One film to rule them all ... (includes spoilers!)

Rating: 10/10 (26 December 2001)

One film to rule them all ... (includes spoilers!)
This film was hyped to a level even higher than "Star Wars I " and "Harry Potter". Considered impossible to make, New Line and the hitherto sadly-not-so-recognised director, Peter Jackson, nevertheless set out with a budget, ambition and vision to rival the most spectacular historical movies of the 1940-60's (e.g. Spartacus). And in my opinion they more than succeed. Spectacularly!
First a brief look at the literary fundament for the story: The plot of the book is rather simple: Good vs. Evil. Good guys must move from point A to point B to destroy item X. If they succeed, then Evil is destroyed. If they fail, then Good is destroyed. What makes the book so special is the combination of creative imagination, richness and diversity which Tolkien has employed so as to make the universe spring to life in a quite unique way. A true master of the Word.
What did they do to adapt this to the screen? When writing, the Words are essential for an understanding of what the writer tries to tell as the Words are the only link to the characters, the settings, the events, the atmosphere and the backgrounds of all within the book. Telling a story via the screen is something very different. Contrary to reading a book, the film needs to limit itself to a screen time of 3 hours in the case of FOTR. This naturally set certain limits on what can be included from the book. Where the books have the time and space to delve into a myriad number of characters the film has to reduce this number to what is managable not only by the time available in the film, but also by what the audience has capacity to digest in that same time span. It would become a rather dull recitation of names if all the names in the books were to be included in the film, really. Thus, Jackson has had to analyse which character was important for the development of the plot and the understanding of the story.
Let's take a look at Arwen for instance (spoilers). In the book she plays a limited role - she is to marry her one true love, Aragorn. In the film she replaces Glorfindel. Why? Glorfindel doesn't play any role in the book other than rescue Frodo and give an insight into the Elves. This role can just as easily be fulfilled by Arwen in the film. At the same time, one must assume that the love between Arwen and Aragorn is based upon the fact that they have met, and continue to meet when Aragorn is in Rivendel, and that they have a strong bond - also in the book. A 'human' dimension. The film shows this in a very respectful and beautiful way so that the characters are becoming more alive and deep. Otherwise Aragorn would only be a very good fighter. This change allows Jackson more scope. He now has the option to show highly emotional, intense and soft moments in the lives of the characters. Thus it becomes enriching for the film version of LOTR.

Another point where the film has been critised is the role of Saruman (spoilers). Saruman has a more dominant role in the film than in the book at this stage in the story, just as his betrayal of Good is not immediately known in the books. In the film Gandalf explains that he was "delayed" and thus was unable to reach Bree in time. The flashback needs to explain why Gandalf was delayed. At the same time, it needs to explain why Saruman is such a threat to the Good quest and his surroundings. First of all this is essential for the second film where Jackson now doesn't have to explain Saruman. We know that he is a bad guy and why.
Secondly, it is possible, in the books, to complicate matters a lot while the film again has a limited amount of time to explain it all.
Consequences: We know that Saruman is a baddie and that he is in league with Sauron. Thus, we lose the possibility to feel betrayed. On the other side, by making Saruman the immediate active antagonist, the film gains a plot device which is essential to set most of the action in motion. As such it allows people who haven't read the books an easier access into the story than the more complicated version would allow. It works - I have talked with several people who haven't read the books. They understand the film and will now read the books.
Conclusion: In my opinion the film succeeds beyond any expectations. It is better than the hype! The word that best describes the experience of seeing this film is awe-inspiring. For me it was a total immersion into the universe of Tolkien's as shown by Jackson. The casting is spot on. The acting is absolutely wonderful and the entire set, the costumes, etc are top-notch. While the CGI are almost perfect they do not steal the story. They supplement and enrich the vision we see and truly shows what the film media can do. This might as well be how I have imagined these characters in my mind. Most importantly, the film captures the spirit of the books. The feel of the universe, the sympathy or fear which the characters and events generates are perfect.
As for FOTR being the best film ever made ... well, there are a lot of great movies out there. It enters my top-many list of films that I like the most. However, is it really better than "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" or the "Star Wars saga" or "Citizen Kane" or "The 39 Steps" or "The Birds" or "Hellraiser" or "The English Patient" or "Dr. Stangelove" or "Alien" or a lot more? Both yes and no. It entirely depends on what I feel like at the time.
Grade: 10