to expand this section!) and if someone wants to rewrite this part into something more like an essay, I'll be more than happy to fit it in here. - Editor.

In Praise of Peter Jackson

A Short Essay by Tony Hedges (I am grateful to Coolbananas who very kindly proof-read and corrected this essay)

Someone said on the IMDb that Peter Jackson had no discernable style that was truly his; it was part of their argument that Martin Scorsese was a better director. I felt this was very unfair and clearly wrong in my own opinion.

I wrote a fairly short post that got a lot of praise and felt that I would expand on it, because I only really glazed over the surface of what I wanted to say. This is the result.

There's an old English saying which contends that only those who do not wish to see are truly blind. This infers that they are also deaf to the reasonable arguments that can be made contrary to their questionable contention. This is the case with the post by �tialice2�, who was trying to make the point that in direct comparison with Martin Scorsese's �Gangs of New York�, Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings paled into insignificance. I am paraphrasing here, but this was the general thrust of the post.

tialice2 contests that on viewing two of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, there was nothing that you could definitely say is �Peter Jackson's directorial style�. I say what rubbish.

Unlike some who try to invite kudos upon themselves by claiming (perhaps truly) that they have always been fans of Peter Jackson, I had never seen a Jackson movie before The Fellowship of the Ring. One thing I can truly say, though, is that upon first viewing I could tell that it stood out; it was unlike most movies I had seen to date.

It wasn't until I got the extended edition of The Fellowship of the Ring that I started to get an idea of what it was that made Peter Jackson's movie stand out. You can tell after a while that Jackson very much likes �big shots�: huge sweeping movements of the camera that really push the technical element of traditional film making.

He has another part of himself that loves the intimate close up. The two contrast against each other wonderfully. The one is a glorious pan and flying shot that seems impossible, and the close up straight after this complicated shot is akin to someone slamming a door in your face.

I was so moved by the post that started this chain of thoughts, that I went away and I started watching the DVD all over again. This time I noticed something else. A lot of the really close close-ups are not necessarily of peoples faces. For instance, he focuses in on hands going to pockets to check that the One Ring is still safely there.

I also noticed that every now and then Jackson likes the camera to be still and for action to come into the frame, fill it, and then exit the still fixed camera shot. It may sound a simple thing, but it is used a lot in The Fellowship of the Ring and I can't imagine that it is an easy thing to plan. It may not be a �directorial trick� solely used by Jackson, and may be seen as an hommage to the great Alfred Hitchcock, but it is a technique seldom used in todays cinema.

There are lots of small details that could go unnoticed in Jackson's epic, such as dirt! Frodo's bitten fingernails, the dirt on Bilbo's kitchen table when Frodo and Gandalf are discussing the Ring. It's all small stuff, but it all adds up to authenticity. In a way, this runs in paralell to Tolkiens' own writing style in that he often uses unneccesary back-story to build tangeable substance to his epic (in other words he adds detail that is not necessary to the furtherance of the story to add depth).

One thing that cannot have escaped anyone�s attention is the wonderfully dark quality of the films. How much this is the director of photography interpreting what Peter Jackson wants could be open to debate, but I have read other people (who have seen other Peter Jackson films) commenting that this is completely in character for the man.

It would seem from watching all the documentaries attached to the EE DVD that Peter Jackson had a vision for the film, and a firm handle on how he wanted it to look. He was able to communicate this to the hundreds of people who brought Tolkien�s classic to the screen. The camera shots alone, some of Peter�s more challenging sweeping linking shots, pushed back the boundaries of what was possible.

We must also not forget that one scene in The Fellowship which was a break through sequence for film. The battle in Moria, between the hero's and the Orcs aided by the cave troll, was filmed in a way that has never been seen before in the history of cinema. It was done �live time� in a computer, with an animated Jackson acting out a participant-eye view with a computerised camera. If you haven't seen the documentary you should seek it out; it is something to see how �alive� Jackson becomes holding what is effectively a block of wood!

The end result is quite stunning. It looks and feels as if you are there, the camera is your eyes.

Another example of Peter Jackson responding animatedly to the opportunity someone else presents him with is the breaking stairway, also in Moria, on the way to the bridge.

All the script says is that the Fellowship goes down the stairs on its way to the bridge. But when Jackson saw the sketch conceptual artist Alan Lees drew, he was struck by it. He had a miniature made and took great pleasure in climbing through it, with a trusty �pen camera�, trying to get exciting shots.

What we got as a result was the staircase disintegrating and the fellowship having to jump over the chasm, whilst under attack from sniping orcs with arrows. Just as the fellowship get across, the whole staircase breaks up. And as Peter Jackson likes to point out, the script to this day just says that �the fellowship run down the stairs on their way to the bridge�.

This would suggest to me that Peter Jackson is a visualist. When an idea occurs to him, he is enthused with the possibilities. He doesn't let a simple comment like �but we don't know how to do that� bother him! Oh no. When he wants to do it, it's your job to work out how it can be done.

As a result of all this his work can take on a breath-taking quality. Sometimes this can be further enhanced by his simple scenes, which stand in contrast to what I have so far covered.

The one shot of Aragorn and Arwen in the gardens of Rivendel is almost dreamlike in its beauty. We are also treated in the EE to an equally beautiful scene at Rivendel, where Aragorn cleans the debris of time off of the white statue of his mother.

It's these quiet scenes that break up the rollercoaster of scenes like the one where the �avian spies� of Saruman, as we follow them swirling banking and turning through the mechanical underbelly of Isengard, return to tell him what they have seen of the Fellowship.

I believe that this movie epic (The Lord of the Rings) is proof ample that Peter Jackson is a genius. It is a montage of differing sometimes clashing techniques that blend together to show you Jackson's own style. If you can't see it or if you think he is merely emulating bits from other directors then I feel sorry for you, for yours is a world where joy is banished for head -headedness.

I sometimes wonder if two people watching the same thing see it the same way. How can they come out with opposing views? I find myself thinking, how could they have not seen the beauty? How could they not see Peter Jackson�s brilliance? How could they not see that Jackson is a film genius?

How other films could beat Peter Jackson�s Trilogy to the Oscars will always puzzle me. People! They can be very strange sometimes....