Classic material, will it be a classic movie?

Rating: 10/10 (23 December 2001)

If you are unfamiliar with Tolkien's work, then let me say that "The Lord of the Rings" is no "fairy tale" any more than is Homer's "Iliad". Tolkien's trilogy is a classic in the true literary sense; it is "Iliad" and "Odyssey" in one tale, but running concurrently.
"Classic" is a phrase that gets tacked on to too many movies these days. Whether "Fellowship of the Ring" or Peter Jackson's entire trilogy of movies truly achieves that designation is something only time will tell.
If I say, "Rosebud", or "I'll get you my pretty!" or "Frankly, Scarlet" you know exactly what movies I'm talking about, and the scene will come to mind. That, I think, is a true test of a classic movie in the post-silent era.
If, in 30 years, I can say "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" and the image of Sir Ian McKellan as the wizard Gandalf at the bridge of Khazad Dum comes to mind, then this movie will have achieved classic status. If not that scene, then Peter Jackson has two more tries at gaining film immortality with the next two movies in the Tolkien trilogy.
Great movies are not made great by special effects, but by the performances of their actors. And acting in this movie is superb. This movie is not all "swords and sorcery" and comparing it to something like "Conan the Barbarian" would be a travesty. This movie has more similarity with "Braveheart" than with "Conan".
In my opinion, "Fellowship" is a better movie than "Braveheart". It is deeper in its scope but more basic in its concept. This is myth come to life - a story about how man came to rule the world and how sorcery and magic passed into a history that is now long lost. Like any myth, evil and good are clearly defined, and the story itself serves as allegory for the universal quest.
Unlike the myths of old, the true hero of this story is not a mighty warrior, but an everyman who has a seemingly insurmountable task thrust upon him. Frodo Baggins is no Odysseus. He is not larger than life. Unlike Odysseus, Frodo's "bow" could be easily bent, but how many of us could bear his ring-burden and not become corrupted by it? That is what makes the story of "Lord of the Rings" a classic in the truest sense of the word. This is a story about confronting the weakness in us all to choose an easier path ignoring responsibility to the future for the comfort of the present.
Movies are based upon the suspension of disbelief. Anytime a filmmaker attempts to portray a myth he has a doubly daunting task, for this is fiction within a fictional context; a story twice removed from the truth.
My main concern about "Lord of the Rings" was not how well its actors portrayed their roles or how good the costumes or special effects would be. I knew they would be good. I was concerned with whether Peter Jackson "got it" - the story behind the story, and did not just gloss over the tale with fight scenes and special effects with a smattering of good performances by some excellent talent. This is why George Lucas failed in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace." Lucas forgot what his own series of movies was about and,
instead, gave us, in "Menace", a story we did not care about. He did not suspend our disbelief.
Peter Jackson's rendition of this classic story finally does justice to Tolkien's tale where others have failed. This is an intelligent portrayal of Tolkien's world and Jackson puts you smack dab in that world for 178 minutes and does not let you leave until he is done with you. Two days after seeing "Fellowship of the Ring" I don't feel like he is done with me yet. I am still "suspended" and probably have no chance of coming down until "Return of the King" is released in December 2003.