LOTR Costumery, Etc.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Los Angeles Daily News

'Lord of the Rings confounded, inspired by daunting task
'Rings' costumes were Tolkien-esque effort

By Phillip Zonkel
Staff Writer

Saturday, February 28, 2004 -

Costume designer Ngila Dickson found that the real adventure of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was working behind the scenes.

She gave Frodo his frock, Gimli his garb and the elves their elegance, but Dickson says it was a Tolkien-esque task to design the weathered, hooded cloaks for the ringwraiths.

"The ringwraith design task gave me a mental breakdown," said Dickson, 47, who along with Richard Taylor was nominated for an Oscar for her work on "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." "How do you create something which seems to be all motion and no body?"

The film also garnered 10 additional nominations: adapted screenplay, art direction, directing, film editing, makeup, score, song, picture, sound and visual effects. Dickson also was nominated for "The Last Samurai" and previously earned a nod for "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring."

Chief servants of the dark Lord Sauron, the ringwraiths, or Nazgul, were once nine great kings of men. Then Sauron gave them nine rings of power. Blinded by their greed, they fell under Sauron's will and became neither dead nor living.

Bringing these fierce foes to life was a challenge worthy of the fellowship, but Dickson and her team knew how to address the challenge. They started at the beginning.

"These were men and they were kings, so I retrospectively designed it," said Dickson. "In fact, there's a drawing somewhere of a king in a fully regal costume, and then I broke it down more and more and more into a ringwraith. There are vestiges of that original design as part of that costume."

"I agree with Ngila," said conceptual designer John Howe, 46, who made some of the original drawings of the ringwraiths. Howe's career also includes numerous drawings of the Nazgul for Tolkien calendars and book covers.

"The sort of de-evolution from a high king to a miserable servant and slave in the black land of Mordor is very good," he said. "It adds huge depth to the raiment. That comes across well.

"These things are tall, skeletal, creepy, ethereal creatures but have all these layers of cloth on them. It makes them much more substantial, not necessarily from a physical point of view, but from a historical point of view."

Dickson went under the robes for the epic effort.

"Costumes are built from the inside out," Dickson said. "We tried to find what was going to bring shape (to these creatures). We used all sorts of variations on humps and helmet pieces under the fabric to remove the sense of what a human shape is and to get the feeling that the head disappeared into the shoulders, which disappeared into the body."

In the end, they used latex humps.

The only way for Dickson and company to get lifelike movement out of a costume was to pile it with layers and layers of different silks.

"It goes from quite light layers to quite heavy woven (layers)," she said. "If the wind is blowing, one's going to be heavier, one will be lighter. Some will float away more than others.

"A ringwraith costume ended up being (164 feet) of fabric times 29 costumes that we made, and they weigh a ton.

"We had to dye a lot of them to get the color and then we put (regal) embroidery into them, which would make anybody laugh. You don't see it, but it's there. That was to hint at the residue of a king.

"Then it was down to shredding (the fabric) and (covering it in) the mud and the blood and all these elements you add to them so that you have the final look on screen of this draped, huge, maniacal costume."

Strapped outside those costumes, the ringwraiths carry swords fit for evil, desolate kings.

"It all comes down to trying to personify evil or wrongness in some physical manifestation, and keep it in the cultural bounds of Middle-earth," Howe said. "You only have a certain number of elements with which to work, but drawing them out to the very limits of darkness and evil.

"I had a lot of fun with the weapons. We wanted to design things that were incredibly long and spiky without looking like something from a fantasy-weapons catalog. Something very deadly."

In their pursuit of the Hobbits through Middle-earth, the Nazgul first pursue them on horseback. These hellish steeds, with glaring red eyes, are saddled with elaborate trappings and face masks covered in, among other things, barbed rings.

Alan Lee worked on the horse armor.

"We wanted the horses to feel as if they had been maddened, being driven all over the countryside by these ferocious creatures, and maltreated," he said.

"There were details like when you see the horses' foot stamping, you see those nails that have come up through the hoofs. Little ideas like that to make you feel sorry for the horses more than anything."

Those horses went to a watery grave in "Fellowship," but the ringwraiths resumed the chase in "The Two Towers" and more dramatically in "The Return of the King" on fell beasts, giant snarling creatures with 70-foot wing spans.

"The fell beasts are one of my favorite critters. They're so creepy," said Howe, who made the original conceptual drawings. "I've often seen them depicted as sort of featherless buzzards or great fluffy chickens. I had an instinctive take on how they should look. Tolkien's description is sufficiently vague so that there's a lot of leeway to do what you want.

"They have back legs similar to an eagle but 25 times bigger. A very long tail. They have wings that are like hands. But my favorite bit is the piece on the elbow that sticks down like a large spike. I've had so many flight experts tell me I couldn't do that because they wouldn't be able to fly. This is a movie. I think we can get away with it."

===============================

Submitted by Lotho

 

[rs691919]

Too bad they didn't put as much effort into writing a good screenplay.

 

[Starflower]

I went to the LOTR exhibition in the Science Museum in London and they had many of the original costumes on display. My absolute favourite was Galadriel's dress and cloak, the cloak was especially regal in its embroidery and decoration..I would have wanted to wear a cloak like that at my wedding, but for obvious reasons I had to forego that idea.. oh well, one can always dream.....

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Obviously Jackson was very much interested and invested a great deal of time, effort and money in the "visuals" of these films. Jackson was excellent in this part of the effort, working not only personally but being sure to get the right people to do what else needed to be done.

As the point has already been made, however, many of us would have preferred if he had put that much effort in being faithful to Tolkien in more important ways. Visuals are very important, but faithfulness to the author's meaning, vision and moral worldview was even more important. But, of course, one cannot fault the costume designers or the others who worked on the "visuals" for the failure of Jackson and his screenwriters. They did their job - and it shows!

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Obviously Jackson was very much interested and invested a great deal of time, effort and money in the "visuals" of these films. Jackson was excellent in this part of the effort, working not only personally but being sure to get the right people to do what else needed to be done.

As the point has already been made, however, many of us would have preferred if he had put that much effort in being faithful to Tolkien in more important ways. Visuals are very important, but faithfulness to the author's meaning, vision and moral worldview was even more important. But, of course, one cannot fault the costume designers or the others who worked on the "visuals" for the failure of Jackson and his screenwriters. They did their job - and it shows!

Faithful to jrrs story would have doomed it to failure and people wouldn't be interested enough to read the book. And a third failure in the medium of film would have cast serious doubt on the actual worth of the story.

Thank you PJ!!!

 

[rs691919]

Faithful to jrrs story would have doomed it to failure and people wouldn't be interested enough to read the book. And a third failure in the medium of film would have cast serious doubt on the actual worth of the story.

Why would faithfulness to the author's text doomed the movie to failure? After all, the book has been fairly widely read, if not critically acclaimed, in the fifty years since its serial publication.

And why would a "failed" (by that I assume you mean in terms of box-office success) film have cast doubt on the worth of the story?

Since you appear to admit that Jackson's movies are not faithful to the book, don't the movies then cast doubt on the worth of the story?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Why would faithfulness to the author's text doomed the movie to failure? After all, the book has been fairly widely read, if not critically acclaimed, in the fifty years since its serial publication.

And why would a "failed" (by that I assume you mean in terms of box-office success) film have cast doubt on the worth of the story?

Since you appear to admit that Jackson's movies are not faithful to the book, don't the movies then cast doubt on the worth of the story?

The constantly presented contention that faithfulness to the book would have doomed the films to diminished popularity is made absent any proof of that allegation. Simply because the films are successful is not "proof" that they would have been less so had Jackson been true to the book. In fact, any such contention represents nothing more than speculation by the persons making it.

The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty is that these films would have been more popular with many of the people who love the book if Jackson had been true to the book, but there is no way that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that they would have been less popular with the rest of the audience had that been the case.

Using the present popularity of these films to "prove" that Jackson was right to "do his own thing" rather than remaining faithful to the book is like using a basket to carry water - an exercise in futility.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Why would faithfulness to the author's text doomed the movie to failure? After all, the book has been fairly widely read, if not critically acclaimed, in the fifty years since its serial publication.

And why would a "failed" (by that I assume you mean in terms of box-office success) film have cast doubt on the worth of the story?

Since you appear to admit that Jackson's movies are not faithful to the book, don't the movies then cast doubt on the worth of the story?

Take a course in filmaking and it will become abundently clear.

 

[rs691919]

Take a course in filmaking and it will become abundently clear.

I'm a bit busy for that. I was hoping you could enlighten me. Perhaps it was too much to hope.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I'm a bit busy for that. I was hoping you could enlighten me. Perhaps it was too much to hope.

Actually I'm waiting to see how long it'll take you to tire of this same shtick that has been used around here like an old tire for three years. I give you another 40 posts or so....

 

[Uminya]

Foe-Hammer...You're annoying *shakes head and sighs*

*cough* I found the costumes to be exquisite. My favorites would have to be the Haradrim and the hobbits gear/clothing. Very accurate and detailed. There wasn't a poorly-garbed creature/actor in the entire trilogy of movies. Sauron's armour was also very good...very spooky and malicious-looking.