I remember when "The Fellowship of the Ring" came out in December, 2001. What I remember is how mad I was that my mom and sister went off to see it, leaving me at home because it was “too scary”. When "The Two Towers" came out in December, 2002, my dad took me and my sister to see it. I was so excited that I was allowed to go. I even went in costume—I was dressed up like Frodo. One woman at the theater got a huge kick out of that. When "The Return of the King" came out in December, 2003, I remember seeing it in the theater three times, being both bored and enthralled by it simultaneously.
They were unlike any fantasy films ever made before, and ever will be again most likely. Even today, in a world where "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "Percy Jackson" are making the rounds on the silver screen, Peter Jackson’s "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy definitely stands out as some of the most domineering works of high fantasy shown in film.
50% of this is due to the source material. J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is definitely one of the most distinguished pieces of writing in English literature, and in my opinion one of the best. When the movies came out, I had had no previous exposure to the stories. I remember asking myself, how is it that a fantasy story about a magic ring that can destroy an entire world is getting such positive press? I didn’t understand it, and was still sore my parents wouldn’t let me see "Fellowship". When I saw it however, all that doubt evaporated.
"The Lord of the Rings" deals with many classic themes: greed, fear, bravery, and redemption being only some of them. At times, these themes are more effective in fantasy than non-fantasy. In this story we have a magic ring, which was made for purely cruel purposes. The ring itself has the power to manipulate “good people” and force them into doing what its creator created it to inspire people to do. The people who own it become obsessed with it, are killed for it, or succumb to its evil till they are completely corrupted by it. Yet there remains a group of selected people who fight against the power of the ring. These people are our main protagonists.
The hobbit Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) accepts the quest of destroying the ring of power, to prevent it from being used by the truly evil Lord Salrond to conquer Middle Earth. To accomplish this, he must cross thousands of miles of terrain and enter the land of Morder, a land where everyone is an evil stereotype with no redeeming qualities. When in Morder, Frodo must throw the ring into the volcano where it had been forged—the fiery hell-like Mount Doom.
Along the way, this good natured, piece loving hobbit is tested by the evils of the ring, and nearly succumbs to them himself. He has a host of friends who help him avoid its evil. Amongst his friends are Gandalf the Wizard (Ian McKellan), Legolas the elf (Orlando Bloom), Gimli the dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), three hobbits, Merry (Dominic Magonahan), Pippin (Billy Boyd), and Sam (Sean Astin), and two men, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and Boromir (Sean Bean). They all go with Frodo on the quest to Mordor, but they are separated and go on alternate paths. Their interconnected storylines are all followed through the three films, as they work towards one common goal—the defeat of Mordor, and the destruction of the ring.
After their fellowship breaks apart, Frodo and Sam go to Mordor alone. Along the way, they encounter Gollum (Andy Serkis), a creature that had been twisted into insanity by the ring’s evil. Gollum followed the company from the start of their quest, and continued to follow Frodo and Sam. They catch him, and sense Gollum knows the way to Mordor, Frodo agrees to have Gollum lead them to the entrance of Mordor, in exchange for Gollum’s life. Gollum’s still blinded by his desire for the ring, and the slightest feelings of loyalty to Frodo.
Is Gollum ultimately a good guy or a bad guy? I’d lean towards the latter. Gandalf predicted that Gollum would have some part, good or evil, to play in this incredible drama before all was over. Ironically it is Gollum who, quite unintentionally and singlehandedly settles the conflict of the entire story.
With such a stellar cast, it’s tough to tell who steals the show. The actors are all very good in their roles. Elijah Wood’s Frodo starts out like a good natured boy, and then slowly becomes glummer and glummer as the weight of his quest bears down on him. Sam is the dedicated friend who will stand by you no matter what, a performance which felt genuine. Merry and Pippin are very well played, and alternate between comic relief and utter seriousness.
Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn is a little like a western gunslinger. He’s mysterious, incredibly well skilled at fighting, and very loyal to his cause. He particularly reminded me of Clint Eastwood’s William Munny from "Unforgiven" (1992). Both men are physically skilled fighters, intensely devoted to their women, and both have an enigmatic layer to their character because they are hiding from their pasts. William Munny is a retired outlaw, bandit and murderer. Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Gondor, the kingdom of men. In the end, both confront their pasts to solve their problems, and ultimately make things better. Aragorn becomes a much loved monarch, and while Munny isn’t exactly covered with glory, he is removed and he is shown for who he is.
"The Lord of the Rings" books and the films are vastly different. Both bits of art were approached and set up in such a way that made them work and sucked us in, despite how weird all this sounded. In the books it was Tolkien’s extensive character development, exciting adventures and battles, and choice of language to create his world in our minds. The movies take Tolkien’s romantic, almost "Ivanhoe"-like prose and turned them into the more modern action picture.
Each film is a thrill ride filled with magic, scary looking creatures, and some of the greatest action and battles in cinema. Some of the creatures are quite frightening, such as the Ballrog in "The Fellowship of the Ring", a giant monster covered in flame, the apparitions in the Dead Marshes in "The Two Towers", and Shelob, the enormous spider in "The Return of the King".
I hadn’t read the books when I saw the movies, so I didn’t have the complaint that they weren’t faithful to the books. Later on, I read the books. It’s true that much had been changed. There aren’t as many songs or poems. The characters talk differently. Entire chapters were left out, such as "The House of Tom Bombadil" in "The Fellowship of the Ring", or "The Houses of Healing" in "The Return of the King" (which did actually make its way into the extended version.) My point is that the material was altered for the screen. To me, they are great films and great books. I don’t necessarily prefer one to the other. I believe that they are both masterful works in their respective Medias, and see no real reason to nitpick. I’ll leave that to the die-hard fans of the books.
When Peter Jackson read Tolkein’s "Lord of the Rings", he was very impressed with them. He said that it would undoubtedly be adapted for the screen some day, but little did he know by whom. Jackson did a fantastic job driving the huge vehicle of making these films. His cast and crewmembers have granted him nothing but glowing praise, citing his passion for the source material as the key to the films’ successes.
Jackson had working on the pre-production of the films since 1992. Filming was from October, 1999 to December 2000, with additional filming till 2004. The trilogy will probably be the crowning achievement of Jackson’s career, which may or may not be alright with him. Now Peter Jackson is hard at work on making the two part film version of "The Hobbit". I’ve been looking forward to that ever since the release of "The Return of the King". I’ve been following the production notes off and on for around four or five years, and as I understand it, filming is to be completed by early 2012.
"The Lord of the Rings" is a great story, both the books and the movies. I hope that seeing the films will encourage people to read the books, and vice versa. As filmmaking continues to advance, I hope that these films are remembered for how much of a splash they made when they came out. For how they are simultaneously visual and philosophical wonders. And for how, like "Star Wars" had before them, "The Lord of the Rings" has taken highly stylized CGI high fantasy filmmaking to a new level. If these films can’t do that, and I can’t see how they can’t, I hope that it will at least keep Tolkien’s stories alive if people somehow become turned off to reading books.
Production info taken from IMDB.com
No comments:
Post a Comment