-1

I look at the elves in Jackson's movies and how they (almost) all look alike and move synchroneously, e.g., here or here... and my first association is a North Korean parade. Or a Nazi Reichsparteitag.

I don't think the aesthetics of elvish battle formations were ever addressed in the books. Then again, this kind of precision drill does not seem to jibe with Tolkien's portrayal of elves as nature-loving semi-hippies.

Of course, this is not confined to elves. In the Hobbit movies, the dwarves move just the same: in formation, and excruciatingly so.

Has Jackson ever commented on why his battles look like a North Korean parade?


EDIT: Wow, four (net) downvotes and one answer that is well on its way to a reversal badge. So far.

Let me (try to) clarify.

Yes, I do know about phalanxes. In fact, my main pain point about 300 (the movie) was that Leonidas denies Ephialtes a place in the Spartan lines for the entirely correct reason that as a cripple, he would not be able to hold his place in a phalanx... but later the film veers off into the most un-phalanx-like fighting possible, with warriors breaking ranks and fighting single-person actions against what seems to be the entire Persian army. There was almost zero phalanx-type fighting in 300, apart from a few testudo formations (which one can classify as "phalanx-like", even if the Roman legion was really far removed from a Greek phalanx).

All well and good.

However, I have read LoTR a couple of times, along with the Hobbit and the Silmarillion. And I cannot recall an instance where Tolkien implies that anyone in the realms of Middle-Earth fights phalanx-style. He was certainly familiar with the style, as the product of a classical education, but his works of course show far more influences of old Nordic sagas (note his work on Beowulf, or the way he lifted the names of Thorin's company verbatim from the Völuspá, e.g. stanza 11 of the Codex Regius version). And pretty much nobody in the sagas fought a "real" phalanx style (although the Anglo-Saxon formation at Hastings came close).

Instead, the sagas glorified single combat and glorious charges. If anything, the charge of the Rohirrim in the movie was far more in keeping with what Tolkien was familiar with. Along with Théoden's speech, which is quite in keeping with saga-style pre-battle speeches in both content and form. Tolkien was fascinated with the Kalevala, Lönnrot's attempt to collect orally-transmitted folk tales to synthesize a national epic of Finland, and to my recollection (sorry, again no source) at least toyed with the thought of writing LoTR as an analogue for England. Under these circumstances, it simply does not make sense for him to have his elves fight in a style that was used a thousand years before the sagas.

In addition, one far more painful gripe with the LoTR movies (which, admittedly, I did not spell out in my original question) is the way that hundreds, nay thousands of warriors in a kind-of-medieval setting have what looks like identical armor. I understand mass produced identical uniforms in early modern warfare, or in 20th century German SA troopers. (Especially ones selected for filming in propaganda movies.) I find it less in keeping with Tolkien to watch essentially uniformed elves. Especially since mass-producing cloth uniforms for an 18th century army is, of course, far easier than mass-producing metal armor and helmets. Armor can't just be tailored and stitched together. Each suit of armor represents a major investment of time and effort.

On the contrary, I found the scene in The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) entirely in character where Saruman's preparations for war are shown, along with industrial-style production of actual heaps of apparently quickly produced helmets for his troops.

Tolkien's views on industrial production of identical products were rather... negative. See The Scouring of the Shire (the book). One could philosophize about how his experiences in World War I trenches and WWI-style industrialized killing shaped his views of industry, or how World War II and the Nazi atrocities that came to light and were judged pretty much while he was writing LoTR combined to make Jackson's aesthetics jarring to me. Yes, Tolkien explicitly repudiated a facile allegorical reading of his work, where one could instinctively and facilely see orcs and Mordor as "obvious" allegories of the Nazis and their horrors - but then again, I don't think Tolkien had elves in mind that moved with the precision and drill of the Leibstandarte.

Finally, I do understand that CGI producing masses of identically moving clones is easier than hand-crafting every single one, or even filming many actors. What I am looking for is not a technical explanation ("it was easier/cheaper"), but an artistic one.

Did Jackson anywhere, in an interview or some such, address the question of why his battle formations look and move like a modern industrial army (or, if you want, like a phalanx with anachronistically precisely manufactured metal equipment) from an artistic standpoint?

Stephan Kolassa
  • 253
  • 1
  • 7
  • 5
    because it's a lot easier to copy/paste animations than to animate every single model in a giant army scene – phantom42 Oct 21 '15 at 16:29
  • 3
    The point about animations is a good one, but this is also not unique to the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies. 300 has similar scenes, I imagine Gladiator and other movies about Romans do too. That's simply how you fight, and perfectly mirrored movements is the easiest way to get across the point that this is an incredibly efficient and well trained fighting force, not some ragtag group thrown together. – Anthony Grist Oct 21 '15 at 16:33
  • 4
    @phantom42 IIRC, that movie used some fancy new software that did animate every single model instead of just copying and pasting. – Kevin Oct 21 '15 at 16:34
  • @AnthonyGrist "Simply how you fight..." You might want to read up on guerilla warfare. – Lexible Oct 21 '15 at 16:50
  • 18
    You have it backwards. North Korean and Nazi Parades are imitating the formations of ancient, pole-armed armies to look cool. – Oldcat Oct 21 '15 at 17:32
  • 1
    @Kevin - yes, I believe it was called Massive – The Fallen Oct 21 '15 at 17:37
  • 5
    Downvote from me. This question not only shows ZERO research or understanding of historical warfare, but it also needs some serious cleaning up. Google "army formations" or anything similar, and you'll find a near-limitless number of explanations for why armies do this. – Omegacron Oct 21 '15 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Lexible Incomplete, and as a result poorly worded, sentence on my part in an attempt to keep the length of my comment down. Guerilla warfare is an alternative to the kinds of battles depicted in Lord of the Rings - two large armies facing off against each other - not a winning strategy for one. – Anthony Grist Oct 21 '15 at 19:30
  • 2
    @Kevin Yes, Massive was created specifically for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies. In fact, the creator received an Academy Award for it. It's now been used in a number of hit movies where autonomous crowds need to be generated. A single license costs around $12,000, last I checked. – TylerH Oct 21 '15 at 19:33
  • ... semi-hippies??! – Harry Johnston Oct 21 '15 at 20:09
  • 1
    @Omegacron: I have attempted to rectify the deficiencies in research and displayed knowledge of historical warfare, and to place my question in the context of Tolkien's known thoughts on 20th century warfare. – Stephan Kolassa Oct 21 '15 at 21:04
  • 2
    @StephanKolassa - it's a step in the right direction, so I'll take my downvote back since you're at least trying. However, I feel the question still needs cleaning up - the current version comes across as a rant followed by several edits & comparisons to other movies. I would instead compose the question to ask what historical armies/formations/battles were the influence behind Jackson's choices in the LoTR movies, and what evidence (if any) exists in the books to support those choices. That would probably get you some much better answers. – Omegacron Oct 21 '15 at 21:13
  • 1
    @Omegacron: thank you. That makes sense. I'll try to improve the question along the lines you suggest tomorrow. (It's a bit late here now.) Sorry for writing what you perceive as a rant. – Stephan Kolassa Oct 21 '15 at 21:20
  • 1
    @StephanKolassa - no worries, I think those of us with the higher reps should go out of our way to help newer users become better posters. Better questions & better answers equals a better site for everyone. – Omegacron Oct 21 '15 at 21:23
  • 1
    It is probably too late now, but it would have been very reasonable to add the question if this aspect of the films is faithful to Tolkien’s intentions. – PJTraill Feb 15 '16 at 14:35
  • There's this little issue with your point about Nazi crimes: the atrocities weren't really known when he started writing The Lord of the Rings (since they hadn't happened?). He started shortly after publishing The Hobbit (1937). And the full extent of the crimes of the Nazis wasn't known until many years later but he had made a lot of progress by that point in the plot. The Wannseekonferenz wasn't until 20 January 1942 (although the Einsatzgruppen already done a lot). I can't recall how far along he was at this point but an allegory theory isn't very sound for this reason alone. – Pryftan Dec 21 '17 at 17:47
  • I realise you're only using it to try to explain your question more but I feel the need to point that out anyway. But given the fact this was an idiotic idea of the film - seeing as how Lothlórien was under attack too! - I think any talk about Tolkien is irrelevant anyway. Put another way the problem is the film alone. I don't think however that you can easily say the formations are wrong/bad: the Nazis were about showing a display of power/force and put on many impressive displays of power for propaganda and other reasons. – Pryftan Dec 21 '17 at 17:54
  • @Pryftan: there may be a Ph.D. thesis somewhere in the question about Tolkien's attitude about the Nazis at the time he wrote the Hobbit. However, the sheer barbarity of the Nazis was almost certainly evident to Tolkien by 1937, even if their worst atrocities were to come. Hitler had already detailed his visions in Mein Kampf. And, more to the point for a sincere Catholic as Tolkien, Pope Pius XI issued Mit brennender Sorge in 1937. ... – Stephan Kolassa Dec 22 '17 at 23:36
  • ... Anything that smacked of Reichsparteitage must have been utter anathema (and I use this exact word advisedly) to the author of "The Scouring of the Shire". – Stephan Kolassa Dec 22 '17 at 23:36
  • @StephanKolassa While I can't argue that I still think it entirely unfair to suggest allegory. And he did write somewhere what it would be like if it was based on the Second World War (either in the foreword of the second edition or one of the Letters: perhaps a letter that is also in the second edition of The Silmarillion): and it wasn't written that way. Which sort of was my point. That of course and that the Holocaust hadn't happened and even Kristallnacht hadn't happened yet. I doubt also that Tolkien read Mein Kampf although he made clear how much he loathed Hitler (DURING the war). – Pryftan Dec 22 '17 at 23:42
  • @StephanKolassa And none of what you say refutes my other points. If however you know of a thesis he wrote I would be utterly fascinated to read it. Are you suggesting you know of one or that maybe he wrote one? The only references to Hitler and the Nazis that I am aware of are those in the letters. – Pryftan Dec 22 '17 at 23:47

3 Answers3

15

When you fight with spears, swords, and shields, keeping in formation is vital for survival, not to mention victory. In a formation, each soldier protects himself and the guy next to him with his shield, creating a "wall".

When the Greeks invented the phalanx, they gained a huge advantage over armies, which did not keep in formation. And when two phalanxes came together in battle, it was the one that broke first that would lose. Typically the losing side would suffer huge casualties. So the ability to march in unison keeping the wall of shields intact was paramount.

Dima
  • 14,544
  • 3
  • 48
  • 70
  • That is quite correct. Thank you. However, this does not address the utterly uniformed appearance of the elves, e.g., during Haldir's entrance to Helm's Deep linked above, nor their lockstep parade ground drill in the same scene. I have attempted to clarify my issues with the "NK elves" in editing my questions. Would you be interested in addressing my expanded rationale for finding the movies jarring in this respect? – Stephan Kolassa Oct 21 '15 at 21:07
7

There are multiple reasons that the elven and dwarven armies are portrayed that way, both 'in-universe' and 'out-of-universe'.

First off, 'nature-loving hippies' doesn't entirely describe the elves as they had multiple kingdoms, and have fought in large scale battles (Example, the very first battle scene it shows the elven army attacking in formation and in full armor). In the other books there are tales of the battles the elves have fought, such as the battle of unnumbered tears. So the elves have been fighters for millennia, and have picked up a few things in their battles.

As Dima mentioned, a formation is key to fighting, especially when against large hordes like the orcs.

Out of universe, it was simpler to animate a group if they move in formation. In the commentary for the Two Towers, it was mentioned how individuals in the armies were repeated several times in the animations. It's just easier/faster to repeat than it is to make them unique (even with using something that procedurally generates people). [citation needed, but at work and can't do that]

In real life , we see groups marching in precision all over the world. Go to any parade, and you'll see the marching bands moving in unison. It makes them look 'crisper' and 'cleaner' and shows that they are of one mind moving together. This is something that has been going on since the bronze age, as again Dima mentioned with Phalanx and Legionnaires.

In summary, elves aren't hippies, it's easier to animate, large groups moving in unison looks better.

CBredlow
  • 19,780
  • 2
  • 63
  • 130
  • 3
    Not to mention, in universe, their discipline in order was probably one of many ways to convey the grandeur of ages past versus the general disarray that the Kingdoms of men were experiencing in the movies. e.g. "We're elves; our kingdoms are unbroken, our splendor unmarred." – TylerH Oct 21 '15 at 19:38
  • 2
    I suspect that, once mastered (at school I always had problems when required to march), the synchronisation is also a considerable help to those moving, especially when tired or afraid. – PJTraill Feb 15 '16 at 14:38
4

Dima's answer covers why marching in formation and moving in unison is important in battle. I think this explains the Elves behaviour in the scene in the question's first link.

The second link is to the arrival of the Elves at Helm's Deep (a scene that didn't happen in the book). The battle hasn't started yet, so why are the Elves marching in formation? I assume they are marching that way for the same reason that military units march in our world (especially in earlier years).

During training they do drills, practice marching and acting in unison so that they will be able to do the same in battle. Even after training is complete, troops traditionally march in unison, partly to reinforce their training, and partly to show off their skill and discipline to those who may see it. In this scene, it appears that Peter Jackson wants us to appreciate their skill and discipline.

Blackwood
  • 21,137
  • 7
  • 102
  • 106