Novels/Films

Rating: Null/10 (19 March 2003)

I just re-viewed Fellowship of the Ring last night and was struck all over again at how good I think the film is. But there's been enough of that. I also have read the novels probably a dozen times over nearly a 40 year period. It took me a hard slog at first to get into them; The Lord of the Rings is, essentially, a Victorian 3-volume novel. I just wanted to observe, rather idiotically, I suppose, that a novel and a book are two separate and distinct entities. Of COURSE I was disappointed that certain aspects of the novel weren't included in either of the two films -- or other aspects added. But I've been through this with half a dozen other much beloved books and I have only this to finish with: Does the film stand on its own? Regardless of the "source?" If yes, then what's the problem? Something For Everyone (@ 1970) has nothing whatever to do with the novel it purported to be based upon (it's much funnier -- and wicked). There were QUITE a number of changes to, well, just about ALL the films made from E.M. Forster's wonderful novels. Yet, as films, they all stand quite wonderfully on their own merits. (With the single exception, IMHO, of HOWARD'S END.)
The Fellowship of the Ring is a film I can and do watch at least once a week and have done so for about three weeks since I purchased it. It will pass. But right now, it has me enthralled! Completely. And I just re-read the whole trilogy less than a year ago!
Simple, really. Fine Book. Fine Film.
As to the acting, I'm given to understand Sean Astin and Viggo Mortenson were replacements for the originals; I think they both deliver fantastic performances! As for the rest of the cast, kudos, indeed! The sheer physical beauty of the film, too, never ceases to amaze me!