FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is a breakthrough

Rating: Null/10 (6 January 2003)

Quickly, name the last sword-and-sorcery genre movie before this one that was better than mediocre? I don't know why, but for almost fifteen years American studio efforts in this field have been terrible. The genre has great potential, for its possibilities are bounded only by the film-maker's imagination. But it is precisely imagination that has been lacking in the studios. A return to the drawing board was necessary, and that is what Peter Jackson did, by going back to the founder of sword-and-sorcery as we know it, J.R.R. Tolkien.
The result is not only the finest sword-and-sorcery movie to hit screens since THE PRINCESS BRIDE (take ten points, all of you who named it in response to my initial question), it's one of the most spectacular movies of any kind created in this newborn millennium.
The story follows the adventures of nine marvelously individualized creatures (humans, Elves, Dwarves, and little people called Hobbits) as they seek to destroy the One Ring, an artifact capable of delivering absolute power to its wielder, and with it the absolute corruption such power inevitably brings. It is an epic story, which set the pattern for fantasy novels for decades thereafter, and to this day no fantasy author or director has ever surpassed it.
Peter Jackson has chosen well which parts of Tolkien's vast saga to include and which to omit. The story is well rid of such inconsequentials as Gildor, Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil; the bone-chilling barrow scene is a regrettable but unavoidable loss. Some Tolkien fans were outraged at the expansion of Arwen's role; I was worried too, but having seen the film I am now completely convinced that Jackson was right. The Arwen of the book is a cipher, with no characteristics except beauty to explain Aragorn's love for her. Liv Tyler's Arwen is a dynamic, devoted, brave (and beautiful) person, an excellent match for the warrior king.
The movie looks great, the imagery inspired not so much by the brothers Hildebrandt as by painter and visual consultant John Howe. Alan Lee was also a consultant, but fortunately his blurry, colorless style rarely infects the movie. Too bad that my favorite Tolkien painter of all, Ted Nasmith, had no hand in this, but while he could have improved the movie, the Howe-like colors and light were a perfectly defensible choice for Jackson to make.
But not all Jackson's choices are good. The extensive prologue was clearly not the best way to acquaint the viewers with the story's background; most of it should have been related by Gandalf. There is also no doubt that revealing the dark lord Sauron early on, in both his forms, was a mistake. The Lothlorien scene is far too brief; it either should have been eliminated completely or expanded to show why Galadriel is so tempted by the Ring and why her land is doomed whether the Ring-bearer succeeds or fails.
The acting is well above average. Veteran Ian McKellen would not have been my choice for the wizard Gandalf; Patrick McGoohan and Sean Connery both appeared to me to be better for the gruff but kindly sorceror. So it's a good thing that Jackson directed and not me, because McKellen acquits himself far better than either of my choices likely would have. His genuine love for the little Hobbits shines through in all his scenes, and his stubborn determination is magnificent, containing all the wisdom of age with none of the frailty. Second best is Sean Bean's Boromir, a vastly better character than the Boromir of the book. Tolkien's Boromir is such a p**** that it's hard to understand why his fellows even care about him; Bean's Boromir can be a p**** sometimes too, but in this case that's only one side of his character, and his love for the people of Gondor and for his home city of Minas Tirith draws our sympathy. Very strong is Christopher Lee's Saruman; a wizard whose chief weapon is his voice could have had no better voice than Lee's to represent him. Ian Holm also does a superb Bilbo.
There are no really bad performances, but two disappointing ones. Elijah Wood doesn't do anything clearly wrong as Frodo, but he is just less interesting than all the colorful characters surrounding him. As for Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, I may have set my expectations too high. Mortensen is a favorite of mine, one of the most versatile men in movies today. As Aragorn he is not bad, but never looks comfortable in his role. In his second scene with Liv Tyler in Rivendell, Tyler looks like she's in love, while Mortensen just looks astounded that she loves him. I couldn't see him loving her back. In the last scene between Mortensen and Bean, something also seems subtly wrong; I don't know what it was, but somehow it felt as if Mortensen was trying too hard.
As a postscript, I liked a scene that was almost universally reviled: the wizard's duel. I can see why most people didn't like it, since it was easy to look at it as just two men being jerked around by wires. If the acting by both combatants hadn't been so good, I might have seen it that way too. And yet, I am dead certain that shooting the scene more conventionally, with colorful rays and balls of light and lightning bolts, would have been a mistake. It would have looked like two men operating high-tech weapons instead of using the art of wizardry. To me, it really did feel like these men had unseen powers at their command. Jackson's way of making the scene may have been an error too, but I think it was the better of the two errors to make.
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
Recommendation: See it in the theater. Twice.