First Part of a Masterpiece

Rating: 10/10 (21 May 2005)

I first saw this film when it came out in December 2001. At that time I had never read Tolkien's works and had little interest in the heroic fantasy genre either in literature or in the cinema, where I associated it with garbage along the lines of "Conan the Barbarian". I was, however, persuaded to see 'The Fellowship of the Ring', by its overwhelmingly positive reception from the critics. I went into the cinema expecting a twee tale of elves, gnomes and fairies but, despite my prejudices against fantasy, I quickly came to realise that Peter Jackson's film was a masterpiece.
The plot of the film is too complex to be summarised here in any depth. At its centre is a magic ring (a motif Tolkien seems to have borrowed from Wagner and which symbolically represents the corrupting power of evil). This ring can give its owner immense power, but can only be used for evil purposes. At the beginning of the film the ring is owned by the elderly hobbit Bilbo Baggins, who acquired it many years before and has no idea of its power. He is warned by the wizard Gandalf that the evil Dark Lord Sauron, who originally forged the ring, is trying to regain it in order to enslave Middle-Earth (the imagined world in which the story is set). "The Fellowship of the Ring" relates how Bilbo's nephew Frodo and his companions- the "Fellowship"- set out on a journey to destroy the ring, something that can only be achieved by casting it into Mount Doom, the volcano in which it was originally forged.
The film is beautifully shot against some stunning landscapes in Jackson's native New Zealand, and the action sequences, particularly the fight sequences, are brilliantly handled. Another important factor is Howard Shore's vivid and evocative musical score. The main reason for the film's success, however, is the acting. In most fantasy films this is regarded as being less important than special effects and a dramatic storyline, and in some such as "Conan" or "Red Sonja" the standards of acting are ludicrously low. Jackson avoids falling into this trap and brings out some great performances from his cast. There are too many for me to single them all out for mention. The best is from Ian McKellen as Gandalf, combining wisdom and authority with kindliness. The scene where he fights the Balrog in the Mines of Moria is probably the most heart-stopping in the film. Elijah Wood as Frodo, with his fragile, epicene looks succeeds in capturing his character's courage and determination, as well as hinting at his physical and emotional weaknesses. I also liked Christopher Lee as Saruman, a former colleague of Gandalf who is tempted by cowardice and self-interest to ally himself with the powers of evil, and the generally excellent Sean Bean as the tragic figure of Boromir, who is destroyed by his obsession with using the ring against Sauron himself, a course which his companions reject because they fear being corrupted by the ring's power.
I recently watched the film for the second time, having in the interim seen the second and third episodes and been inspired by them to read the original novel. There has been some criticism of Jackson for omitting some parts of the book, such as the Tom Bombadil episode in Part I and the Scouring of the Shire in Part III. In my view, however, his approach was the right one. Although these episodes are important parts of the book, there are major differences between the cinematic and the literary approaches to story-telling. A novel can be more discursive; a film needs to tell the story in a more direct manner, and Jackson was right to omit those episodes which do not serve to advance the main story-line.
There is little point in trying to decide which of the three parts is the best, because Jackson's work can be regarded as a single ten-hour film rather than as series of three, albeit a film that was released in three parts for commercial reasons. Tolkien similarly regarded "The Lord of the Rings" as a single novel rather than as a trilogy, but it was published in three parts because the publishers felt that the public would balk at a novel of 1,500 pages. My mark reflects my view of the three parts as a whole. 10/10.