|
Lordy
Lordy: 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
Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper
|
|
OTHER CONTENT - January 2002
Lordy
Lordy
The Lord of the Rings movie is a gritty work of genius; read Mark's
full film review inside. (FILM REVIEWS)
Culture
in the Culture
Did writer Iain Banks create one of the most original SF societies
with his Culture universe? (ARTICLES)
The
Mysteron Menace
One for Captain Scarlet fans everywhere. Just how Mysteronised was
Captain Black in the TV series? (ARTICLES)
Dragon'
On
Best-selling fantasy authors Weis and Hickman interviewed by fellow
sword and sorcery novelist, Stephen Hunt. (INTERVIEWS)
The
First Arabesk and a Gathering of Ghosts
Some great books this month, including an alternative future where
Kaiser Bill and his allies, specifically the Ottoman Empire, bested
Britain and her allies in World War One. (BOOK and VIDEO REVIEWS)
Demons
in Skirts?
A fine collection of web sites for the new year, including some
Scottish
fantasy and horror; lake monsters, ruined castles, kelpies, vampires,
and men in skirts. What more do you want? (SITE REVIEWS)

Po. 01/02/2002
I agree, this movie is a classic and does great and noble justice
to the books.
Rachael. 01/02/2002
This movie really shows what one creative genius's vision can achieve
on film. How different from the Hollywood Committee shit that we're
regularly inflicted with.
Sade. 01/02/2002
A lot more bloodthirsty and violent than I expected, but this is
a superb counterpoint to the quieter scenes of SFX-driven beauty.
Truly the best movie of the 22st century!
Darwish Trask. 01/02/2002
What can I say. Wow. This film blew me away. It's the first time
since Star Wars where I was game on to go back for the next showing
and see it again immediately.
Duane. 18/02/2002
I hated the movie and plan to avoid the other two. I've been noticing
that frequently (not always) the people who like the movie are the
ones who have only read the book a few times. But people who have
read the book a lot tend to despise the trash Jackson calls Lord
of the Rings.
dingdong. 18/02/2002
I LOVED the movie, can't wait to see it again!
WorldMaker. 18/02/2002
Although it blew me away, it still left me with the same grief I
have with most Fantasy. Does anyone else feel that this movie is
to "Luddite" and anti-technology?
CHAT
ABOUT THIS STORY
Advertise
Here (More ...)
|