Fellowship of the Ring Sliced and Diced

Since putting in one's two cents about the Fellowship of the Ring seems to have become a cottage industry at Free Republic, I'll put in my pennies having just come from seeing the movie for the first time. If you are sick of reading about it, please, by all means, skip to the next thread that interests you.

Still reading? OK, then I'll beg you indulgence for just a moment to talk about the number pi. What does that have to do with anything? Patience...

The number pi is the number that you get when you divide the circumference of any circle by its diameter. The ancient Egyptians knew the value of this number closely enough to construct some rather impressive architecture. The ancient Greeks took it one step further to construct theorems that would allow them to estimate pi as closely as they wanted or needed. But one thing about pi -- and other interesting numbers, like the square root of 2 -- really threw the Greeks for a loop: pi cannot be exactly expressed as the ratio of any two whole (integer) numbers. These types of numbers are termed irrational because they cannot be expressed exactly as the ratio of any two whole numbers. For example, you might say that pi = 3.14 is close enough. 3.14 = 314/100 (that's what our decimal system means) or = 157/50 in lowest terms. But this value may not be close enough for all purposes, so better approximations are needed depending on the situation.

What does all of this have to do with The Fellowship of the Ring? Just this: It is impossible to translate any book directly to the screen. Inevitably, certain things have to be cut or changed. Furthermore, the intended audience for a movie is not the same as the intended audience for a book, however one might hope for a large overlap.

Let's review previous attempts to bring J.R.R. Tolkien's "ring" stories to the movie screen, all of them animations. There was Ralph Bakshi's 1978 Lord of the Rings, which only covered about half the story; and two children's animations produced by Rankin/Bass, The Hobbit and The Return of the King. These films certainly contained characters and many incidents from Tolkien, but they were unsatisfying to Tolkien fans and general adult audiences alike. Low budgets were part of the problem, of course. I can imagine what an expensive Disney-type animation of the same caliber as Snow White could have done for these, but alas it was not to be. If we liken the act of estimating pi as a metaphor for producing a movie version of Tolkein, then these efforts give us 3/1 = 3 as the approximation of pi -- sort of in the general vicinity, but not really close enough for satisfaction.

As word of Peter Jackson's live action version of Lord of the Rings echoed around the net, many fans of the books wondered (and worried) how well he could translate the books to the screen. We knew he had a large budget, but did he have the vision? Were the actors right for the parts? Would the special effects work? Those of us who saw the previous animated versions and were disappointed hoped that he might at least come up with 314/100 as his approximation, using his big budget to afford 6 digits to fiddle with for his rational approximation. This would be a straightforward if unimaginative approach, the same method used to put Harry Potter on the screen.

Instead, that quirky Kiwi (and his team) gave us 355/113. At first glance, you wonder where it came from. Then as you look closer, you see that he has used all of the tools at his disposal ("6 digits") to get the best possible approximation without going to something very much longer, more expensive, and less penetrable to the mass audience.

Within the constraints of movie making, almost everything worked well for me. The music, while not something that would stand alone, served its purpose. I don't think we want overpowering operatic music for this story. (I would like to see Wagner's Ring Cycle operas made into movies as good as this one, then it would be OK for the music to overpower us.) I won't be rushing out to buy the movie music by itself.

The special effects were all excellent, some a little better than others. I thought Rivendell was perfect, as was the flood at the ford. Loth Lorien was fine, but we all wish we had seen more of it. The balrog was fine. The cave troll was my least favorite, and even that wasn't too bad. It was certainly on a par with the Rancor monster in Star Wars (and did have a tiny family resemblance). My wife especially liked the giant statues on the river. She didn't remember them from the book, but I did. The brief shot of Minas Tirith was very nice. Isengard was fine, although I would have liked to see more mechanical contraptions rather than everything being run by pure magic.

The helicopter shots didn't bother me at all. Some reviewers said that too much time was spent on them. I paid careful attention, and I could not find more than 5 minutes of that in the whole 3 hour movie.

There have been considerable comments made about the "inappropriateness" of three things in particular: Arwen's expanded role in rescuing Frodo from the ring wraiths, Bilbo's hideous face when he lusts to take the ring back from Frodo, and the scene with Galadriel and the mirror.

Arwen didn't bother me a bit. There is enough "back story" about Arwen and Aragorn elsewhere in Tolkien that bringing her more to the fore is not a big departure. It also helped the general audience to delete the minor elf character (Glorfindel) who actually meets up with Frodo and company and lends his horse in the book. And yes, I'm not too old (yet) to enjoy hearing her speak in Elvish.

For the Bilbo's face part, if you don't like it, re-read (or read) the book. This is how Bilbo appeared to Frodo when Bilbo wanted the ring back. I felt it was spot-on, not overdone.

I also felt that Galadriel was fine, if somewhat truncated. Again, re-read (or read) the book. Some critics have said that they made Galadriel too scary and spooky. This is exactly what was intended. I suppose the critics wanted her to be some kind of Glinda, the Good Witch of the North. She is tempted by the ring and we get a glance of what she would become if she had it: too beautiful and terrible to bear.

The prologue didn't bother me, and I think it was necessary for the general audience, who were having a hard enough time keeping up with the story as it was (more about that later).

I didn't care for the treatment of Saruman. I don't think it would have been too difficult to put some lines in where he's trying to tell Gandalf how clever he is to seem to be going along with Sauron when he's really trying to buy time so that he can capture the Ring for himself. (And of course, Galdalf is wise enough to understand that Sauron sees through Saruman, but Saruman is blinded to this truth by his lust for the Ring.) The wizard's duel was unnecessary. I would have preferred to spend the time with Saruman showing how he's trying to do a double-cross and spend the special effects budget to make his robes turn multi-color. And as I mentioned above, I would have liked to see Saruman use more mechanical contraptions to get the job done, not just "mental" magical force.

This part of my review is perhaps not so much a critique of the movie as it is of our times. There's a basic difficulty in bringing an epic story to an audience that is used to stories on TV being told in 30 minutes or an hour. Even when there is a continuing thread, there is something that brings the particular episode to a close. In this movie, there is no punchy ending: no Death Star blowing up, no major bad guy killed, no battles won. They didn't have a choice here; no way to be faithful to the book and still have a punchy ending. But it didn't work with many in the audience.

The length of the movie is a problem. It's either too short (if you are a fan) or too long (if you aren't). I think the DVD version will fix both problems. If the rumors are correct, it will be much longer (for the fans) and you will be able to view it in two sittings of 2 hours each.

I think this movie will work better for the general audience when parts 2 and 3 are released on DVD. Then, people will be able to view it more at leisure (6 evenings of 2 hours each -- like a mini-series), and rewind back to the parts they didn't get the first time.

I want to wait for parts 2 and 3 until I decide if this will be one of the all-time best movies. If the quality of the remainder is up to the quality of part 1, it will certainly be one of my all-time favorites. I think there will always be certain people who will have nothing to do with a movie about wizards and elves no matter what; people whose hearts are untouchable by this story of friendship, love, courage, and sacrifice. I feel sorry for them.

Thanks for your excellent review!

I think a lot of people kind of dislike the movie's ending because it ends in a cliffhanger. I have news for those people: that's the way the first Lord of the Rings volume ended!

I can just imagine how is this crowd going to respond to the even more cliffhanger ending to The Two Towers next December. (rolling eyes skyward)

You and I could probably go on for a while about the treatment of the Saruman character. I'm not sure that the subtleties involved with the subplots of the Istari and the Palantiri as presented by Tolkien are explainable to a modern-day film audience (video, but not book-literate).

I liked the scene where the Gandalf character showed deference to Saruman. Most excellent scene.

You are probably right about "the gee how clever I am" lines, but again, we are left with an audience that is probably not equipped to grasp the subtlety (of course, they may have been better for the exposure to it).

Your closing comments on the DVD presentation pretty much mirrored mine. I think that this (and wide screen HDTV projection) will make this a huge hit after it's released to the home audience.

BTW - I, too, noticed the weakness of the soundtrack, but I didn't catch a whole lot of Enya in the FOTHR. I'm presuming that much of her stuff will come later on.

I'm actually looking for a specific thing in this whole treatment to determine whether Jackson has brought it off. You may know what I'm talking about. In my initial reading (lo these many years ago), I was completely taken by surprise when Evenstar's banner unfurled above the Corsair fleet at the moment of Eomer's defiance. I had absorbed the other stuff relating to the arrival of Halbarad and the march on the Havens, but was reading so fast and was so distracted by the other great events that I was "gobsmacked".

If Jackson can bring THAT bit off, I'm sold. Tolkien came in under the radar with that whole bit of the narrative. If Jackson realizes that and does the same thing, then I know that he is a master.

An altogether exellent review, sir. I myself have seen FOTR twice now, and I want to see it again. I'm 34 years old, and I have not felt that way about a movie for what seems ages. It is truly the movie of the decade, at least or me. Not even the "Star Wars" series of toy commercials comes close, and I saw that when it was first released.
It's odd. the last movie I got exited about was a horrible let-down, and a terrible attack on its source material, to boot. That was GODZILLA '98. Since then, Hollywood has produced an unbroken string of formulaic, ripped-off remakes of remakes and sequels. I desperately wanted to feel the childlike giddiness I felt back in the day when I saw such fun flicks as "Star Wars" (before the merchandising), E.T. (before it was modified to PC status by Spielberg) and others.
Peter Jackson brought that feeling back. For me, and a lot of other movie fans, that's just what we needed, especially in these trying times. For that alone, but more for the obvious passion and attention to detail he put into this work, he'll get my money. I'll wait for "Episode Two" to play cable.

BUMP. You understand.

I like Elvish, too.

Never a great fan of the book, though...but this presentation made me one. I appreciate excellent literature. This was written by an author.

It was directed and shot like a proper, old-fashioned epic...which are my favorites.

Great review.

LOTR is a great movie. I've seen it twice and I enjoyed it both times.

I believe all 3 episodes will be equally good. The whole cast and crew say they genuinely love the tale and it shows.

I hope it makes alot of money, because I'd like to see more films like this.

But one thing about pi -- and other interesting numbers, like the square root of 2 -- really threw the Greeks for a loop: pi cannot be exactly expressed as the ratio of any two whole (integer) numbers. These types of numbers are termed irrational because they cannot be expressed exactly as the ratio of any two whole numbers.

Not to be too picky here, but the ancient Greeks didn't know that pi is irrational. Lambert proved the irrationality of pi in 1761. (The Greeks did know that the square root of 2 is irrational, of course.)

Sorry not to have any real comments on the movie. I haven't read the rest of your review, since I haven't seen LOTR yet, and I'm trying to avoid any spoilers.

I thought it was a terrific movie, and I also look forward to the director's cut on DVD. My children and I do have a minor objection to Lothlorien. There was not enough of the golden TREES, and a lot too much in the way of gothic gingerbread stuck through what trees there were. In the book the elves have flets and rope ladders, not a bunch of arches & fancy decor. They live simply. And when Galadriel got all puffed up and EVIL looking, that was a mistake too. She is supposed to look TERRIBLE at that moment, but not evil. Terrible as God and the angels are terrible.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about Galadriel. Perhaps the movie wasn't as clear as the book, but in the book, Galadriel realizes that if she obtains the Ring, she will turn the world into a beautiful garden tended by loving slaves. But they will be slaves stripped of their Free Will, in a way almost as evil as what Saruman has in mind. Whoever succumbs to the Ring, even Galadriel, will become Evil in the end.

I will wait for the Broadway musical version or the Hong Kong martial arts one.

Not having read the book, I expect to see Keebler elves, leprechauns (hearts, lucky clovers, bright stars) or furry things like Chewbacca or Cousin It from the Addams Family. Having heard the casting and constumes are very different and disppointed that some Elijah Wood person snatched the role of lead elf from Winona Ryder, I will stay away from this one.

Yes, but I had a problem with that as well. I understand again that they couldn't go too in depth in the movie, but the only feeling I got from the Wood Elves in this version were they were distrustful(which Tolkien does bring across) but hateful as well. The scenes with Gimli and Sam do need to be there to soften Galadriel to the audience

As for the issue with Saruman, I think something else is missing here. Can't put my finger on it, but it wasn't played well. The problem is that if you delve to long into the whole issues with the orders and the wizards role was in Middle Earth's history, you're going to lose a lot of the audience

I will wait for the Broadway musical version or the Hong Kong martial arts one.
Not having read the book, I expect to see Keebler elves, leprechauns (hearts, lucky clovers, bright stars) or furry things like Chewbacca or Cousin It from the Addams Family. Having heard the casting and constumes are very different and disppointed that some Elijah Wood person snatched the role of lead elf from Winona Ryder, I will stay away from this one.

You suprise me; I would have thought that a troll such as yourself, would want to see this movie!

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.