|
Is The
Lord of the Rings Safe?
by D. Michael Martindale
Perhaps the
worst part of the film is when Gandalf says to Frodo Baggins, “Is
it safe?” How can this not sound like a goofy satire of the quote
in the Dustin Hoffman film Marathon Man?
Yet the quote
is appropriate in its own way. Filmmaker Peter Jackson took upon
himself a burden unequaled by any filmmaker in the history of movies
by trying to bring the fantasy world of Middle-earth to the silver
screen. Not even the expectations George Lucas faced when delivering
the much-anticipated “Episode I” of Star Wars could match
it. Millions of fans over several generations have fallen in love
with author J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy world, from hobbits to elves
to invented languages to the landscape itself. They all want to
visit Middle-earth themselves, and they all have their own personal
idea of what it should be like.
What fool of
a filmmaker would take on such a burden of expectation? It simply
isn’t safe to do so. No one will be satisfied!
But that didn’t
stop Peter Jackson, a relative newcomer to filmmaking with a short
resume that includes Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners.
In spite of the efforts of a few before him who failed miserably
to effectively adapt the epic-sized story to film, he decided to
shoulder the burden.
The Lord
of the Rings is a classic tale of a fantasy world populated
by icons from our cultural history—elves, dwarves, wizards, magic
rings. Plus a remarkable concoction original with Tolkien: hobbits.
These are endearing beings half the size of humans that are remarkably
similar to nineteenth century British folk, except for their hairy
feet.
Bilbo Baggins
is an old hobbit of questionable respectability who went off on
a dragon-slaying adventure with a band of dwarves many years ago.
He happened upon a magic ring during that adventure, and as the
film opens, Bilbo is about to celebrate his 111th birthday by disappearing
on another adventure and willing his estate to his young cousin
Frodo, including the magic ring. Gandalf the wizard, renowned in
Hobbitton for his astounding fireworks, discovers a terrible secret
about that ring: it is the One Ring, an evil artifact forged by
the dark lord Sauron. In an ancient battle, Sauron was defeated
and the ring of power lost. But now that the ring has resurfaced,
Sauron is gathering his forces and searching it out again, sending
dread emissaries to haunt the pleasant environs of the Shire, home
of the hobbits.
The Lord
of the Rings has been tremendously influential throughout the
decades. It virtually invented the modern genre of fantasy, and
has often been imitated, but rarely matched. For Mormons, it is
a superb example of how to write a religious and moral tale disguised
in the trappings of a fantasy adventure. Author J.R.R. Tolkien was
a committed Catholic, and enmeshed his own strong beliefs into the
moral fabric of his fantasy world.
When Peter Jackson
decided to adapt the series, right off he made the right decision:
a trilogy of films to match the trilogy of books. Nothing less would
have a chance of success. As it is, this lengthy three-hour film
adaptation is a severely compressed version of the story in the
first book, The Fellowship of the Ring. To have tried to
compress the whole trilogy into less than three films would have
resulted in the same disastrous failure that previous efforts experienced.
Jackson allowed
himself great artistic license in the plot details, as one would
expect in a movie adaptation. But he remained true to the overall
plot. And his efforts in evoking Middle-earth to the finest faithful
detail were masterful. Jackson succeeded in this risky endeavor
as much as he did because he himself is numbered among the millions
of fans who feel a personal stake in Middle-earth. He cared about
the story and the characters and the world.
Full disclosure
compels me to admit that I came to this film as a frustrated would-be
filmmaker and a fan of Tolkien who wants to visit Middle-earth.
Not just any Middle-earth, but my Middle-earth: the one I’ve
imagined in my head all these years. Therefore it was impossible
for any filmmaker to please me with a screen adaptation of Lord
of the Rings—so I thought. Inevitably, there would be a million
things I would do differently.
That turned
out to be true when I saw Jackson’s Fellowship of the Ring.
There were a million choices I would have made differently.
Yet I still enjoyed the film as much as was possible for me. The
choices and trade-offs Jackson made, though not mine, were reasonable
choices, and I couldn’t fault him for making them.
I would have
fleshed out the prolog opener that rushes through some vital backstory
essential to the Tolkien novices in the audience. I would have transformed
that hurried narrated sequence into an integral part of the action,
as Gandalf explains to Frodo what this magical ring is that he inherited.
I would not have peppered the landscape with so many familiar faces
of popular actors, but have helped the verisimilitude of Middle-earth
by using as many unknowns in principle roles as I could.
I definitely
would not have cast super-good guy Elrond the elf king with Hugo
Weaving, the evil villain from Matrix, a terrible choice.
I could have done without Liv Tyler as a heroic elf figure, considering
the baggage of cheesy films she drags around in her wake. But I’ll
watch John Rhys-Davies (Shogun, Sliders, and two Indiana
Jones movies) any day. As the dwarf Gimli, he was unrecognizable
anyway under all that makeup. Only his characteristic voice gave
him away.
The greatest
concern I have over the film is the ending. It dragged out much
too long, first the battle, then the departure of the Ringbearer.
The parts in the ending that dragged were also parts that didn’t
stay true to the book, and here is one place Jackson should have
remained more faithful. Tightening up the ending would also have
provided him with precious minutes to help flesh out other parts
of the story that received too short shrift, in my opinion.
The history
of Gollum was the part that wanted most glaringly. For such an important
character in the story, his film version is nothing but a vapid
computer-generated concoction, a pathetic spook in the night with
no meaning. Cut down the tedious goblin battle at the end and give
Gollum a little substantive screen time, please!
Yet with all
these complaints that I walked out of the theater with, the bottom
line was that I couldn’t wait to go back and see the film again.
Peter Jackson had invoke Middle-earth, had let me
live there for three hours. The experience began to haunt me the
minute the images faded from the screen. With such a reaction, I
could only conclude that I did like the movie after all. Peter Jackson
had taken the risk, shouldered the burden, and succeeded.
Is Lord of
the Rings safe? Can the millions of fans in love with Tolkien’s
world come to the movie and avoid deep disappointment? Absolutely!
The film is a sincere, loving adaptation by a genuine fan, and does
indeed allow you to visit Middle-earth, not only with breathtaking,
state-of-the-art movie magic images, but with a respectful portrayal
of the story, the characters, and the environment itself that, if
not exactly matching your imagination all these years, still satisfies.
If you’re a fan, it’s safe to visit Middle-earth through the vision
of Peter Jackson.
And if you’re
not a fan, you may enjoy the film even more, without all the baggage
of anticipation and dread weighing you down. I envy you your fresh
exploration of a story that has enchanted untold millions before
you!
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2001 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
| 
