'Rings' Movie Matters, Books Best

Author: Padma Govandin
Staff Writer

Adapting a novel as dense and complex as J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" for film would be as great an undertaking as Frodo Baggins' quest to destroy the evil ring of Mordor. To this end, director Peter Jackson has done an admirable job of bringing Tolkien's classic tale of Middle Earth to film. With stunning visuals, epic battles and fantastic swordplay, "Lord of the Rings" is, if nothing else convincing and diverting entertainment.

The film details the story of Frodo (a creature of small stature and merry disposition) and his quest to destroy an evil ring, which contains "cruelty, his malice and His [Sauron's] will to dominate all life." To help him on his quest is a band of eight other warriors and friends, including the wizard Gandalf and the man Aragorn. To destroy the ring, Frodo must bring it to Mordor and cast it into the fire pits in which it was created. Peter Jackson does an excellent job of adapting the epic novel for the screen. He directs with a light touch and an ear for humor. The novel is transferred to the screen without heavy handedness, and no situation is milked for additional dramatic effect. The plot, the action and the characters are allowed to stand on their own merits for the audience's approval If nothing else, "The Lord of the Rings" is wonderful entertainment.

Visually, the film is extrordinary in its composition and dramatic power. The scenes in the Shire are breathtakingly beautiful, with lovely golden fields and flowers. The battle scenes are both frightening and fascinating, seeming to be almost like dancing. (Some of the best sequences involve the black Ring Wraiths, who are terrifying on their black horses and majestically flowing cloaks.) The special effects in "The Lord of the Rings" are nothing short of miraculous. The real-life footage is blended seamlessly with computer-generated shots, and the colors, lighting and movements are so stylized that the shots almost look like paintings. "The Lord of the Rings" resembles an epic stage spectacle — it seems almost too big for the film medium.

In addition, the acting is excellent. Granted, Elijah Wood, who plays Frodo, has only two basic facial expressions: happy and scared. (he also occasionally looks determined), but Ian McKellen gives a wonderfully spirited performance as the wizard Gandalf, maintaining a humorous and lively demeanor. The other members of the fellowship are also well-played, particularly Samwise Gamgee, another hobbit (Sean Astin), and the tortured human Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen). Another standout performance is Sean Bean's depiction of the human Boromir, whose struggles to resist the power of the ring raises interesting questions about the distinction between evil in the outside world and inner corruption. Here again, Jackson keeps his directorial touch gentle, and no one in the film falls prey to the trap of overacting.

My one criticism of "The Lord of the Rings" arises perhaps from my own mistake: I have not read the "The Fellowship of the Rings." Thus, the film for me was confusing and seemed to lack character development. However, this is a dilemma for the filmmakers that can't exactly be solved. As it stands, the first 20 minutes of the film were devoted to exposition of the plot and major players. Even if at times I was confused by the plot and irritated by what seemed like disregard on the part of the filmmakers for the members of the audience who weren't as familiar with the books, it would not have really been possible to follow the plot and devote extra attention to explaining the details of life in Middle Earth. For all of that, "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is well-done entertainment. Even if you haven't read the books, it is possible to see the movie and enjoy it.