Review of Peter Jackson's Rendition of the Book into Film - Essay Example

"the lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring a review of peter jackson's rendition of the book into film When watching films that are adapted from existing and oftentimes well-known and well-loved works of literature, the film's faithfulness to the original work is something that is often desired and expected, but seldom seen fulfilled. A viewer of the film adaptation who is also familiar with the original work leaves the theater either satisfied that there is at least an effort to make the film adaptation approximate the spirit of the original work, or disappointed at the liberties taken by the filmmaker. Not often does a viewer leave the theater with a light feeling that the film seen is truly faithful to the literary work it has brought to the widescreen. However, it is understandable that despite the best efforts a filmmaker exerts in making the adapted movie he or she is working on to be as faithful to the work it is based on as possible, true faithfulness is nearly impossible. The film and the written word are two essentially different media; translating the written work word-for-word into the visual medium of film is almost next to impossible. If a film like, say, Gone with the Wind had been utterly faithful to the novel, it would have taken six hours, or even more. Factors like production costs, film length and the target audience need to be considered in adapting a written work after all. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is generally regarded as a gem of literature. As Dibbell put it in his essay, "[t]hat The Lord of the Rings belongs among the most important works of modern Western literature is not an unheard-of notion." Berardinelli wrote that Tolkein is considered the Father of Modern Fantasy, and that the three-volume book, along with its prequel The Hobbit, brought the fantasy genre up as a major literary category in its own right. He adds that almost all published authors of fantasy lists Tolkien as one of their influences. The epic scope of The Lord of the Rings makes it daunting for any filmmaker to bring it to the silver screen. Christopher Tolkien, son of J.R.R. Tolkien and executor of his father's estate, said that "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" (Ebert). Prior to Peter Jackson's attempt, in 1978, Ralph Bakshi came up with an animated version of the novel, covering the entirety of The Fellowship of the Ring and the first half of The Two Towers. Unfortunately, because of poor production values, Bakshi's attempt failed (Berardinelli). New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson made box office waves with his back-to-back-to-back attempt at filming the entire Tolkien work. All three films were nominated and won various awards, with the final installment, The Return of the King, sweeping the Oscars in 2003. Their combined box office gross totaled USD2,916,544,743 (Wikipedia). Granted that Jackson has succeeded where Bakshi had not, critics and fans alike were of mixed opinions as to whether his rendering of the original material was faithful or not. Some claim that he was, while some are of a mind that he was not. This writer believes that while Jackson had indeed twisted some parts of the book to suit the movie, he had nonetheless remained faithful to the general theme and spirit of the book. This essay aims to explore this thesis by examining five scenes from the book that were altered in the movie. The first scene taken involves Frodo's leaving the Shire after he learns that the ring is in his possession is the One Ring. In the book, upon receiving this information, it took weeks for Frodo to prepare to leave the Shire because he had not really wanted to. He expressed his desire to leave on his and Bilbo's birthday, and Gandalf allowed him to dally until then. To quote: To tell the truth, he was very reluctant to start, now that he had come to the point. Bag End seemed a more desirable residence than it had for years, and he wanted to savour as much as he could of his last summer in the Shire. When autumn came, he knew that part at least of his heart would think more kindly of journeying, as it always did at that season. He had indeed privately made up his mind to leave on his fiftieth birthday: Bilbo's one hundred and twenty-eighth. It seemed somehow the proper day on which to set out and follow him (Tolkien, 86). The way of Frodo's leaving the Shire in the book was also methodical, done with much planning. He let it be known that he is running out of money, and he intends to sell Bag End and use the proceeds to live quietly with his cousins in Buckland. He ended up selling it to the Sackville-Bagginses, Bilbo's closest yet most hated relations. On the night of his and Bilbo's birthday, his last night at the Shire, Frodo had a quiet party with his friends, and then left with Samwise Gamgee and Peregrin Took. Along the way, they met up with Meriadoc Brandybuck. While Sam was already privy to the real reason for Frodo's departure, Pippin and Merry were not - or so Frodo had thought. When he finally confessed his true reason for leaving, Pippin remarked that: Did you really think you had thrown dust in all our eyes You had not been nearly careful or clever enough for that! You have obviously been planning to go and saying farewell to all your haunts all this year since April. We have constantly heard you muttering: "Shall I ever look down into that valley again, I wonder," and things like that. And pretending that you had come to the end of your money, and actually selling your beloved Bag End to those Sackville-Bagginses! And all those close talks with Gandalf (Tolkien, 119). This scenario was conveyed differently in the movie. In the movie, Gandalf, who is played by Ian McKellen, returns to the Shire in the dead of the night after doing tedious research about the One Ring in various places, particularly in Minas Tirith. He shakes Frodo (Elijah Wood), who had just come home from a night in the pub, out of drunken stupor and tells him he must leave immediately. With much urgency that is not present at all in the book, Gandalf explains to Frodo the nature of the ring in Frodo's possession and the importance of getting it away from the Shire. As he makes his explanation, Frodo packs for his journey. He, Gandalf and Sam (Sean Astin), who was found eavesdropping and as punishment was dragged into the journey, leave at dawn the next day. Sam and Frodo part ways with Gandalf along the road. Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Moynahan) then literally jump into the journey by accident when Sam and Frodo run into them in Farmer Maggot's field and are also dragged along. The second scene taken is the hobbits' first meeting with Strider at the Prancing Pony in Bree. In the book, while Rangers are considered mysterious folk in Bree and that they are generally avoided, Strider presents himself in a courteous and somewhat friendly manner to Frodo, even though he made Frodo uneasy and suspicious. Frodo "felt far from comfortable under the stare of those keen eyes" (Tolkien, 176). The suspicion somehow melts away when Frodo found that Gandalf had left him a letter in Barliman's care. In the letter, Gandalf writes that "You may meet a friend of mine on the road: a Man, lean, dark, tall, by some called Strider. He knows our business and will help you" (Tolkien, 190). He goes on to give Frodo Strider's real name, which is Aragorn. Gandalf's introduction removed whatever distrust Frodo feels about Strider. In the movie, there is no such letter to remove the suspicions of Frodo and his company about Strider. Viggo Mortensen's Strider is a gruff, no-nonsense Ranger, and is not that friendly either, at least at the start. The hobbits were forced to trust him to lead them to Rivendell because he saved them from the attack of the Prancing Pony by the Ringwraiths, and because Strider said outright that the hobbits had no other choice. The third scene is the attack of the Ringwraiths on the way to Rivendell and Glorfindel's arrival. This is where Frodo gets the wound from the Nazgul blade that will cause him pain for the rest of his life. In the book, it was not said that Frodo is in danger of turning into a Ringwraith by virtue of that wound, and while the journey to Rivendell has become urgent, what with all nine Ringwraiths tracking them, Frodo is lucid despite his injury. And then, Glorfindel arrives. Suddenly into view below came a white horse, gleaming in the shadows, running swiftly. In the dusk its headstall flickered and flashed, as if it were studded in gems like living stars. The rider's cloak streamed behind him, and his hood was thrown back; his golden hair flowed shimmering in the wind of his speed (Tolkien, 233). Glorfindel, after assessing the nature of Frodo's wound, made Frodo ride his horse. When the Ringwraiths came upon them, he commanded Frodo to ride swiftly away. The Nine chased Frodo to the ford at the border of Rivendell, and there he called to the chasing Nazgul with utter defiance, his sword lifted in his hand, "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" (Tolkien, 239). This brave utterance of Frodo was not said in the movie. In the movie, it was Liv Tyler as Arwen who came in Glorfindel's stead, coming in secret and catching Strider out of his guard. It was she who rode off to Rivendell with a delirious Frodo, who is in danger of turning into a Ringwraith because of the wound, in her arms, and it was her who defied the Ringwraiths at the ford with her "If you want him, come and claim him" line. The fourth scene is the Council of Elrond. In the book, there was much discussion of the details behind the current situation of the ring, as well as proposals of what needs to be done. While the underlying conflict between the Dwarves and the Elves can be felt and read between the lines, the discussion was diplomatic, if not amiable. Also marked is the hesitation to volunteer for the Fellowship when Elrond (Hugo Weaving) put it forward and Bilbo (Ian Holm) asked for names. No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but they were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming desire to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice (Tolkien, 297). Thus, Frodo volunteers to be the Ringbearer, and that was the end of the Council. In the following days, the other members were appointed, particularly Aragorn and Boromir, simply because Frodo's way lies along their own road. Only the hobbits went with Frodo because they wanted to be part of the Fellowship, and not just because they have the same road to take as him. Jackson's take on this scene in the movie is wrought with conflict. There were arguments and raised voices melding into an angry and incoherent collective babble. Sean Bean's Boromir, who at this point has not yet hinted his being lured to the One Ring in the book, has shown himself in the movie to be arrogant as well as hostile to Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor. Aragorn is silent at this show of hostility, but it is clear upon the Aragorn of Viggo Mortensen's face that he does not take Boromir's attitude kindly. The conflict between the Dwarves and the Elves is more open and vocal here. "I would rather be dead than see the Ring in the hands of an Elf," Gimli declares in the movie. Even Gandalf joined the fray. It is implied in the film that what prompted Frodo here to volunteer to be the Ringbearer is not his desire to stay with Bilbo in peace, but because he felt that the Ring is causing the dissent in the Council and it bothers him greatly. Also, it did not take days for the other members of the Fellowship to be appointed. They were not appointed at all; Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and the three other hobbits all volunteered to go with him as well. The fifth scene is the entry of the Fellowship, minus Gandalf, into Lothlorien. The company had taken the road into the mines of Moria, where they were attacked by orcs and where Gandalf fell to the Balrog. Believing that they will be safe in Lothlorien, Aragorn, upon Legolas' suggestion, leads the Fellowship there. After crossing the stream of Nimrodel, Legolas declares that the Galadhrim have heard them coming. He also tells the company that he is asked to climb up the platform in the trees to greet the Galadhrim party's leader and that he is to bring Frodo with him. Up the platform, Legolas and Frodo meet Haldir and his brothers. Haldir says: But we have heard rumors of your coming, for the messengers of Elrond passed by Lorien on their way home up the Dimrill Stair. We had not heard of hobbits, or halflings, for many a long year, and did not know that any yet dwelt in Middle-earth. You do not look evil! And since you come with an Elf of our kindred, we are willing to befriend you, as Elrond asked; though it is not our custom to lead strangers through our land" (Tolkien, 375). Upon learning of Gimli's membership in the Fellowship, however, Haldir expressed his kin's distrust of Elves and adamantly insisted that Gimli should be blindfolded in passing through the path to Lothlorien. Just as adamantly, Gimli refused. To end their quarrel, Aragorn wisely suggested that all eight of them be blindfolded, not just Gimli (Tolkien, 380). This scene in the movie is far more hostile than in the book. Haldir and his company sneaked upon the Fellowship and met them with bows and arrows raised. Haldir had not expressed any knowledge of the Fellowship's journey, or of any instruction from Elrond. To him, the members of the Fellowship are trespassers in Lothlorien. He is willing to bring the Fellowship to Galadriel and Celeborn - except for Frodo, whom Haldir says brings great evil to their lands. After much argument between Haldir and Aragorn, Haldir relents and brings all of them to Galadriel and Celeborn. As the five abovementioned scenes show, Peter Jackson twisted, altered, and even omitted some elements of the book to suit the movie. One glaring omission that Jackson did is the characters of Tom Bombadil and his wife Goldberry, whom the hobbits meet while running away from the Barrow Dwights in the middle of book one, chapter six. But the absence of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry had not really affected the flow of the movie's narrative, and Tolkien himself acknowledged that these characters can be easily taken out of the story. As Hargrove wrote in his essay, "Many readers of The Lord of the Rings consider Tom's presence in the first book to be an unnecessary intrusion into the narrative, which could be omitted without loss. Tolkien was aware of their feelings, and in part their judgment was correct." Tolkein may have a reason for putting Tom Bombadil in the books, and even said that he only put him there because Tom is something he already invented (Hargrove). Hargrove goes on to quote Tolkien: "Tolkien says, Tom's presence reveals that there are people and things in the world for whom the war is largely irrelevant or at least unimportant, and who cannot be easily disturbed or interfered with in terms of it." Tom would seem out of place if he is included in the movie, given the movie's stress on the conflict between the East and the West and the urgency to destroy the One Ring. Another glaring alteration is the expanded role Arwen was given in the movie. One can only surmise that this was done to bring to the front the story of Aragorn and Arwen as told in the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings, and therefore give the movie a romantic appeal. Reviewers are mixed in their opinion of this, and of Liv Tyler's portrayal of Arwen. Travers writes that Tyler "sounds cute speaking Elfish, but she fails to give her role a pulse." Says Hoberman, "Liv Tyler's Elvish princess seems to have enjoyed some virtual liposuction." On the other hand, Berardinelli claims that Liv Tyler is "surprisingly good." But one thing that makes the movie different from the book is that the movie conveys to the viewer a heightened sense of urgency and danger. Frodo's headlong rush from the Shire, the chase of the Ringwraiths to the Ford by Rivendell, the tense atmosphere of the Council of Elrond and Haldir's protectiveness of the woods of Lothlorien all give the same message: the Ring is evil and must be destroyed immediately. There is no time for leisurely planning that take weeks to do, nor is there any time for songs. Another thing that makes the movie different from the book is that the characters seem more human, and therefore more endearing, in the movie. Frodo's hesitation and pain in the task given to him is more vivid in the movie rather than in the book. Aragorn's doubt on his capability of becoming king, while a figment of the screenwriters' imagination, adds a dimension to him who is born to be king. Boromir's arrogance and weakness to the lure of the Ring easily makes the audience irritated at him and at the same time pity him towards the end of the movie. The quarrel between the Dwarves and the Elves is dynamic, as depicted in the scenes of the Council of Elrond and of the entry to Lothlorien, and shows that people, even in the noble setting of Middle Earth, can come to blows with their fists and weapons, not just with their words. The growing awareness of Sam, Pippin, Merry, and even Frodo to the world outside the Shire is something we can all relate to. Travers writes that, "It's emotion that makes Fellowship stick hard in the memory. Jackson wisely ends the film not with fireworks but with a small scene that cements the friendship between Frodo and Sam." It is understandable that not all critics will find this so. Ebert resents it. As he put it in his review: I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like "The Tale of Genji," which some say is the first novel, "The Lord of the Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). Other critics have claimed that Jackson focused too much on the visuals rather than the story. Hoberman states that in the case of visual effects, Jackson's adaptation of the novel is successful in its own terms. He adds that: The effects are more literal than literary and less archaic than newfangled. Utopia exists. Indeed, impossible crane shots notwithstanding, everything feels visually enhanced. Even the unnaturally green and rolling New Zealand landscape has seemingly been improved with impossible gorges and canyons. Elliott says that while the movie is "visually spectacular," the story leaves much to be desired. "Though the depth we're talking about here is that of verbiage such as 'history becomes legend, legend becomes myth' - you know, like imagineering becomes merchandising," he says. But what is The Fellowship of the Ring all about The writer believes that the novel is a story of friendship, brotherhood and bravery against the odds. The One Ring is the source of great power and of great evil, and it corrupts whoever touches it. Frodo, the appointed Ringbearer, acknowledges his weakness in saying that "I will take the Ring to Mordor, though I do not know the way." To his support come three hobbits, two humans, a dwarf, an elf and a wizard, and while Gandalf falls in the mines of Moria and Boromir succumbs to the call of the Ring, the Fellowship stays true till the end, until they are sundered at Parth Galen. Did Peter Jackson's grand visual effects and the alterations that he made in his rendition of the novel to the big screen blind his viewers to what the book was all about This writer does not think so. What he did is to try to strike a balance between the verbosity and complexity of the book and the visual and emotional appeal needed to attract an audience not familiar with Tolkien and Middle Earth. In the end, despite the changes and the compressed scenes, Jackson remained not only faithful to the theme of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, but also brought it to the appreciation of a broader, younger and newer audience. Dibbell wrote that in 1961, an English literary critic named Philip Toynbee an obituary, announcing "with great relief that popular enthusiasm for Tolkien was now thoroughly tapped out and his works were finally on their way to 'merciful oblivion.'" Unfortunately, because of Jackson's successful attempt at filming The Lord of the Rings, Toynbee was proved wrong. May Tolkien's works never rest in peace. works cited Berardinelli, James. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." Rev. of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, dir. Peter Jackson. 2001. 12 May 2006. . Dibbell, Julian. "Lord of the Geeks." The Village Voice. June 2001. 12 May 2006. . Ebert, Roger. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." Rev. of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, dir. Peter Jackson. 19 Dec. 2001. 12 May 2006. . Elliott, David. "'Lord' of the Flyweights." Rev. of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, dir. Peter Jackson. SignonSanDiego.com 13 December 2001. Hargrove, Gene. Who is Tom Bombadil September 1996. 12 May 2006. . Hoberman, J. "Plastic Fantastic." Rev. of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, dir. Peter Jackson. The Village Voice December 2001. 12 May 2006. . The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf. Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Dominic Moynahan, Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Liv Tyler and Ian Holm. 2001. DVD. New Line Home Entertainment, 2002. Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. 1954. New York: Del Rey, 1999. Travers, Peter. "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." Rev. of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, dir. Peter Jackson. Rolling Stone 2001. . Wikipedia.org. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. 27 Dec. 2003. 13 May 2006. . Read More