The Rough Guide to Middle Earth

Rating: 6/10 (23 April 2003)

Tolkein's epic fantasy novel had long been considered unfilmable, on account of the richness of the imaginative landscape described in his prose and occasional, vertiginous drawings. So the first thing to say about Peter Jackson's film is that it looks (i) amazing and (ii) exactly as you expected it to look. New Zealand and computer graphics have combined to create a visual extravaganza wholly true to the original's aesthetic. But the replacement of words by images in itself is merely a prerequisite for a successful film. And the words are largely, sadly, replaced: little of the text survives, and even in the beginning, when Galadriel gives us an introduction to then history of the ring, Tolkein's own various accounts have been discarded (arguably necessarily) in place of a softer, more matter-of-fact overview. None the less, the main details of the story survive. Scriptwriter Frances Walsh has simplified in places but has not shied away from the essential complexity and richness of the tale. Of course one has quibbles: we lose the subtlety of Saruman (a shame, when Christopher Lee is the perfect casting); all the hobbits, Bilbo excepted, seem about half a generation too young; the re-invention of Arwen as a warrior princess is dull, obvious and anachronistic; Hugo Weaving's Elrond is slightly camp and his council lacks due solemnity; and however often Viggo Mortenson flashes his cheekbones, Aragorn was surely never such a pretty boy. But compared with what seems right, what seems wrong is surely trivial by contrast. And yet the film still fails to really capture the magic of the book.
The problem is that a lot of the strength of the book is what happens when nothing is happening. A few examples suffice to illustrate the point. Headed towards Weathertop, Aragorn tells the hobbits fragments of ancient legends; by the time the party arrives, their destination is established as a place of wonder and history. But in the film, we leap there straight from Bree: Aragorn points out the ruined fortress as if he had never mentioned it previously, in the manner of a tour guide pointing out the sights. The subsequent flight to the ford is notable in the book as a time when the heroes are waiting, day after day, for inevitable attack, which when at last it happens has a much more powerful impact than the simple chase scene rendered here; while the attempted passage of the mountains, grimly familiar in prose to anyone who has battled the elements at altitude, is reduced to a single dramatic scene, that makes the point (that the pass will not be crossed) but wholly fails to suggest that the characters might die here (and slowly), defeated by nothing more magical than weather and cold. In consequence the film becomes a mere sequence of dramatic challenges: fight the orcs, flee the balrog, meet Galadriel, etc., etc., etc. The sense of time, and of the characters' changing perceptions of their mission as it passes, is lost. Instead, the battle scenes, which in part one are merely skirmishes, are played up. In spite of its great length, this film lacks patience. Everything is amazing; and so in a sense nothing is. Each landmark, so hard-earned in the primary text, comes quickly after the one before, like a sequence of edited highlights. Overall, the effect is that of a three hour trailer.
For devotees of the book "The Fellowship of the Ring" is fascinating but flawed. It's far from clear that it could have been better. But maybe film is simply too literal a medium to capture a vision that as literature is always more than the sum of its parts.