| In Defense of Lord of the Rings, the Movie By Michael Woods |
| I experienced Lord of the Rings backwards. I saw the movie first and then, unable to wait another year to find out what happens, read the books. This gives me a different perspective than most. I saw the movie with no expectations other than to be entertained, and I was bewitched. While I enjoyed the books greatly, I loved the movie. Likewise it surprises me how so many critics can hate the movie. When I ask why I hear two principal reasons: character deviations (especially changes in the hobbits) and melodramatization (too much of a Hollywood movie). What follows is my defense of the movie (and Peter Jackson). Let’s face it: at its heart, Lord of the Rings is a coming-of-age story. One age is coming to an end and a new, uncertain age is beginning. In this new age men, not elves, wizards, or dwarves, will determine the fate of Middle Earth |
| So where do the furry-footed hobbits fit in? Ironically, the hobbits are closer to real people than the men in the book are. Some have interpreted this to mean that hobbits are symbols of us. My read is that hobbits are supposed to symbolize children. After all, Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings for children and so it isn’t that farfetched that he would create a race of characters that they could relate to and empathize with. Who better than the miniature, fun-loving hobbits? If you accept this interpretation, then Tolkien is making a powerful statement about humanity. The true heroes of Lord of the Rings are not the divided, bickering men, but instead the children seen through hobbits. The ring of power is placed in hobbit hands, symbolic of children determining out own future. With this said, it is understandable why Peter Jackson would portray a young image of hobbits. There are other equally good reasons for doing this. By making the hobbits appear young, there is greater contrast between hobbits and men. Furthermore, it is a nice reinforcement of the important coming-of-age motif. However, I think that Jackson’s primary reason for making Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry more child-like than in the book was one of practicality. With two movies left to go staggered over two years, which focus a great deal of attention on the hobbits, the characters need to have some room to change and to grow. Jackson makes the hobbits appear less mature initially in order to make character development more noticeable. Besides, where’s the danger when the ring is placed in mature, experienced hands? It’s a lot more interesting giving the ring to a scared, adolescent hobbit. |
| This gets at the next main criticism of the movie: it’s too melodramatic. Lord of the Rings is a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster and there’s no debating it. But in my opinion, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Suspense, when used effectively can be a powerful tool in telling a story. How many of you held your breath when the Ringwraiths drew near? Did your heart skip a beat when Bilbo grabbed for the ring around Frodo’s neck? Or did a chill run up your spine when the beautiful Galadriel transformed into an evil queen? These special effects were pretty awesome and very effective in conveying the emotions that Tolkien intended. What about the scene where Gandalf first tells Frodo about the ring? In the book this occurs over afternoon tea. Gandalf is wise and collected as always. He calmly tells Frodo that he possesses the one ring of power, Sauron is coming after him, and, oh by the way, if Sauron gets the ring Middle Earth will be covered with a second darkness. Yikes! Peter Jackson's version: Gandalf jumps out of the dark, grabs Frodo, and cries, "Is it safe?!" Which is more believeable? |
Some will argue that this is totally out of character for the wise old wizard. Absolutely. Jackson knows this and uses it to get across the severity and danger of the situation. Anything that can unruffle Gandalf’s feathers has to be pretty bad. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that there are people out there who hate the movie because this happens every time a book is adapted to a movie. Despite the completely different mediums for telling a story, people expect them to be exactly the same. It is unfair to expect a movie director to do the same thing in three hours that an author can do in five hundred pages. Not only is it unfair, but also it’s uninteresting. What’s the fun in making a movie that’s an clone of a book? Where’s the creativity and imagination that is so vital to brining characters and stories to life? It is only natural that there are going to be changes, some good and some bad. In the case of Lord of the Rings, I believe Jackson improved upon Tolkien’s books and in doing so gave a beautiful story new life. |