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

From: Mark R. Leeper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 03:22:03 -0000

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
               (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

    CAPSULE: Three hours of what may be just about the best 
    fantasy film ever made tells the story of J. R. R. Tolkien's 
    THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.  Intelligent and visually 
    beautiful, Peter Jackson's first film of the LORD OF THE RINGS 
    trilogy is an instant classic and quite possibly this 
    generation's GONE WITH THE WIND.  Rating: 10 (0 to 10), 
    +4 (-4 to +4) 

Years ago, there were animated versions of parts of 
J. R. R. Tolkein's THE LORD OF THE RINGS made for television, and 
Ralph Bakshi made one for theatrical release.  None was very 
satisfying.  But the technology of creating images on the screen 
has advanced a very great deal since that time.  Today, if you can 
visualize it, it probably can be put on a screen.  How difficult a 
task is it to make a definitive version of Tolkien's THE 
FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING?  Two tasks are necessary.  The novel is 
already intelligent.  What is needed is a way to abridge the very 
long story down to a screenplay without sacrificing the spirit or 
the intelligence.  Also, for years Middle Earth has been 
beautifully visualized in the paintings of the Brothers 
Hildebrandt.  Theirs have become as much the classic images of 
Middle Earth as the John Tenniel's illustrations have become the 
classic images of Lewis Carroll's fantasy world.  What is required 
in making a film version is to have every frame of the film look 
like a Hildebrandt illustration.  Both are impressive tasks that 
require a lot of hard work, but neither is insuperably difficult.  
Peter Jackson saw that both tasks could be done and the result 
would be one terrific film.  We have that film now, and it 
delivers a heavy load of adventure, spectacle, and beauty, three 
hours with too many delights to list, all for the price of a 
standard film ticket. 

Ironically, the filmmakers have to contend with how well-known and 
respected the original story is.  Indeed, my wife can list a 
multitude of small variations from the book.  They are of the sort 
"When Frodo escaped by boat he was invisible and Sam saw only what 
looked like an empty boat.  The film has him visible."  And people 
who love the story do pick up on changes to the story like that.  
But nobody criticizes THE GUNS OF NAVARONE for what are far 
greater variations from its source novel.  Indeed, few criticize 
even THE TEN COMMANDMENTS so much for liberties taken with its so-
well-loved source material. 

Dramatically, the biggest problem of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is 
the classic one going back to the first publication of the story.  
THE LORD OF THE RINGS was one mammoth novel that the publisher 
arbitrarily decided had to be split into three pieces, published 
at six-month intervals.  It is a story without an ending since 
Tolkien intended only a chapter break at that point.  The film has 
the same mid-stride ending.  Peter Jackson has promised his films 
will be released at twelve-month intervals to catch three 
Christmases. 

The anticipation for that second part is already building.  The 
public's keenness of the first film, based on rumors and the 
trailer, has been very great.  Now that the public has seen a much 
bigger sample of what Jackson can do with the story, the 
expectancy for the second film will probably be much greater.  By 
the time the third film is ready to be released the phenomenon 
will probably be stronger than the STAR WARS phenomenon.  George 
Lucas pointed the way to what computer effects could do for the 
fantasy film with his STAR WARS films.  But he has had to write 
his own material and he is no Tolkien, so none of his films have 
been as well-realized as THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. 

As few viewers will need to be told, the story is of a ring that 
holds absolute power.  But the power it represents seduces and 
corrupts absolutely the person who wears the ring.  A great and 
wise wizard, Gandalf the Grey (played by Ian McKellen), knows the 
power and the seduction of the ring.  So he does not want to 
possess the ring himself but asks an innocent, Frodo Baggins 
(Elijah Wood), to take the ring and carry it where it can be 
safely destroyed.  Thus Frodo begins a dangerous trek through 
Middle Earth, a magical world created by Tolkien with accents of 
British and Germanic folklore.  Jackson moves the story right 
along as there is much territory to be covered, literally and 
figuratively, in a story that is rushed to be told in a three-hour 
film.  Along the way the filmmaker gives us one beautiful scene 
after another.  He needed a wide variety of shooting locations, 
but with a little help from computer enhancement, he managed to 
create the settings he needed all in his visually diverse homeland 
of New Zealand.  But the plot is still complex.  Those unfamiliar 
with the story of THE LORD OF THE RINGS can expect to be lost by 
the background and history sequences which move fast and violently 
in the first part of the film.  But the viewer is not lost for 
long.  The world soon simplifies to the travelers, their allies, 
and their enemies. 

Throughout the film familiar faces appear.  Christopher Lee shows 
up here, Cate Blanchett there, but no single actor dominates the 
film.  Not even Elijah Wood, who plays the main character, 
dominates.  Actors seem to have been chosen because they were 
right in the part, not because their names would sell tickets.  
Nobody will think of this as a Liv Tyler film or a Sean Bean film.  
If it is anybody's film, it is that of forty-year-old Peter 
Jackson.  Jackson has shown continuous improvement since his 1987 
feature film debut with the aptly named BAD TASTE.  My advice to 
him would be not to try to improve at this point.  If he makes 
three LORD OF THE RINGS films of consistent quality that play like 
a single film, he will have a great artistic and financial 
success.  His series will be the standard and the benchmark of 
fantasy on film.  If, like George Lucas did, he falls into the 
trap of trying to outdo himself each outing he will end up with 
mismatched and less satisfying pieces.  He has an excellent start.  
I admit that I am partial to the fantastic on film, but I rate THE 
LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING a rare full score of 
10 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +4 on the -4 to +4 scale.

					Mark R. Leeper
					[email-masked]
					Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 30544
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 274430
X-RT-TitleID: 1108476
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 10/10