Subject: Review: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001)

From: Ronald O. Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:22:37 -0000

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."

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 30627
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 275827
X-RT-TitleID: 1108476
X-RT-AuthorID: 2596
X-RT-RatingText: 9/10