The Fellowship of the Ring

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

The first thing you need to know is that I've read the books several times and am quite familiar with them. The second thing you need to know is that in my experience the book is always better than the movie. The same is true of the Fellowship of the Ring, but I can't imagine a better movie from Tolkien's work.

This movie has been hyped six ways from Sunday, and yet doesn't disappoint. For once the trailers do not show or give away the whole film. There is not the least trace of schlock or camp. The special effects are perfectly matched to setting, and the actors well suited to the characters. There are flaws for the nit-pickers to pick, but all films are flawed. It's too early to tell for sure, but this will certainly make the top 10 movies of the year list, and could well be a contender for all-time top 10 movies list.

Tolkien was interested in languages, and created Middle Earth mainly as a place to put the creatures that spoke the languages he invented. Both the languages and world were complex and fully realized, leading to long and complex books.

Most people start with The Hobbit, and have no trouble finishing it. Reading it to a child is an ideal way to discover it. The Lord of the Rings is a single novel made up of six books, published in three volumes called The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. It is much longer, 1315 pages in my hard cover version, and much darker than The Hobbit. Most children simply are not up to it. Teenagers either love it or hate it. I still remember reading it for the first time, staying up late to finish each one, and wondering if I dared start the next book that same night.

But there is much more. Christopher Tolkien published The Silmarillion (365 pages) in 1977. This was based on notes and stories from his father's work concerning the beginning of the LOTR world, and in a sense, the beginning of the universe. It's hard to pick it up at the beginning and stick with it. The very last chapter is a bridge between the events in the book, and the events a reader of LOTR would be familiar with. Someone who has thoroughly read the appendix of LOTR will find a more coherent summary of the events leading up to the finding of the ring and the events in LOTR. After reading that chapter one could go to the very beginning and trace out some of the threads that lead to the parts they are familiar with. There is much here to be enjoyed, although they are more mythic stories told by a narrator than lived through the characters.

What complicates things is that Tolkien used tales from The Silmarillion as the base of legends and stories told in LOTR, and he wasn't finished yet. Tolkien loved to tinker with his work, and the discerning reader will almost certainly find contradictions. Think of The Silmarillion as deep background reading.

However, we still aren't done. Christopher Tolkien published Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth in 1980. This is another 470 pages of notes, musings, alternative versions, and, well, unfinished tales. Some are from the time period set out in The Hobbit and LOTR, and others are much earlier. Of course, one need not read all this to enjoy LOTR, but it certainly does help explain who some of the peoples in LOTR are, how they got there, and why they behave as they do.

No matter where any book or movie starts there has to be some back story, and it's obvious that LOTR has a great deal of back story. This is summarized in a voice over to get the average movie-goer started, but it's the slightest of introductions. Non-readers are going to have a tough time picking up everything in one viewing, where someone very familiar with the books will be squirming to tell them about the missed details.

A film and a book are different mediums, and have to meet different demands. A film that is a too literal adaption of the book is curiously dead, and a film that strays too far from the book is just another film. The film adaptation has to walk a fine line to satisfy the expectations of the reader and the movie-goer who hasn't read the book, as well as meeting the demands of the medium. A book adapted from a film is usually very odd reading, unless done by a gifted author.

The film version of the Fellowship of the Ring has done a brilliant job of walking that fine line, particularly when you consider the many subtle details of the books. The overall look and feel are sure to charm even the most demanding reader. The lush green's of the Shire, the setting of Rivendell, the blasted soil of Mordor, the stone glory of Moria, the trees of Lothlorien, all are wonderful visualizations of the pictures in my head. I particularly liked the effects that Frodo "sees" when he puts on the ring, and the treatment of the Nazgul. I can't wait to see how they deal with the birds the Nazgul ride later in the books.

Of course, the film version of the characters will not match the picture that most readers have in their minds. I saw Aragorn with far rougher features, and Gandalf as smaller and much more wizened. Boromir should have been more richly dressed and a bigger person. Legolas should have been more slender, and the hobbits should have been more hairy. I thought the film Elrond was too emotional. Saruman should have been more gaunt, and wilder eyed somehow, though maybe that happens later. You'll see that I'm being pretty darn picky here. The portrayals of the major characters shouldn't grossly offend the readers.

Some of the book characters have been dropped out, most notably Tom Bombadil, and the elf Glorfindel, who was replaced by Arwen. Not having Tom didn't bother me, though it doesn't set up the audience for Fangorn later on. The most important chunk that was taken out of the book is the Council of Elrond. In the movie this is a tame affair, taking only a few minutes. But it is a major part of the book, explaining what many of the characters are all about, and a good chunk of the back story. In the book the council takes 31 pages.

One of the people I saw the movie with didn't get why Galadriel appeared in the film. The Lothlorien episode takes up nearly 50 pages, and was radically edited for the film. This is the only place the film seems rushed, which is all the more jarring because it is happening in a particularly dream-like place. The important chunk that got missed was Frodo seeing the ring that Galadriel wears, and guessing it's significance.

There are other differences between the book and film of course, and I'm not going to get into them in detail. Considering that I never thought this movie would be made, and that if it ever was made Hollywood would botch it. This isn't a botch by any standard. The movie is beautiful to see, one of the most beautiful ever. The special effects are married to the landscape so well they are not the least jarring. They fit.

Various bits and snippets from the book are missing, but the film follows the essential elements of the story. Within the constraints of a film, it does a good job presenting the characters and their interaction. Remember the scene where Boromir is teaching the two hobbits how to fight with swords? It never happened in the book, but it shows the relationship between them better than anything done in the books.

I'm going to rant here for a paragraph. The major complaint I've read about the movie is that it's three hours long, and too complicated. If Hollywood didn't produce so many 90 minute movies for (and apparently by) simpletons, we wouldn't have this problem. Whatever happened to investing some time and effort to understanding what someone has to tell us? Whatever happened to appreciated the subtleties and complexities of a detailed story? Whatever happened to letting a story develop and unfold at it's own time and pace? I can't stand this race for the lowest common denominator in either film or books.

People that have read the books are going to find the film easier to follow. The names and personalities of the characters are old friends to me, as are the events in LOTR. Yet, my friends that hadn't read the book had a perfectly wonderful time watching the movie. They found the story engrossing on it's own merits, and thought it was superb value for the admission price. We can't bear to wait for a year to see The Two Towers, yet somehow we lived through the various intervals between the Star Wars, Indiana Jones movies, and the Lois McMaster Bujold books.

If you've read the Tolkien books go and see the movie. You'll have your list of nits to pick, but you won't be disappointed unless you have unrealistic expectations. If you haven't read the books go and see the movie; the scenery alone is worth the price of admission and you might well get swept away. If you've tried to read the books and couldn't get into them, at least consider going to the movie. You may find that it gives you the essential narrative thread to keep you on track through the books.

I'm going to go see the movie in the theatre again, and I'll be buying the DVD as soon as it comes out. I would have cheerfully sat and watched more.