The First Instant Classic Movie of the 21st Century...

Rating: 10/10 (20 October 2016)

In 2008, the American Film Institute came up with the list of the 10 Greatest American Fantasy Movies of All Time. There was no way "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't top this list but guess which newcomer took the second spot that would have belonged to "It's a Wonderful Life". Indeed, Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" is not only the most recent inclusion in any American Film's Institute's List (it is also in the Top 100 Greatest Movies) but it's the highest ranked. It says a lot when a less-than-a-decade old film is literally sandwiched by two classics that are half-centuries older.
And 2001 was quite a year for Fantasy; the four highest-grossing movies of the year were the first "Harry Potter", "The Fellowship of the Ring", "Monsters & Inc." and "Shrek". And despite that huge competition, it's the cinematic adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien that became an instant classic in the same vein than "Star Wars" in 1977. I know "Harry Potter" deserves a honorable mention but I don't think the series created something as endearing as "The Lord of the Rings" did, a myth, a saga made of characters that are now parts of pop-culture. And if George Lucas has an edge over Jackson because he created his own mythology, Jackson still took up the most difficult challenge ever: recreating J.R.R Tolkien's universe on the screen.
The book, the movie, the involvement that made the transition from one format to another possible are all explained in DVD special features, as long as the movie itself, and I watched them with excitement, because nothing is worthier of admiration than an impossible mission being accomplished, starting with the book. Tolkien was a man of classical education, the same generation than Asimov and Pagnol, brilliant literate minds who studied languages, sciences and translated their academic background into art. Tolkien's specialty was language and when he created his world, he didn't just throw names or drew forms; he invented languages, civilizations, that the appeal of Tolkien, his stories felt real, like belonging to humanity's canon.
Sure they venture into fairy-tale territories but his creatures are people with specific cultures and lifestyles and even individually, they are not all the same. You have the Elves who are wise, beautiful and immortal, men who are brave but easily corrupted, dwarfs who are practical and rough mine-workers and of course, the friendly Hobbits and their bucolic happiness. The story centers on the most universal myth of all-time, good vs. evil, with one a small object that can destroy the world and yet seems indestructible. Tolkien meant it as an allegory for machinery and its poisoning effect on the world, but the story is told in the classical epic way, featuring the quest of nine heroes, and the journey of a young Hobbit named Frodo.
Frodo, played by Elijah Wood, is the film's "Luke Skywalker" there's something undoubtedly Obi- Wanesque about the Old Wizard Gandalf, played by Ian McKellen who reveals to Frodo the ring's dark secret, and like Alec Guinness, he was Oscar nominated for his performance, a rarity in Fantasy films. And the performances are integral to the film's success, more than the special effects, more than the production design, the armors and weapons, the Orcs' make-up, the battles' choreographs, if that was enough to make a box-office hit, it takes more to get your three films in IMDb's Top 50, just look at the "Star Wars" prequels.
Speaking of the performances, Ian McKellen displays a wide range of emotion going from the friendly elderly man, to the warm and reassuring friend with Bilbo Haggings (Ian Holm) but he shows who's the boss when needed to. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin have a great chemistry and you cannot doubt over their friendship and the two other hobbits actors know how to play comic reliefs without going over-the-top. The rest of the cast, from Cate Blanchett to Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn all in their characters, with as much sincerity and intensity as if they were trying to grab an Oscar and that proves one thing, they respect the work of Tolkien.
The DVD features show them all being interviewed about their experience and you can see in Mortensen, McKellen and the late Christopher Lee (who plays evil Saruman) that they have a sort of fascination and respect for the Master. And rightfully so, it took Tolkien fourteen years to finish the book, and four times more to make a film out of it. Jackson understood why it took so long when he started making the film. He shot it in New Zealand, the perfect place to recreate Middle-Earth, savage enough to look like it belongs to ancient times, then he recreated Hobbitebourg, and the film took form, step by step. And he shot the three films at once, to maintain the feeling of continuity.
Jackson's determination, hard-work is as colossal as Tolkien's creation, what he did was objectively impossible, but he embraced the courage of his hobbits, the wisdom of Gandalf, the strength of Aragorn and went on his own journey, making an epic fantasy, a historical war film, and a coming-of-age story, and if Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" is promised to centuries of fame, the film adaptation will certainly be responsible for it, because that's what makes a myth last, they're translated into different formats, they adapt to their world. And Tolkien's book was begging for a great cinematic adaptation.
And Jackson did it. I know there are purists who think the adaptation doesn't do justice to the richness of the book, but the film is still new, give it time. Think of "The Wizard of Oz", it was a book, but who can imagine it now without the version of Fleming in mind. Well, in a few decades, "The Lord of the Rings" will be as iconic as irreplaceable, maybe it already is.