Book: Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Gap between first publication and film release: 47 years.
Closeness to original characters: 95% (Kate)
Closeness to original story: 90% (Kate)
Kate says when I first learned about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings project, I was worried.
I should state here that I believe movies should NOT be exactly the same as books. The print medium and the visual medium require different approaches. However, I get extremely annoyed when Hollywood purchases movie rights for a book and then proceeds to show zero respect towards the book.
And Lord of the Rings happens to be one of those trilogies I grew up with, so not only do I like the books, I have this deep-seated nostalgic reaction when I read them or hear about them.
So I was nervous.
Focusing on just the characters, I believe that Fellowship captures both the look and personality of the characters from the book more than ANY book-to-movie adaptation I have ever seen. It is one of the few times in my life when my head images were actually translated to film.
- Elijah Wood and Sean Astin as Frodo and Sam are perfect. Wood does a good job highlighting Frodo's sensitive, reflective nature. Astin as the true loyal friend is entirely believable. (There's no angsty "subtext": Sam will always be loyal.)
- Ian Holm as Bilbo is not only right-on but a loving tribute (Ian Holm played Frodo in a 1981 BBC Radio production).
- Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan as Pippin and Merry are well-cast. Their differences of character (Pippin as younger and more reckless/blithe; Merry as older and more thoughtful) do appear in the movie, but you have to be looking for them; they are emphasized more in the book.
- Ian McKellan as Gandalf--well, geez, could the casting get any better?! Perfect looks and great acting all wrapped up in one guy! He combines gruff compassion and noble heroism exactly right--awesome grumpy guy indeed!
- Sean Bean as Boromir is another stellar looks and acting choice. In fact, I think Sean Bean brings to Boromir a kindness and vulnerability that enhances his internal struggle. (Boromir's struggle is a large part of the book, but in the book, he is a more aloof character without much sense of humor.)
- Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn has sometimes been criticized as being too scruffy. I think this is an unfair criticism. The book makes patently clear that Aragorn as Strider does not appear even vaguely king-like. In fact, he is so untrustworthy-looking, Sam pulls a sword on him, and Frodo only trusts him based on instinct ("I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler"). Viggo Mortensen being who he is, the best way to damp down his "fair" looks was scruffiness.
In the book, Aragorn is far, far less worried about his ancestry (the weakness of his blood) than in the movie. But Jackson needed a character arc, and he gave it to Aragorn. This makes sense, and mostly, I think it works, but the extended version goes a better job than the theatrical version dealing with Aragorn's internal issues.
- Who doesn't just adore John Rhys-Davies as Gimli? How about that voice!
- About the elves: although I can't get excited about Orlando Bloom, I think he was a good choice for Legolas. Both Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler are so personally elegant and lovely, they kind of overwhelm any residual book images. Cate Blanchett's rendering of Galadriel's passionate and enigmatic nature is quite close to the book's description. Liv Tyler, on the other hand, was given far more to work with! To be honest, Arwen's part of the book is mostly "token beautiful woman"-ish; Jackson's expansion of her character was wise (and works well).
The one huge "Wow, I never thought of him that way" was Hugo Weaving as Elrond. And I get a huge kick out of Boyd and Monaghan's commentary in the last movie: "That's . . . that's the guy from The Matrix!" Which kind of says it all. Elrond may not be what I imagined, but IT'S HUGO WEAVING! If Hugo Weaving walked up to me and said, "I want to be in your movie," I'd say, "Great! Pick your part!"
- I am fairly indifferent to the character of Saruman. However, fingering Christopher Lee for the part was brilliant casting. What a way to get an actor with the appropriate history!
I will now end my list of multiple superlatives and give the floor to Mike!
Mike says these movies are amazing. In my mind, they are the pinnacle of movie making, are so beautifully and lovingly made, that one cannot help but be impressed by every single facet of this movie!
Shortly after watching Fellowship, I tried to read the book- which proved to be one of the most painful experiences of my life! As an English major, I was especially taken aback, as I expected to enjoy the book more than the movie. Not SO! For myself, the movie is so much more interesting and compelling, that it is hard to back-peddle and suffer through a thousand pages of utter boredom.
Now, admittedly, this is a little harsh, but there are a couple things to take into account- I have not read the book in over ten years, AND I have no prior history with it. As such, I can happily leave the job of comparing, especially the characters, to Kate (the designated expert this week).
As a movie, Fellowship is, as I mentioned, truly inspiring. The scale of production truly creates the sense of another world. This isn't a CGI cartoon the likes of Avatar or something filmed in unsettled areas like Willow. In the geography of New Zealand, Jackson truly found a believable and epically grand Middle Earth.
As Kate mentioned, the acting and casting is all magnificent. Every actor provides the performance of their careers, creating real, likable and developed characters that could easily carry a movie on their own. But instead of overwhelming one another, each character complements the others, with the several one on one relationships providing insight into motivations and the world, and giving the audience true reason to care for the characters.
Many of these relationships are between Frodo and the rest of the Fellowship, each one highlighting a different aspect of his personality. The Frodo/Gandalf relationship is perhaps my favorite. Frodo and Gandalf have true affection for one another, and Gandalf quickly takes a mentor/father role, guiding Frodo, inspiring him, and reminding him of the happier times that he fights for. Many of my favorite lines from the film are exchanges between Gandalf and Frodo:
Frodo: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."
Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time given to us."
The Sam/Frodo relationship is a close second. I love that Sam is a truly incorruptible and pure character. While these type of characters are often exploited and "dirtied" through the course of their adventures (Willow from Buffy is the most vivid example of this), Sam stays true and heroic throughout the films.
I also love the Gimli/Legolas relationship. That these rival eventually grow to be friends is something truly inspiring to watch. What may be the most impressive thing about the characters in this film is that I could go on, matching every character and describing the influence the relationship has on the film. While I honestly can't comment on how well they were translated to the screen, I can say that as movie characters, each is strongly developed, and well portrayed. Fellowship is a truly great film.
As much as I love these films, however, I do have to agree that the film below does have a point!
Next movie, Mary Poppins, will be reviewed July 29th!
10 comments:
And you know, Kate, based on my admittedly VERY vague memories of "fellowship" the book, the film is only about 75% accurate. Not only does the film brush over the THIRTY YEARS between Bilbo's party and Frodo's quest, and cut out numerous side quests (which was probably for the best), but it also had to steal it's climax from the beginning of the next installment!
HOWEVER, I agree the characters seem dead on. In fact, if the novel had focused on the character interactions as well as the movie did, it would have been far more interesting!
And I do feel that all of the changes helped the movie overcome the flaws of the book, becoming more streamlined and less bogged down with exposition.
I meant to say "the film SEEMS only 75% accurate." I am in no way trying to make a statement of fact! just my own (possibly wrong) opinion!
Yeah, I was thinking I should probably explain what I mean by "closeness"!
Because I think that movies ought to be different from books, I am extremely generous when it comes to evaluating closeness. So long as the scriptwriters keep the overall plot and, more importantly, show respect for the author and the author's work, I am satisfied!
So for Fellowship, Jackson kept Bilbo's party although in the original text, as you point out, Mike, there's a lot more time involved between the party and Frodo leaving the shire.
He kept Pippin and Merry meeting up with Frodo and Sam later although originally Pippin and Merry planned to go with Frodo and Sam from the beginning; they just went on ahead. He likewise removed the sequence with Farmer Maggot although he kept in a few references.
He completely removed Tom Bombadil, but hey, what's a guy to go with completely irrelevant material!
He kept in Bree and Butterbur although he made both much darker than in the original text. He kept in but cut the meeting with Aragorn/Strider.
He kept in the fight on Weathertop and, what is even cooler, kept in Tolkien's careful underlying structure which splits the Nazgul at that time (some are off chasing after Gandalf).
He kept in all the stuff about Saruman and Gandalf and showed it to us first-hand rather than in a backflash!
He changed the elf who finds Frodo et al. from a male elf to Arwen--intelligent change.
He made Rivendell even more riveting and mysterious and awesome than in the book!
He kept all nine members of the Fellowship (unlike one ridiculous version of Murder on the Orient Express which cut the characters from 12 to 9 which makes nonsense of Christie's idea).
He added Aragorn's angst (necessary character arc) and kept Boromir's. He kept Legolas/Gimli's initial rivalry.
See next comment!
The Ring Goes South:
Jackson took out the wargs (really mean wolves which attack the Fellowship on the way south) but kept in the bad birds, Caradhras, the squid monster near the Moria gate, the discovery of Balin's tomb, and Gandalf's fight with the Balrog.
The great dialog between Gandalf and Frodo that you quote, Mike, is actually from the beginning of the book (nicely replaced here).
Jackson did make the Moria section much longer than I remember from the book. I thought the Moria section was one of the few faulty sections in the movie, but that could be cause I'm a gal and the fighting/running just went on and on and on and on.
Almost everything at Lothlorien is kept although, here, I think Jackson should have added in more of the extended cut scenes! In the extended cut, if I remember correctly, he shows more of the gift-giving and, more importantly, more of Galadriel's kindness to Gimli. Gimli becomes a devotee of Galadriel in the book, and this is one of the things that brings him and Legolas closer as friends. Legolas takes Gimli on a tour of Lothlorien and later Gimli promises to show Legolas some of the dwarves' cave kingdoms.
One big difference: in the book, Sam is with Frodo at the mirror of Galadriel, and he is tempted to abandon Frodo and go home to save the Shire but, in keeping with his nature, stays true to Frodo. (I agree with you, Mike, about Sam's pure goodness; I'm glad Jackson didn't mess that up.)
Galadriel's temptation to take the ring is kept from the book and very effectively too!
The final sequences are all pretty much in keeping with the book. I can't remember if Pippin and Merry actually see Frodo before he leaves (Frodo doesn't see Aragorn), and Aragorn's nemesis (the guy who gets his head chopped off) is, I think, more emphasized in the movie. But Boromir's aggression towards Frodo, Frodo fleeing with the ring on, Frodo deciding to go on alone, Sam convincing Frodo to take him as well, Boromir putting himself in harm's way to defend Pippin and Merry, then confessing his sins to Aragorn while dying--all that is from the book: high chivalric stuff!
Technically, it's probably more like 70-80% accurate! But I feel that Jackson's film shows a love and respect not only for the ideas of the book but for Tolkien's vision/way of telling the story. It's when a book is treated disrespectfully that I get MAAAD.
..... *feeling sheepish* see? told ya you were the expert! If it's any consolation, I started re-reading the book last night! Getting through the introduction alone took some effort!
Tolkien's writing is all description, and very heavily so, so it gets a little overwhelming at times. I'm trying to think of it as a really dry Wikipedia post! (I spend far too much time reading wiki!)I have not, however, given in to the urge to just read the Wikipedia summary.
also... just found the quote! Is it only me, or is it discouraging that page 56 constitutes the beginning of the book? sigh.....
In all honesty, I've reread Fellowship many more times than the other books in the trilogy (so I can't report on the accuracy/closeness of the other movies at all!), and I've never read any of Christopher Tolkien's books based on his father's notes. (Although at one point, I did read a whole bunch of books ABOUT Tolkien and Middle-Earth, and I actually did read the Simarillion--once.)
Despite rereading Fellowship so often, the beginning part of the book (up until the hobbits reach Bree) is a tad dry. Part of this is Tolkien's description (which is clean and unpretentious but heavy on the exposition side), but I think part of it is that Tolkien didn't really know what the story was until the quest actually began. It's almost as if he was feeling his way, acquainting himself with the new characters, reacquainting himself with Middle-Earth . . .
There are critics who will try to fit in this first part--including Tom Bombadil--with the rest of Tolkien's LOTR vision, but, eh--I mean, whatever floats their boat, ya know. But once Tolkien figured out, "Oh, THIS is my quest," not only does the writing speed up but the complexity of his vision starts to show. Tolkien kept a very exact chronology, so that even when the Fellowship is broken, he knew what was happening to each member on each specific day. (Jackson merges the chronology rather than separating it, so we follow Aragorn's crew, Pippin & Merry, and Sam & Frodo simultaneously--which is a way better approach for a film.)
But, yeah, seriously, if you skimmed up until Frodo et. al. reach Bree, I wouldn't tell anyone! (Although the adventure on the Barrowdowns is creepy, just unrelated to everything else.)
Um, yeah, pg. 56 being the "beginning" is depressing!
Also, regarding the eagles--that is an awesome video!--"Can you imagine if we walked the whole way!?"--and totally appropriate for this list since it highlights one problem with translating a book to film.
When the books were read to me and when I reread them as a YA, I didn't notice this particular plot hole at all. Because the books have taken the reader through so much by that point, the problem of ignoring airplane-equivalent allies never comes up.
But in a movie, even three 2+hours movies, the plot hole is immediately apparent. Even if Sauron noticed and killed off a whole bunch of eagles, it would still be worth the effort to try to get an eagle in. (And why can't Gandalf just devise magical oxygen masks for them, so they can go WAY over Mordor's walls?)
This is one case where Jackson's love for the books might have undermined him. He kept in the eagles because, in the books, it is a totally stirring and lovely moment (and a tribute to Bilbo's adventures). But in the movie--well, I'm not sure how else Frodo and Sam were going to be rescued from the lava flow, but . . .
One solution: all the eagles were working for Sauron, but when Sauron fell, the eagles switched sides. It is implied in the books that the eagles don't like to get involved in "human" problems, so that type of fix was fairly easy, but, again, Jackson's love for the books kept him from making such a radical change (eagles as ambiguous bad guys).
So love for the book isn't always 100% the best reaction for a producer/director (Kate says through clenched teeth)!
I'm sorry but I must disagree with your opinion of the movie version of LOTR. J.R.R.Tolkien is one of my favorite writers, so I may unduly biased against the movie.
I must say that I have not watched the entire set of movies. I really didn't want my imagination to be "spoilt" by someone else's imagery.
However, I have managed to see some of it. I'm sorry to say, I was not impressed.
There were changes that seemed to be to simply be unnecessary. For example, during the exit from Moria, there is an earthquake and Frodo nearly falls off the stone bridge. Really? We already have an army of Orcs chasing our heroes and then a Balrog (a great evil power from an earlier age) menaces them. This isn't enough? Really? So Jackson throws in an earthquake and has Frodo nearly fall into an abyss.
I guess what irks me about this is that I view Tolkien as one of the greatest writers of the 20th Century. Surely the popularity and durability of his books warrant him being considered at least in the top ten.
So where does Jackson get off thinking that he needs to improve on his story telling?
Secondly, I object to the changing of the Arwen character. Kate, I'm a bit surprised at you that you would not see how changing Arwen into a "warrior" type character utterly destroys her. I have a hard-bound version of LOTR that has the original appendices. There are some notes here that tell more about the characters. Arwen's character was not as fully developed as it could have been in the main story. You get a much better understanding of her in the appendix. Arwen was a "throwback" to an earlier Elf princess named Luthien Tinuviel. She is renowned because she was the first Elf to marry a mortal. In her case, she and her husband became immortal. However, Arwen's case is more tragic. Arwen had to give up her immortality in order to marry Aragorn.
For the "warrior" maid, we have the character of Eowyn. Her character is both noble and sad. To remake Arwen into a character like Eowyn is to miss the point.
I will also admit to being a bit of a chauvinist. I don't like female characters to fight in the same way as male characters (sword and steel). Witness Galadriel. She is considered one of the mighty, but her might is not with sword or bow, but with magic and strength of will.
My two cents...
R in Seattle
Regarding Moria, I completely and totally and utterly agree! I think the extra action scene was ridiculous and made the Moria sequence way, way, way, way too long. Some non-Tolkien-fan friends saw the first movie with me, and their main complaint was the length of the Moria sequence and the comparative shortness of the Lothlorien sequence. I completely agree! I think it is one of Jackson's biggest errors.
The extended version helps somewhat since the Lothlorien scenes are expanded and filled out, but actually, when I saw them, I got even more peeved: Jackson had the material!! And more-Lothlorien would have helped sell the movie to a broader audience than young-males-looking-for-action (in any case, from an action point of view, I don't think the extra Moria scene helps; the climax, for the movie, is the attack at the end, not Moria).
Regarding Arwen, I considered that alteration a concession to changing times, much the same way Susan has been changed in the Narnia films. Although these are two cases where the authors' visions are definitely NOT kept, I think it is very difficult for a modern audience to appreciate Tolkien and Lewis' chivalric, medieval-influenced female characterizations. (And I confess, I appreciate the changes.) Also, having Arwen show up earlier (and more) gives the viewer stronger investment in the character. This is one of the major differences between movies and books to me; a character that is given only a paragraph or two in a book can come alive and affect the entire book while a character with only one or two scenes in a movie will seem a throw-away. And I think Liv Tyler captures the essence of Arwen, the serene regality. (The later movies do focus more on her choice than her fighting.)
Having said all the above, I do understand what it is like to see a beloved book turned into a film: the trepidation, the failure of the film to ever live up to the reading experience. I was so nervous when the first Chronicles of Narnia film came out (2005), I almost didn't see it.
On a sidenote: I have enjoyed the Narnia films, but then I also have approached them as "these are efforts to translate wonderful books that aren't translatable into film, so as long as they don't completely destroy the vision, they are good!" (My current standard for movies that don't do even vague justice to the books is the current Miss Marple series--not the earlier Joan Hickson movies but the ones that started in 2004.)
If you are interested in inflicting yourself with more opinions that you might possibly disagree with :) you can check out my review of Two Towers (it's the extended version, Mike, so feel free to add your two cents!).
Post a Comment