An Indepted Fanboy's Love Letter to The Lord of the Rings: A Critical Essay on the Film Trilogy, Part Two

Rating: 10/10 (12 January 2008)

(click on my name for Part One)
Okay, that's that. Now for some deconstruction.
First, to the visual side of The Lord of the Rings. Visually, it is indeed ravishing in every sense of the word. Its scale and technological wonders make it heaven on your eyes, and in every frame there are so many beautiful things to look at that with every viewing you notice something there that you never noticed before (something that defines any true classic). The design is so richly detailed and by turns shimmeringly beautiful and powerfully arresting that you feel like you can just reach into the screen and touch the rainforest treetops of Rivendell or Lothlórien, or smell the gritty underbelly of the almost dystopic caverns of Isengard. Much of this is due to the many spectacular New Zealand locations on which the movie was filmed  indeed, Jackson's choices of locations were so beneficial overall to New Zealand's tourism industry that then-New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark stated, "Peter Jackson has done more for New Zealand's tourism industry than any man since Captain Cook!"
Still on the visual aspect of The Lord of the Rings, overshadowing the sets and costumes are the indisputably awe-inspiring special effects. They have the same effect as the sets and costumes, however they overpower other technical aspects of the production when we learn there was much more at stake with the special effects. And the special effects are, it must be said, nothing less than special. In fact, what am I saying? To merely write them off as "special" is both an understatement and an injustice. It's almost as if Peter Jackson has made a 3-D movie that you don't need to watch while wearing those stupid glasses, to get the adrenaline rush that 3-D brings. The dragon firework; Frodo's blurred and almost otherworldly vision when he puts on the One Ring; the dormant demon erupting out of Cate Blanchett's Queen Galadriel when she sees the Ring; the river flooding Isengard to the ground; Mount Doom blowing its top and the tower of Orthanc collapsing to the ground, causing an earthquake after the destruction of the Ring; and the afore-mentioned showdown on the Bridge of Khazad-dum to name but a few. All become indelibly etched in your memory forever. And then there's Gollum (played to sheer perfection by Andy Serkis), the first completely lifelike (if that's the right adjective to use in relation to a non-human character) computer-generated character ever committed to celluloid. Gollum was the main reason as to just why the realism of the visuals in The Lord of the Rings was so critical to the outcome, especially in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, because he is the character through which the story's moral of how power corrupts is delivered. Visually, The Lord of the Rings is, to put it lightly, a dream come true.
Another visual plus is Andrew Lesnie's exhilarating cinematography  indeed, the effectiveness of the picturesque New Zealand locations in the overall look of the movie has a great deal to do with his camera and he deserved every gram of the Academy Award he won for Fellowship. Two photographic shots in the entire piece that never fail to leave me awestruck are the tracking shot of the butterfly flying along the caverns of Isengard then up and over the tower of Orthanc (despite that shot being mostly computer-generated) and the haunting mise-en-scene (following Arwen's (Liv Tyler) vision of Aragorn's (Viggo Mortensen) passing) of leaves floating over Aragorn's casket to show the withering passage of time. Sublime.
Click on my name for Part Three!