The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Review
by Ronald O. Christian (ronc AT europa DOT com)December 27th, 2001
The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blanchett Directed by Peter Jackson
Screenplay by Frances Walsh from the novel by J. R. R. Tolkien Score: 9 stars of 10
One film to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
"No longer will readers of Tolkien's novels be free to create their own images of the characters and places of Middle Earth. The film stifles the imagination of the reader, replacing it with the vision of the film's director."
Of all the laments from Tolkien print-fans (called elsewhere "Tolkienistas", a term I resist because it implies a higher degree of physical activity than I believe these fans are capable) the most curious is that no films should ever have been attempted of J. R. R. Tolkien's highly ambitious novel "The Lord of the Rings". The mere existence of the film detracts from the reader's experience, these print-fans lament.
Others lament that the film will now replace the novel entire; that people will stop reading the book now that they can merely rent the films, just as with The Wizard of Oz (1939). This flies in the face of a couple of observations: That Tolkien's novels are, right now, flying off the shelf at a higher rate than any time in history, and that in the case of Oz, there exists perhaps three versions of the film currently available, and over 40 versions of the novel still in print, 100 years after it was first published.
Published in the mid-fifties in three parts months apart, The Lord of the Rings is often, even by fans, considered a trilogy (or, more fanatically, THE trilogy) when it had always been intended by the author to be a single novel.
Arbitrarily broken up at chapter breaks by the publisher, the first novel is too long and ends abruptly, the last novel is too short, with a significant amount of the story hidden in the Appendices, and the middle novel begins abruptly and ends on a cliffhanger.
The story as a whole, I hasten to add, is cohesive and cunningly wrought, starting somewhat whimsically, gradually growing darker in tone, finally ending where it started, presenting the formally bucolic Shire in an entirely different light, through the eyes of characters who have grown a great deal in the meantime.
However, that the mismatched volumes of The Lord of the Rings are so ingrained in the public as "a trilogy" makes any film adaptation problematic; the public expects a trilogy of films, and (as has already been demonstrated) the story does not fit well into this format.
Director Peter Jackson and scriptwriter Frances Walsh (The Frighteners (1996), Heavenly Creatures (1994)), obligated to follow the three-part format imposed by a nameless publisher half a century ago, are faced with serious pacing problems right out of the chute. Clearly, there's too much story in the first book to adequately present in a single movie of reasonable length. To top it off, Jackson and Walsh were forced to go somewhat into The Two Towers to reach some kind of conclusion. This combination makes the film both long, dense and hurried, with a rather sloppy ending.
But besides the pacing and ending problems we knew the film would have, how well does it hold up? Exceedingly well. With a few inexplicable exceptions, the film is remarkably true to the book. The effort to bring Lord of the Rings to the big screen may have begun badly (early script treatments contained bizarre and unacceptable changes) but a change of studio, the influence of Tolkien fans Ian McKellen (Gandalf), and Howard Shore (soundtrack composer) and many other factors have combined to create a film that accurately captures the spirit of Tolkien's stories and a remarkable number of details.
Sometimes too many details. In a nod to Tolkien fans that I think was unappreciated, Jackson wedged several "clever" references to the book into the film, including the title and some of the chapter names. I don't remember a director choosing to film a book's table of contents since The Fortune Cookie (1966) and I don't think it works here.
Another part that doesn't work is the sorcerous dual between Gandalf and Saruman. Glossed over in the book, it makes sense that there would be more to the confrontation in a visual medium, but what could have been grim and frightening instead comes off as a rather silly exposition of waving staves and flying bodies.
The scene of Galadriel's Mirror doesn't quite work either. Yes, her lines are right out of the book, and she grows taller and more fell just as the book describes, but instead of "terrible and worshipful" it comes off noisy and unattractive.
Of details missing, the most notable was the reforging of Narsil, the broken sword that defeated Sauron in the prolog. In the text this event happens offstage, almost as an afterthought, yet becomes a key element later in the story. The film skips the event entirely. I suspect that this plot element has been moved rather than dropped, and will be interested in seeing how they work it in.
Other aspects of the film were remarkably well done. Casting was especially brilliant. Ian McKellen himself a huge Tolkien fan, was inspired and inspiring as Gandalf. Christopher Lee, with decades of experience playing mysterious bad guys, was the ideal choice for Saruman. Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen are perfect as Frodo and Aragorn.
As there must with any translation of book to film, there are several changes to the story, many of which were improvements. Aragorn is more human in this version, retaining the strong character of the text while adding some very realistic self-doubt. Elrond expresses more vocally his anger and disappointment with Isildur, (and by extension, all men) when he blew his chance to rid the world of the Ring. The romance between Aragorn and Arwen has been moved from the Appendices to a more central part of the story, and it works extremely well.
A truly remarkable aspect of the film was the music. Howard Shore has expertly handled a thorny problem: What do you do with all the songs and poems in the text? Do you stop the film dead while various characters burst out in song, or do you ignore Tolkien's verse entirely?
Composer Howard Shore came up with a very effective third option: Incorporate Tolkien's songs and poems into the soundtrack. A boy's choir sings in Elvish during the trek from Rivendel. A Maori men's choir, chanting in Dwarvish, adds heightened tension in Moria.
Putting Tolkien's verse in the soundtrack instead of the narrative enhances the feel of Middle Earth without getting in the way of the narrative. I suspect that if books had soundtracks, Tolkien himself would have made a similar choice. This is probably the most effective translation of text to film I've ever seen.
The film is not without flaws. The cave troll sequence goes on for way too long, surprising in such a packed film. Others, like Frodo's vision in the mirror and the scene on Amon Hen, were cut to the point of incomprehensibility. (Perhaps to avoid a spoiler for the second film.) Jackson has somehow contrived, through makeup and tent-like robes, to make Cate Blanchett unattractive. We hardly see anything of Lorien, and key character growth for Gimli and Legolas has been dropped. But some sacrifices must be made in the interest of time and the translation from one medium to another, and as a whole, the film works very well.
But you wouldn't know that to hear people complain about it. Despite raking in record numbers for the month of December, the film is not without it's vocal detractors. In other articles, I created four categories for Tolkien fans who hate the film, (1) those who feel a film shouldn't be made at all, (2) those who hate the film because it couldn't be an exact literal translation, (Someone seriously suggested a six movie series which had human actors and CGI elves.) (3) those who hate the film because of a particular detail, (Liv Tyler at the Ford, the absence of Bombadil, misspelled Dwarvish words on the walls of Moria) and (4) those who hate the film for reasons that are just wrong. ("Elijah Wood looks too young" although he is precisely the age that Frodo would have appeared, according to the text.)
Subsequent experiences have caused me to add a fifth category, Tolkien "fans" who have *never read the books* but nevertheless think that the film got major details wrong. Examples include people who think the Ralph Bakshi treatment from 1978 is canonical, (placing Legolas at the ford instead of Glorfindil (text) or Arwen (latest film)) and fans of the various Lord of the Rings offshoots (Dungeons and Dragons, EverQuest, etc) who expected the film to better match their own vision of Middle Earth.
Others felt, against all reason, that the film was too violent. (All those hacked off arms and heads in the story were just kidding, I guess.) To those who prefer a more fluffy, musical Lord of the Rings, I suggest: Rent the Ranken/Bass versions of The Hobbit and Return of the King.
All in all, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Peter Jackson to guess what's in the minds of fans, or to divine what non-canonical factors are expected. A film has a much better chance of succeeding if it conforms to a single vision, flaws and all, rather than trying to be all things to all people, ending up being nothing to nobody.
And this film succeeds on a major scale. The story is compelling, the action mostly interesting and believable, the characters (with the possible exception of Gimli, who's not given a lot to do) are interesting to watch. Most of the special effects come off extremely well, and the major set-piece, the confrontation with the Balrog, is absolutely amazing to watch.
But more importantly, the film captures more of the spirit of Middle Earth than I had any right to expect, without being too overblown. With that in mind, I would like to echo other reviewers' sentiment that Jackson should resist the dark side to which Lucas succumbed; trying to outdo himself technically with each film, eventually turning out extremely busy but emotionally empty films. Jackson has managed to capture the grandeur of Middle Earth without losing the atmosphere of the books; the longing, the sense of loss. If he can merely keep this up for two more films, resisting the urge to go over the top, he would have done a great deed.
I was going to give Fellowship of the Ring 8 of 10 stars, subtracting two stars for gratuitous references to the novel's table of contents, and for a few special effects that didn't work (most notably Galardiel's Mirror). I then added a star for providing the invaluable service of getting anal-retentive print-fans' panties in a knot. I am eagerly awaiting the next installment.
Ron
www.europa.com/~ronc
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today."
More on 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
