Posted on 12/19/2001 3:27:07 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
We invest Hobbits with qualities that cannot be visualized. In my mind, they are good-hearted, bustling, chatty little creatures who live in twee houses or burrows, and dress like the merry men of Robin Hood--in smaller sizes, of course. They eat seven or eight times a day, like to take naps, have never been far from home and have eyes that grow wide at the sounds of the night. They are like children grown up or grown old, and when they rise to an occasion, it takes true heroism, for they are timid by nature and would rather avoid a fight.
Such notions about Hobbits can be found in "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.
The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.
Wondering if the trilogy could possibly be as action-packed as this film, I searched my memory for sustained action scenes and finally turned to the books themselves, which I had not read since the 1970s. The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.
Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations. There are a great many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, low roads, and along them the Hobbits and their larger companions travel while paying great attention to mealtimes. Landscapes are described with the faithful detail of a Victorian travel writer. The travelers meet strange and fascinating characters along the way, some of them friendly, some of them not, some of them of an order far above Hobbits or even men. Sometimes they must fight to defend themselves or to keep possession of the ring, but mostly the trilogy is an unfolding, a quest, a journey, told in an elevated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice.
Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, "The Lord of the Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck.
Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film (and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right; the Hobbits may not look like my idea of Hobbits (may, indeed, look like full-sized humans made to seem smaller through visual trickery), but they have the right combination of twinkle and pluck in their gaze--especially Elijah Wood as Frodo and Ian Holm as the worried Bilbo.
Yet the taller characters seem to stand astride the little Hobbit world and steal the story away. Gandalf the good wizard (Ian McKellen) and Saruman the treacherous wizard (Christopher Lee) and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who is the warrior known as Strider, are so well-seen and acted, so fearsome in battle, that we can't imagine the Hobbits getting anywhere without them. The elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), the Elf Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Arwen's father, Elrond (Hugo Weaving), are not small like literary elves ("very tall they were," the book tells us), and here they tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much dramatic sound and lighting that it's a wonder they can think to speak, with all the distractions.
Jackson has used modern special effects to great purpose in several shots, especially one where a massive wall of water forms and reforms into the wraiths of charging stallions. I like the way he handles crowds of Orcs in the big battle scenes, wisely knowing that in a film of this kind, realism has to be tempered with a certain fanciful fudging. The film is remarkably well made. But it does go on, and on, and on--more vistas, more forests, more sounds in the night, more fearsome creatures, more prophecies, more visions, more dire warnings, more close calls, until we realize this sort of thing can continue indefinitely. "This tale grew in the telling," Tolkien tells us in the famous first words of his foreword; it's as if Tolkien, and now Jackson, grew so fond of the journey, they dreaded the destination.
That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incident.
Copyright © Chicago-Sun-Times Inc.
Ebert's puzzling review, which is favorable in content, but less than enthusiastic in tone, seems to complain that the movie is not a book, and that the movie has more scenes of action than the book. He also thinks that too much of the action is carried by the non-Hobbits, but this is the case in the first book of the trilogy also. This is puzzling in a professional critic, who obviously knows that a movie can't be judged as literature.
I'll reckon that he has to do these sorts of things to retain his "street cred" with his community of critics.
I'd agree, but he doesn't seem to be doing that here. Every word he says about the movie, in movie terms, seems to be positive, this is definitely not a hit piece. But what it is, I haven't figured out yet.
dep
I have never seen a film, no matter how well made, that matched the 'vision' I had of a book. I have also never seen a film that was as 'good' as the book, which is one of the reasons I seldom go to see films.
The film and sountrack between my ears is much better than anything Hollywood has ever devised. ;~))
Say, dep, if you are planning to do this in every LOTR related thread, you are going to be a busy boy for the next few years.
Ebert, liberal hack that he is, has just discovered the book was written by a (gasp!) Christian, and not just an ordinary Christian, but a Catholic. And it's a wonderful allegory of good vs evil, can't have the kids reading that sort of stuff. Better they read Heather Has Two Mommies.
Hey Roger, I used to read reviews by Gene Siskel, I know his writings well. Roger, you're no Gene Siskel.
My well-worn DVD begs to differ with you. Oh, I'm not saying it had any value other than pure, escapist entertainment, however I'm not sure *ANY* movie can legitimately aspire to much more.
I thought it had a lot of "heart." Beyond that, I enjoyed the discussions I had with friends later about honor, the motivations of people like Commodus in politics(the people are my children, and I their father,) the meaning of sacrifice, the value of a Republic as opposed to rule by MOB(democracy) and even the tactics of those who would render slaves of the citizenry.
One of my friends is a huge music/film snob and he thoroughly enjoyed it and was moved by it.
I think LOTR has SO many backers now, that Ebert can't afford a similar disdain for the movie. In fact, he may honestly have enjoyed his experience. I think either he's a HUGE LOTR nerd(or was) and is being unrealistic in his expectations, or subconsciously wants to be a gadfly whenever a HUGE movie comes out.
That said, people are entitled to be wrong, right Sakic? ;)
Hey, Roger, you think that was probably the case in the book as well? Most of the characters in the novels had only heard of hobbitts in legend, meaning the hobbitts didn't get around a lot. They didn't like sailing or movement by water(as Frodo's parents were accidently killed) and they didn't fit on horses, having to ride with someone else. Their main form of travel was walking, so they stayed in the Shire!!
The difference in the characters and how they dealt with the Emporer illustrates that true heros value a principle more than their own lives - all one has to do is look to the difference between the Emporer's sister, who knows that the Emporer must be removed or her child will suffer in the long run but can't bring herself to go through with opposing the Emporer to the Maximus, the Slave Owner and the Senator who opposes the Emporer.
Maximus dies, as does the slave owner - but they did what was right. The Senator survives, as does the Emporer's sister, but one will live with the knowledge that her betrayal killed Maximus and the other can hold his head up high.
It doesn't get any better than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.