PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS

TO BAG END: A PERSONAL REFLECTION

To Bag End completed, or at least until I find reason to continue to refine it!

 By: Russell R Cera

  Nearly a decade ago, I began to illustrate the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.  I had just seen Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring in theaters and was in the midst of reading the first book of The Lord of the Rings. I was hooked. The subject was the first to intrigue me enough to dedicate my artistic endeavors exclusively to.  Up until then, my portfolio lacked examples of my interest or ability in fine art, with most of my work coming by way of employment or contracted pieces for commercial purposes.

  Something just clicked. I recall on my lunch break at work, beginning a small drawing of Gollum, which later turned into a full size graphite piece.  Looking back, the image wasn't one of my personal favorites, however it was the catalyst for several more concept sketches of scenes I imagined directly from the novel.

  It seemed in the following years, while completing the books and witnessing two more masterpiece films, my thirst for Tolkien's work kept getting stronger.  In that time I would go on to complete two major color art pieces. The first, Back To The Shadow, is a depiction of Gandalf facing off with the Balrog. Next came There and Back Again, a collage of the events from The Hobbit.  These pieces took immeasurable time and patience to complete, especially the latter of which I must have spent every free moment working on.

 Naturally, I couldn't help but try to market my ability in this new-found obsession. I contacted Tolkien Enterprises in hopes I might be able to create and sell one time pieces to would be enthusiasts. All the while I hoped to garnish a name for myself with the online Tolkien community, most notably theonering.net, aspiring eventually, to bring my craft to calenders or future publications.

  I also had the distinct pleasure of confiding in John Howe, renowned Tolkien artist and co-conceptual illustrator for Peter Jackson's films.  His incomparable style, especially for concept pencil work was exactly what I aspired to. After attempting direct contact he graciously accepted. His words of encouragement as well as compliments for my work was and still remains one of the highest points of taking on the subject matter as a whole.  A very nice moment came, when John complimented a concept piece I created of Smaug the Dragon, while in the very early moments of his involvement on the film adaptation of The Hobbit.

   However, I began to realize my love rested with the method of conceptual art over finishing full color works.  I would get lost in imagining how a particular piece of the text would look, translating it to my own vision on paper. The process was liberating, with all the creative energy going to conceiving or translating ideas over the tedious effects of rendering. The concepts were coming fast and furious and before long, I was surrounded by pieces of artwork that were unfinished or had no schedule for completion.

   Still, I knew that a portfolio of unfinished concept art for a subject that already had it's fine art masters, had been translated to three major motion pictures and who's hysteria was beginning to quell was not taking me where I wanted to go.  Shortly thereafter, I began my third full color piece. I chose from a slew of other ideas, knowing that it would be difficult to find success in illustrating Tolkien unless I dedicated myself to finishing the concepts I began into fine art pieces.

   The sketch I chose was called "To Bag End" a depiction of the Dwarf brothers Fili and Kili arriving at Bag End early in The Hobbit.  I enjoyed the idea that this was a quiet moment that had never been depicted before, rather than some major set piece or battle. It also provided an opportunity to recreate a lavish landscape in color.

Image at top shows progress of To Bag End by 2005.

Below image shows entire progress up until Summer

of 2011. 

  The imagery provided at left shows "To Bag End" in progress, from it's earliest color stages beginning in 2002 with the giant tree and Bag End's indicative round green door.  My intent was to utilize very saturated colors and detail, but in doing so, progress was incredibly slow.

  Over the course of another year, I danced around from one section to another as I had very little patience over long periods of time, concentrating then on Kili, the first of my two dwarfs.

 All the while I was sadly beginning to loose interest in my original intent, with the piece growing so tedious to me that I was not enjoying myself like I should have been. I moved on to other images and subject matter, and so "To Bag End" began to sit idle.

   Life was taking different directions as well, with the birth of my two children during this time, a relocation and new job, my focus and interests were admittedly going to more important things than finishing "To Bag End".

   In total, the piece lied dormant for nearly five full years, sitting inside of a folder with it's progression halted with only a third of the canvas completed. I consigned myself to the fact that "To Bag End" would never be finished and so I started to use it in it's partial state as an example of a work in progress. Although, I wasn't making any progress.

  Fast forward all the way to 2011. I suddenly began to take an interest in finishing "To Bag End" again.

  Quite simply the reason was this.  I found myself embroiled in other unfinished works and projects that had great potential if only they could be completed.  The pattern was repeating itself and so I needed to break myself of the habit for losing energy when something more intriguing came along.

This photo shows progress of To Bag End by mid September

2011. You can see just how much more work was necessary and 

how little I had accomplished from where I left off.

  Down time from collaborative projects provided a window for me to finally fish what I started with "To Bag End".  I made it my mandate that the piece would serve as an example to myself that I could in fact, finish what I started. From there, I would apply the same dedication to all of my other creative endeavors going forward.

   In May of 2011, I began again to move on to uncharted territory and develop the untouched areas of "To Bag End".  I laid out the background landscape and  rendered the road using Prismacolor pencil and acrylic paint.  Progress continued at a steady pace now, with the Dwarfs taking shape, reaching the far right corner of the piece by September.  Soon after, the sky was nearly completed and I had laid out the final details of the landscape background.

  My method for completion was to dedicate at least three days a week to doing an hour or more of intensive rendering, with a target finish date set for end of 2011. November 16th of that year, I placed the finishing touches on a piece long in the making.  I sat back and took a deep breath. It was finally over!  Completing "To Bage End" was truly the end of a long journey to who's destination I thought I would never reach.  Quite possibly with the coming of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, I may find renewed interest in illustrating the subject and marketing the pieces for future publication.  Either way, I know now that all of my personal and collaborative works can and will eventually be completed.  It only takes time, continued effort and a lot more patience than I am used to having!

CREATING A VILLAIN WE LOVE TO HATE

How do you create a villain we all "love to hate"?

Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter that's how!

His performance still haunts us to this day.

  By: Russell Cera

  Undoubtedly, we've all heard the phrase over and over. "Now that is a villain I love to hate!"

  It truly is a strange anomaly isn't it?  - How in experiencing film and literature, the human psyche often surrenders it's natural convictions about causing chaos, mental or physical harm, and ultimately death and destruction, when carried out by an engaging or charismatic villain or villainess. This is usually due to a ponderous quality we all possess - an instinctual morbid interest in "doing the wrong thing" or the desire to acquire power and influence over others to evoke an emotional response. Thankfully, these  inert traits are usually benign in most of us and often aided by the natural disconnect from reality that entertainment is intended to provide.

 Then what would make us "love to hate" a villain or even maybe "love to love" one? Some antagonists in film and literature are so terribly loathsome and bereft of empathy that our only desire is to see them suffer the most awful end by the hands of our hero, where others are charismatic, convincing, or just plain look so cool in their bad guy attire, we can't help but wonder what it's like to be them or see things from their perspective. Still others possess motives that are caused by personal tragedy, neglect or abandonment - likely reasoning for having a chip on one's shoulder, and so these things become instantly identified as a means of justifiable vengeance. Then there are those that travel the route to transcendence, proving that anyone, no matter how bad they may be, can become good and whole again.

  Anyway you slice it, the truly wise storyteller develops an antagonist that is equally important to their tale as the hero is, albeit through ulterior design. To put it plainly, creating a villain we "love to hate" is just good business. The Bad Guys (or Girls) will often sell books, movie tickets and merchandise from t-shirts, to toys, to collector memorabilia and costumes all on their own without the aid of their goodie two shoe adversaries. From Darth Vader to Hannibal Lecter to Dracula, the examples go on and on how villains can go beyond their otherwise disdainful trappings to become iconic figures that remain with us for all time.

  So let's delve a little further, dissecting several types of wrongdoers one might encounter to see which of them, above all the rest, qualify for a villain we "love to hate".

Who can forget the Exorcist?

One of our greatest supernatural fears - possession.

Pure evil is in no way "lovable"!

 The first type we will discuss is the malevolent villain, or an embodiment or disembodiment of omnipotent evil.  Some examples of these would be the Devil, a demon, superior alien invaders or another form of paranormal intelligent terror that we have very little to no ability to alter it's purpose. There are of course plenty of books and films who's villains are denizens from other dimensions or planets. For many, the fear that these beings evoke is real and can be incomprehensible, especially to those of us who are heavily rooted in faith, legend or superstition.  Rarely does a villain of this type become one we "love to hate" because it is nearly impossible to connect with them on any basic human level.  They are beyond our scope of comprehension and fall so far outside the "rules" of morality that their motivation simply paralyzes us.  True, that some villains of this category can be "caricatured" to the point of iconic adoration. One for example - Freddy Krueger of the Nightmare On Elm Street series, is an evil entity from another dimension with complete enmity for humanity.  Yet what makes him different over other examples of his sort, is that he was in fact human prior to his present state, thereby making the natural connection we need to formulate to identify with him on a personal level.

Jaws - A prime example of a creature doing what it does

naturally, being demonized by humans that get in the way.

  Another villain type coincides with the first, but deserves a category all to themselves.  These are animals or creatures either earthbound or possibly not, possessing non human intelligence nor malevolence to our species as a whole.  For the sake of this article I will call this a benevolent villain, not friendly by our standards, but at the same time having no concentrated malcontent for humans. In other words, they do what they do because it is in their nature to do so.  Often however for dramatic purpose, fiction creates the villain from what is natural, exaggerating the ferocity and will of the animal to coincide with our human motives or capabilities.  A great example of this is of course Jaws, or the shark and those that followed it in sequel after sequel.  A shark is not an evil creature nor does it have the capacity for human intellect or emotion.  Therefore it doesn't attack people because it has the desire to do so.  Yet it invokes a primal fear in us... after all, who wants to go out by being eaten? So in essence, from our standpoint it becomes a likely villain in both literature and film.  Possibly the worst effect a successful movie like Jaws can create is for the animal itself in reality, as the real bad guy - the human, makes it their mandate to hunt them for pleasure or convenience.  Unlike Jaws, one such villain that bucks the benevolent trend is King Kong. Although he isn't truly a villain at all to the audience, he becomes an adversary to the human characters he encounters in the film.  Since Kong is in fact an over sized gorilla who's real world counterparts are primates, their ability to emote and feel much the same as people do delivers the endearing quality that makes a creature identifiable.

  The prior are two examples of villain types that, although memorable and effective, rarely become an example of why we "love to hate" the bad guys.  Now let us look at some formulas that actually do fit the bill. We will note once again, that the human factor is the overwhelming determination in creating a memorable and "lovable" villain.

The late Heath Ledger's Joker made us

all consider his reasoning by way of  an

unforgettable performance.

  Let us discuss what I like to call the valid cause villain. This is the bad guy who, that regardless of how maniacal or deranged, has a practical opinion about a situation, society or a system as a whole, along with a plan to change it to his or her liking.  Heath Ledger's interpretation of The Joker in The Dark Knight is a perfect example of the valid cause villain - terribly disturbed, and yet his philosophy for chaos over order is not only conceivable but also reasonable in a way.  In other words, there are several moments where, through the character's dialogue we sit back and say, "yeah I get where he is coming from!"  This is an incredibly powerful tool in connecting an audience with a villain.  If you can make an entirely sane person contemplate that there is a believable motive for evil, regardless of how wrong it is, suddenly you've made an indelible human connection.  Often with these villain types however, their motive is so resolute that there is absolutely no chance for rehabilitation or redemption, so the only way to deal with them is to terminate them or lock them up for good... hopefully!

Tim Curry's Lord of Darkness - yes a malevolant

villain but tragic as well.  After all he was in love.

   A related type of antagonist to the prior is the emotionally compromised or tragic villain.  In very much the same way, the tragic villain has a justifiable vendetta, but his or her anger is fueled by a loss of love.  Of all the categories we could use to identify a character, both bad or good, love is the strongest human emotion and therefore can be the cause for our greatest and worst achievements.  We've all suffered loss, and some of us have had the misfortune of that loss coming by way of suicide or murder.  It is an unbearable pain that brings out the most primal urges.  Audiences will, regardless of whether they agree with a villain's methods, always connect with a character who has turned to a dark side due to the loss of a loved one by way of unnatural death.  Bram Stoker's Dracula became one of the most notorious fictional villains; due to the mistaken suicide of his bride, he relinquished his natural life to become our most adored vampire.  Yes people, Dracula did it for love.  In this way, we can naturally relate to him, seeing that his his actions are purely inspired by loss and a resolute desire to reclaim the love that was once his.

Darth Vader - unanimously everyone's favorite film villain. 

You have to admit though, he is sort of a big softie!

  Finally we come to our last and most popular villain category - the redeemable villain.  This is one that audiences unanimously "love to hate", or possibly even "love to love" by performance's end!  That is because no matter how terrible this character is throughout the breadth of the story, a turning point makes them see things from a different side, finally relinquishing their evil ways to reformation.  Why is this so identifiable?  All of us inertly want to believe that we all get a second chance in life; an opportunity to right the wrongs and find inner peace.  Most come nowhere close to committing evil deeds in our lives and so our misguidance is microcosmic in scope compared to say, a fictional villain.  However in film and literature, knowledge that forgiveness and acceptance can come to those who have paid a great price for their deeds makes a redeemable villain identifiable.  Darth Vader of course, one of film's greatest villains is a transcendent character.  By the finale of Return Of the Jedi, we have totally forgiven him for his downfall to evil as he makes a conscious decision to relinquish his position and destroy the Emperor himself.  Why does he do this?  Love of course!  Love for his son Luke, who he witnesses being tortured to near death.  Hence we come to realize that a redeemable villain can be entirely complex and enjoyable, with motives and reasoning that are affected by rational emotion over unbridled evil.

  Okay, so we've covered several types of villains in film and literature and attempted to understand what makes one worthy to "love to hate".  We can all agree that no matter what formula an antagonist might naturally fall into, the greatest of them may possess several traits or motives all in one.  A tragic villain will often become a redeemable one, and more than likely the same character may have a valid cause for it's treachery!  We have identified however, that the villains we unanimously connect with are the ones that emote to us on a human level or make an audience understand what it may be like to see things from their side.  

  Forget not, that regardless of formulas or types that articles like this discuss, the actor or writer creates the villain character with dialogue, vision or interpretation, making the performance the factor above all other things that makes us "love to hate" them!  You also have to admit, regardless of their deeds, a lot of them just look damn cool or come wrapped up in pretty awesome costumes!

  Which villain do you "love to hate" above all the rest?

DECISIONS, DECISIONS

by Russell R Cera

Challenge...

  What do you do when your cast consists of a furry footed hobbit, an old grey wizard and thirteen stout thick bearded dwarves? Then throw in a gangly creature with big eyes, a fire breathing dragon, orcs, trolls and what else have you. With rare appearances by female characters and no swashbuckling, easy on the eyes hero to carry the film, suddenly, you have the makeup for a J.R.R. Tolkien classic - The Hobbit. 

  So the challenge becomes this - How do you make an audience identify with individual characters in a monster cast that demands equal screen time for more than a dozen faces?  A novel can do this more effectively as it is not held to a particular time frame (albeit, Peter Jackson stretches the boundary of running time better than anyone). Even more importantly, in modern day franchise building Hollywood, what do you do when each one of them, just by script alone, doesn't require an attractive appearance that will lure a particular demographic to theaters?

   The answer to that is, you make one from out of nowhere.

  Strangely enough, Peter Jackson and team didn't have the same issue in The Lord of the Rings, or if they did, they solved it by casting.  Aragorn, played by Viggo Mortensen and Legolas by Orlando Bloom (who has a very short cameo in The Hobbit), became instant heartthrobs, ticket sales soared and their individual careers skyrocketed.   Even smaller parts in Tolkien's texts provided enough material to construct major roles for Liv Tyler's Arwen and Miranda Otto's Eowyn, both of which are exceptionally appealing in their own right.  Yet even Tolkien buffs admit, that as wonderful as the films are, there were plenty of  decisons made that compromised the text and were delivered to appeal directly to a wider movie going public that doesn't sit well through three hour epics.

   Move now to 2011.  The Hobbit is currently in progress, and photos of the entire Dwarf cast have been released to a hungry fan base.  While each of the thirteen are decked out and designed with individual flare, from costume to hair design, there is at least one very glaring decision in casting that seems ponderous in regards to the source material.  Pictured above are Fili (Dean O' Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner), brothers and the youngest of the Dwarf clan set out to recapture their treasure from an iniquitous dragon.  Of physical note in Tolkien's The Hobbit, both Fili and Kili wear blue cloaks (not pictured?) and have yellow beards.

  Wait... yellow beards... did Kili dye it out before the quest?

Fili is said to have the largest nose of the thirteen, which seems accurate, and at very least he has retained his golden locks. Yet gone also are the dwarven features, more so with Turner's Kili, who looks more like a miniature human brother to Aragorn than a dwarf on his best day.  His frame is slender and his look brooding; one can hardly imagine this guy plays a fiddle.  It might even be more conceivable that he pulls out an electric guitar and wails out.  To put it plainly, if one were to play "Which Dwarf doesn't fit?" - the answer would be as plain as the nose on Fili's face.

  It truly is frustrating - today's age of the Hollywood Blockbuster (which inevitably changes it's title to franchise as soon as it rakes in two times the expenses or more) when the rethinking of a character's overall look, costume or gear is done so to suit a franchise's needs over faithful representation.  This is not to besmirch in any way Mr. Turner, who will more than likely bring his talents to the role and do a wonderful job.  However, the dark haired good looking, shortly cropped bearded man is such a departure that it seems almost unnecessary.  Would he not suit the role if in fact he had to dye that beard and hair to play Kili?

  Surely this is entirely a "Hollywood" decision.  Someone, somewhere in the ranks called that in a host of thirteen dwarves, at least one of them had to appeal in a physical way to a female demographic.  Set aside the idea that he might reach up to at best most women's breasts.

  Now this isn't to say that Turner's Kili will turn audiences away due to his lack of physical authenticity, but will surely piss off even the most casual of Tolkien fans, whose voices are heard clearly through channels like this and other social media.  Most movie goers won't know there is need for any criticism, as most will be bedazzled by incredible creatures and effects from one end of the screen to the other.

  So, in the end of this particular rant, will changes like this make or break The Hobbit as a film and eventual franchise?  Probably not.  However, it does make at least this fan scratch his head, wondering about all the other ponderous decisions movie makers cook up to sell tickets.  In the case of The Hobbit, it seems a travesty that film can trump it's source material from which it's own success rides upon in a manner that is purely fashionable and most definitely financial.