With the release of the second trailer for the Desolation of Smaug, it’s fitting to dedicate the next three Thursdays (Throwback Thursdays I suppose) to some thoughts regarding the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Please note that I will write these articles while watching the only true way to watch the trilogy—that is, the extended editions.
The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I smell it in the air.
Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.
What an opening! Fellowship of the Ring could have started in the Shire, but instead, the film starts with the perfect exposition, with the perfect narration. Those who say that they don’t love Cate Blanchett’s voice are either lying or wrong. We fully understand the backstory of the rings.
As I continue to watch, I can’t help but notice a few parallels between Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter. Not many, but a few. Both are orphans who live with their uncles. Except that Bilbo Baggins is a far better uncle than Vernon Dursley has ever been or ever will be. Both receive the gift of invisibility in the first story of their respective series of movies: Harry in the form of a cloak and Frodo in the form of the One Ring. However, the One Ring is a purely evil object, whereas Harry’s cloak is an entirely good object. Fellowship of the Ring has Ringwraiths, while Prisoner of Azkaban has Dementors.
Furthermore, in my own mind, I can make very distinct connections between the four main “good” races of Middle Earth with the four houses of Hogwarts. Go read my thoughts in the “Sorting the Middle-Earth Races” article.
But enough about Fellowship‘s comparisons with Sorcerer’s Stone. What makes this movie a good movie? The actors, visuals, and music are all incredible. What makes this movie a good adaptation? How true to the book is it?
I won’t enumerate all the actors, since I personally think all of them are perfect. The scenery is absolutely breathtakingly wondrous. A trip to New Zealand to see this amazing scenery in person is the first thing on my bucket list. Howard Shore is more than a musical genius. He is a musical god. His scores are the greatest that have ever been written. In all, Fellowship of the Ring is an excellent movie, but as an adaptation of the novel, it does not hold up against scrutiny:
The beginning of the movie was incredibly condensed compared with the novel. Between Frodo receiving the ring and Gandalf coming back after having investigated the inscription, it’s unclear how much time passes. Perhaps a few weeks to a few months. In the book, though, seventeen years pass. Enough time for Frodo to move from Bag End to the borders of Buckland. It is from his new home in Buckland that he leaves for Bree. Who lives in Bag End after Frodo leaves? The Sacksville-Bagginses. Certainly not a very satisfying plot-twist. I can understand why Peter Jackson omitted that. Besides, it’s not important to the overall plot to have Frodo leave Bag End and then leave for Bree later. He can simply leave directly for Bree when the time comes.
But when he does leave for Bree, the Hobbits in the book meet Tom Bombadil and get into trouble in the Barrow-Downs. Despite Tom being a truly incredible character, both episodes were cut, since neither episode truly advances the overall plot of the entire series. Instead, the threat of the Ringwraiths is intensified, as is the threat of Saruman, both of which do advance the overall plot and conflict.
Arwen’s role is expanded significantly in Fellowship of the Ring and throughout the entire series. Tolkien, at least at first, did not write very strong female characters. Or at least not very many female characters. Arwen, Galadriel, and Eowyn—that’s about it. Only Eowyn plays a significant role in final battles against Mordor, but I’m getting ahead of myself. Her story will come in the next two articles. It makes sense, though, to expand Arwen’s role. Giving her more to do in Fellowship proves that she is Aragorn’s equal when they finally are married in Return of the King.
In the book, Anduril was reforged before the fellowship left Rivendell. Aragorn has it with him throughout the trilogy. However, Aragorn also was simply “waiting for the appropriate time” to reclaim the throne in the book, whereas in the movie, there is an element of self-doubt, and the sword isn’t given to him until he’s made up his mind to reclaim the throne of Gondor. I prefer this change, because dynamic characters are generally preferable to static.
Finally, the novel doesn’t exactly come to an epic climax and resolve in the way the movie does. Why not? Because Tolkien didn’t write them that way. He wrote Lord of the Rings as one story, originally separated into six volumes, but eventually published in three parts. The true climax doesn’t really happen until Return of the King. Actually, the first chapter of Two Towers was incorporated into the end of the Fellowship movie, told in real time rather than in flashback, in an attempt (a successful one I might add) to make the conclusion of the film more fulfilling. The original volumes by themselves have a tendency to end in cliffhangers, each leading the start of the next volume. It doesn’t always work to use this device in a movie series.
Due to the many changes from book to film, I can’t quite consider this movie to be the truest adaptation. However, as a film, it is spectacular. I have many favorite scenes from this film, but I leave you with my all-time favorite scene. Do you have a favorite scene? Share it in the comments!
