The other two (Return of the King in particular) are deeply flawed. But Fellowship is perfect. Well, alright, Hugo Weaving wasn't the greatest, and the Council scene felt a little bit perfunctory... but other than that, bring it on.
I'm a film director myself, and in my opinion on this one they nailed everything. Even beyond the book in some cases (i.e.
Boromir,
Saruman). Literary purism just doesn't work, cinematically... you can't just introduce
Glorfindel then throw him away five minutes later, or dwell for two hours on flora and fauna lovingly described by
Tolkien.
Bilbo can't sing about
Earendil. Etc. Yes, I love
Tom Bombadil (that's one of my favourite bits of the whole bloody trilogy), but I fail to see where he could have fit into the film. There's no place for him. It's a film, not a book. And a film has to have a more lively pace... to their enormous credit, they still found time for quiet moments: the smoke ship, poring over Bilbo's book, etc.
That conversation of
Frodo and
Gandalf's, the "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us" bit, in the book takes place in
Bag End, far too early. If you have any feeling for cinema you'll understand that to put that exchange instead in the Mines of
Moria was a master stroke. That way Frodo's been through a lot already, he's feeling the weariness... it's not just theoretical. Likewise, you can't have Frodo hang around
the Shire for six months after he's given his task, buy Crickhollow, etc. I suppose there are some who truly think they should have had Boromir's death to open Two
Towers, instead of ending Fellowship of
the Ring. That would have been more faithful.
The filmmakers lovingly crafted all aspects of it, with beautiful design and imagery, music to die for, and the main, important beats of the book all handled with consummate skill and power, emotionally fulfilling grace. In the later movies the CGI and the blind deviations became too much, but Fellowship is a symphony of the kind of loveliness rarely seen in ANY film. I really think people should give it a break, put down the book, have respect for this as a separate art form, and drink in the beauty.
Crooked
Swords.
Apparently the same 150 seconds revealed to not just me, but to Christopher Tolkien as well, “This is not JRRT’s
Middle-earth.”
And that was before we both said “Wait a minute… “Given to the
Elves.”
Sauron gave nothing to the Elves. Sauron had nothing to do with the Forging of those Rings. That was solely
Celebrimbor.”
Now… The second point is minor, even if consequential when the point of the former is included.
Jackson did the equivalent here of depicting Communion in a Catholic Church, where the Priest is standing behind an altar that is a nude woman bend backwards on elbows and knees; wearing a Sigil of Baphomet, and with actual Human Blood, and Human Flesh as the Host.
Some people are likely having exploding heads, and pulling twisted bits of clothing from the crevices of their bodies.
But this is as consequential as that, given Tolkien’s Foundations of/for Middle-earth being the Metaphysics of Aquinas and the 19th Century Catholicism in which he was raised (Pre-Vatican II, and where Vatican I still threw its weight around like a bull in a china shop).
As Movies, the “LotR Trilogy” are masterpieces of Craft and
Technology, and of Actors’ casting ad depicting of the characters, if we ignore the issues of appearance of several of those characters.
As a “First Attempt” at depicting Tolkien’s works after the Publication of
The History of Middle-earth, and the remaining works exploring those Foundations (where Letters alone should have been sufficient, but when asked about that, Bakshi said he was not even aware they existed, and only learned of
The Silmarillion as he was preparing for his version ‚— BTW… He might be doing some updated work on that), Jackson’s work is surprisingly good.
But he still uses the tired, exhausting Hollywood Trope of “You have to change written works if you are going to adapt them for the Screen!”
Really? How is it that any movie EVER has been made, given a script and Direction, Set, and Wardrobe Notes (etc.) are ALL “Written Works.” This Trope came about via Hollywood trying to justify what it did in its early days (BTW, the “Modern Motion Picture,” … with sound… Not yet 100 years old. BARELY 75 years when you look at the evolution of Motion Pictures from 1930 to 1950. WWII really put the supercharger on Production Standards and quality) to the written works of others as an excuse for why they were unwilling to take the time to do faithful adaptations (Reveal: They thought the movie-going Public were stupid, and without a “Love-Interest” any movie would fail utterly).
But during the 1960s and 70s that lie suddenly became the “de facto Truth” for a younger generation of massive egos in Hollywood, who felt in their right to change whatever they did, however they wished.
The director I worked with most often did this too, to another of my favorite works, and when in private (Secret Rules of Hollywood #something: “NEVER talk in front of the Public about ‘
these things’.”) I asked about it, he said (to effect) “Only about 1% of the Public where this movie is going to be shown will be familiar with the book. And even 25% of those are going to think “Nazis” when they read about the
Authors’ Political Leanings, even if that is wrong.”
I get it… Hollywood was built as a business to make money, and that overriding concern eclipsed everything.
But the 1960s/70s I mentioned above are when Hollywood finally saw enough “Independent Wealth” that Producers and Directors began to make “Vanity Projects” freed from the Studios.
And when Star
Wars became a Hit (Close Encounters, Alien, ET, Bladerunner, Aliens, Star Trek The Motion Picture, Star Trek the Wrath of Khan, etc…) Studios began to see that they could afford to take chances on these things.
It is funny that China, Japan, Korea, India, France, Germany, Italy and other such Countries have managed to produce Movies or TV series of written works that are near-verbatim from their sources… Yet the US and other English Speaking Studios still struggle with this.
Although
The Wizard of Oz, barring omissions, is pretty freaking close to Baum’s Original. Several Adaptations of
Alice in Wonderland and
Through the Looking Glass have been frighteningly close to Prof Dodgson’s Originals. Two productions (one each) of
A Brave New World, and
1984 have been
striking examples that Hollywood CAN adapt a work without alteration of crucial details, or alteration at all.
Tolkien’s works stand as a distinction in terms of “fiction” in that Tolkien was attempting to group them with things such as the Nihon Shoki/Kojiki, The Elder Eddas and other Nordic Myths, Kalevala, The Classical Greco-Roman Myths, the Enumina Elish, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc… Or even what we now know as the
Older Witnessing/Attestation of The Book.
As such, alterations destroy the intent, and
Identity of such works. This is why you will not see Eskimos in
Journey Into the West,or the Navaho
Diné Bahane’. without a rather substantial outcry over the mutilation of other’s heritage (something that is sadly abused by people who complain of the same thing for something that doesn’t exist¹).
Jackson’s movies might show
A Middle-earth, but they certainly do not show
THE Middle-earth, of JRR Tolkien.
MB
1. See people who like to make noise about a thing called “
The White Race” — there is no such thing. Aside from “race” not existing either.