Three Rings for Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne, In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. This short poem is familiar to most readers of Fantasy Fiction books in the past 40 years and more. Indeed, as Elvis Presley is to "Rock and Roll", JRR Tolkien is to fantasy fiction. Other writers penned fantasy fiction before, and many more have penned it since, but Tolkien’s work has captured the imagination of perhaps more fantasy readers than any other, and his influence can be traced in countless works of fantasy since. If any series could be labeled a "Benchmark" in fantasy fiction, Lord of the Rings would certainly qualify, as more than any other work of fantasy, it is the one which so many others are compared to. It would not be outrageous to suggest that the works of Tolkien have won more readers to the fantasy genre, and inspired more writers to work in this genre, than any other writer of the past century. It is only logical, then, that Hollywood could not long resist the draw of his works. Previous attempts to bring the works of Tolkien to the silver screen, however, have overwhelmed the studios and resulted in films that seemed more token than Tolkien. Animation seemed the best venue for the previous attempts, and had left many LOTR fans severely disappointed. Many, then, awaited the newest screen iteration with some reservation. The trailers were impressive but then again, so were the trailers for Dungeons and Dragons. Would Lord of the Rings prove as big as disappointment as D&D? Happily, the answer to this question has been almost unanimously "no" from those who have seen the film. While no 3 hour film could adequately do justice to the story in Fellowship of the Ring as written, screenwriters Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, and Peter Jackson have managed to pare down the story to fit the film without butchering the plot. Still more incredible, they have done so in a way that does not require the viewer to have read the book to understand what is going on at any given moment. Some have lamented the changes and omissions, such as the complete bypassing of the encounter with Tom Bombadil. Indeed, the flight from the Shire to the Prancing Pony, involving some 7 chapters in the book, takes no more than perhaps 15 minutes of screen time, if that. It would have been fun and interesting to see a competent actor interpret Tom Bombadil for us (though I suspect it would have taken no less than the late Danny Kaye, in his prime, to do the role justice), Bombadil’s role in the overall plot of the story, however, was minor enough to remove without "ruining" the story line. Another change that has generated some discussion is the swapping of Arwen as the elf that aids Frodo to Rivendell, rather than Glorfindel. Speculation is that this change was done to introduce a strong female character earlier in the movie, and the scene with Galadriel (the only other significant female in the first film) does not occur until late in the story. Without criticizing Tolkien’s original story, it must be mentioned on this subject that significant female characters were sparse, at best, in The Fellowship of the Ring, and this concession by the filmmakers does not in any way make any real change to the plot line of the story. Other concessions were made in the screenplay, some to move the story along more quickly (such as compressing the time spent in the mines of Moria), and some were made to more quickly develop certain characters. Certain revelations are made in the film which do not get revealed until The Two Towers in the books. While perhaps a bit distracting to a Tolkien "purist", they nonetheless contribute to keeping the viewer from being confused by seemingly conflicting details. The casting of this movie could hardly have been better. Many of the performers fit the parts so well, that one might wonder if Tolkien had written the part with them in mind. Ian McKellan as Gandalf and Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins could not have been cast better if the characters had been computer generated from Tolkien’s descriptions. Likewise, Christopher Lee as Saruman brings his impressive experience in fantasy and horror films to good play as the ambitious White Wizard. Cate Blanchett’s playing of Galadriel, however, begins with an ambiguity not present in the book. Film viewers are presented with a doubt as to her alignment, though whether to maintain the sense of drama and urgency, or whether as part of the actress’s interpretation of the character, is not certain. Likewise, the setting of the movie was well suited to the descriptions from the books. The locations in New Zealand, where the cast and crew spent 15 months filming all 3 installments concurrently, match the Middle Earth geography nearly perfectly. It takes no stretch of imagination for the viewers to believe that they have, indeed, entered Middle Earth and the realm of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves and so on. The Shire looks as one would imagine the Shire to look, and the Elven cities contain an almost ethereal glow about them, as if magic emanated from every surface. In closing, for those who dislike Fantasy, the film will hold little appeal, and the 3 hour length will likely become burdensome. For the rest of us, the movie holds the attention and leaves us frustrated at having to wait a year until The Two Towers release. As the print version of Lord of the Rings established itself as a benchmark in print fantasy, so also it appears that Peter Jackson’s film version of Tolkien’s classic will establish itself as a benchmark in screen fantasy. This will become the one that others will be compared to.

[Back to Collector Times]

[Prev.]

[Return to Reviews]

[Disclaimer]

[Next]