Yes, it's true. Return of the King may have won more of the Oscars as theculmination of Peter Jackson's magnificent cinematic achievement, buthistory will in fact adjudge "The Two Towers" as the greatest of the threeRings. If Fellowship was a road movie and ROTK was a friendship film, thenTwo Towers is an unadulterated war movie of heroic proportions. PeterJackson said he based it on "Zulu"- and we can see why. It has a dramaticintensity and flow which none of the other films quite share. Good againstevil are so sharply contrasted that you could cut your fingers on them. TTTalso has the best score Howard Shore has produced. And it has the bestdialogue.
The screenplay explains (with barely disguised contemporary resonance) whatwe are protecting in Western civilisation when we defend ourselves againstthose who would wish to destroy it. When Sam tells Frodo that there are"some things worth fighting for", when Merry tells Pippin that there "won'tbe a Shire" unless they do something about it, when King Theoden lamentsthat "the sun has gone down in the West" this film could be entitled not the"Two Towers" but "the Twin Towers". It is Miltonic in its scope. It iscinema as art.
Yes, one may quibble about certain Entish details, and I know that the Elvesweren't supposed to be at Helm's Deem, and that Faramir is a littleundeveloped, but does this matter? Not at all. The Extended version isbetter than the original, but does not need to make such a quantum leap asFellowship managed with its EE. However it will be a film that is seen as alandmark in cinema. A trilogy which may never be bettered. And a reminder ofwhat we are all here for
The Two Towers. J.R.R. Tolkien's second part of his master piece of The Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers. Wallpaper and background images in the J.R.R. Tolkien club tagged: j.r.r. tolkien book cover the two towers john ronald reuel.
Naturally, the tower of Orthanc (as the seat of Saruman) and the Dark Tower of Barad-dûr (for the Dark Lord), seem appropriate as the eponymous Two Towers. There is no specific reason why these shouldn’t be the ones referred to in the book – and the argument may well be considered closed.