An enthralling movie that strays from the book

Movie Review - 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'

By Jim Obert

First, let me establish my credentials: I read the trilogy "The Lord of the Rings" at least seven times while in college at SIU during the early 1970s. I also read "The Hobbit" a half-dozen times. I have what's called "The Tolkien Reader" and the "Silmarillion." I also have a little green lapel button from 30 years ago that says: "Frodo Lives!" So there.

In anticipation of the movie, I reread the 527-page "The Fellowship of the Ring." It's the 1965 edition. The cover is torn and the pages are parched and yellowed -- I've had the book as long as I've had the Frodo button. Good things I keep a very long time, as do hobbits.

Rereading the book prior to viewing the movie was a double-edged sword -- happiness with a wound. It took several weeks to make it through all that fine print; however, it rekindled clear visions of the Middle-earth I knew so well from those years at Carbondale when incense and pipeweed wafted through the breeze.

I am pleased that a great deal of dialogue is quoted directly from the book. From Bilbo Baggins' good-bye speech at his bombacious eleventy-first birthday party to the very end where Frodo says to Sam, "I don't suppose we shall see them again," and Sam replies, "Yet we may, Mr. Frodo, we may," the movie is sufficiently peppered with J.R.R. Tolkien's clever and inventive wordsmanship.

The prologue is stirring, informative and necessary -- it gives the history of the One Ring and lays foundation for the three-hour epic, which was brought to the screen by New Zealand director Peter Jackson at a cost of $100 million.

Many things are done right -- the fireworks at Bilbo's party are perfect, Bilbo's hobbit-house looks as it did in the book, Gandalf looks like Gandalf, Frodo has the twinkle and plump of Frodo, Aragorn is tough and bold, the elves are tall and noble, and Gimli the dwarf is short and snorty.

Breathtaking is the cinematography and wide is the breadth and scope of the movie. It is the "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Doctor Zhivago" of the fantasy genre. The special effects are, naturally, state-of-the-art, and the soundtrack booms and crackles in all the right places. Costuming has the robes, cloaks and other accoutrements just right.

If I had not reread the book I probably would have said "right on!" at all facets of the adventure -- because of memory fade. In interviews, Jackson, the director, cautioned that "purists" would find the movie lacking in certain ways. He admitted to taking freedoms with the time line and some characters. And that he did, he certainly did. Oh did he ever. Jackson said his best intention was to make a movie captivating enough to compel those viewers new to Middle-earth to run out and read the trilogy. I think he has succeeded.

Alas, only in the book will people know the true Middle-earth as conceived by Tolkien. In the movie, the hobbits leave Hobbiton and head for Bree. In the book, they head for Crickhollow before going to Bree, and before their arrival at Bree they have great adventures in The Old Forest where they are saved by the colorful character Tom Bombadil.

The men in the Inn of the Prancing Pony in Bree, with the exception of Strider/Aragorn, are unusually dirty and ugly, with hair stringy and oily, not as rendered in the book. The tavern looks like something out of a Dickens' novel.

As the hobbits and Strider flee toward Rivendell they are not helped by a female elf named Arwen, played in the movie by pouty-lipped Liv Tyler, but by a male elf named Glorfindel who puts the wounded Frodo on his elven horse and commands it to outrun those of the Black Riders. And the horse does -- for fleet he is! In the movie the horse (bearing Arwen and Frodo) barely make it to the river before the black steeds. And the slow-motion chase scene lacks the spine-tingling excitement as described in the book.

In the book, Aragorn and Arwen barely speak at the Council of Elrond. Movie: a blossoming love affair. I suppose this is a necessary invention to attract the teen-age crowd and the bulging pockets of money they bring into theaters.

Book: The great Sword That Was Broken was reforged in Rivendell for Aragorn who renamed it Andu'ril. And it is a mighty weapon that shines cold blue and rages red when wielded in battle, for it is the sword that cut the One Ring from the finger of Sauron more than 2,000 years prior.

Movie: the sword is mentioned and shown but not reforged. Aragorn seems to have just your average Middle-earth sword. In fact, the swords in the movie do not "sing" as they should. Frodo has Sting and Gandalf has Glamdring -- special swords with mystical powers; swords of legend; swords with jewel-encrusted hilts; swords on which are inscribed elven-tongue and powerful symbols. They are much more than the colorless, though effective, blades the movie gives us. Granted, Frodo's Sting turns blue several times to alert the Company (as Tolkien calls them) to the nearness of orcs, but the swordplay does not enthrall, it does not elevate.

The orcs are overdone. Too big and muscular and too damn ugly with too many bad teeth and too much slobbering. In the book most orcs are like black goblins, only some are bred huge and mighty. And all would run away howling when in battle the tide turns against them. Overboard on this.

When Gandalf is taken prisoner by Saruman (who is much more prevalent in the movie than in the book), he is rescued by an eagle. In the book the great eagle is a lord and has a name and he and Gandalf speak. He flies him to Rohan where Gandalf is given temporary use of a super fleet-footed horse -- the black-as-night Shadowfax, which plays a big role in "The Two Towers" and "Return of the King." Movie: nameless eagle takes Gandalf somewhere where he rides a brown horse back to Rivendell, and not very fast at that. Once again, no shivers down the spine.

Before I return to saying how much I liked the movie, two more examples of Jackson straying far from the tome:

Movie: In the Mines of Moria, prior to the hair-raising fight with the Balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-du'm, the Company is at the tomb of Balin the dwarf king. A huge cave troll, backed by orcs, busts down a door and totally wreaks havoc. Before being killed by an arrow from the elf Legolas, it drills Frodo with an iron spear. But Frodo lives because he's wearing a mithril corslet, which Bilbo gave him at Rivendell. (Dwarves had given it to Bilbo in "The Hobbit.")

In the book, the cave troll begins to break down the door and thrusts a toeless foot into the chamber. Here is how it partially reads:

'Frodo felt a hot wrath blaze up in his heart. "The Shire!" he cried ... and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot. There was a bellow, and the foot jerked back. ... Boromir hurled himself against the door and slammed it again ... the orcs mounted another charge and leaped into the chamber.'

So much for the troll. It was negligible to Tolkien's wondrous yarn, but elevated to major monster status on film. And for the record, Frodo was struck by a spear wielded by an orc chieftain before Aragorn killed it with his sword:

'Andu'ril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. The orc fell with cloven head. His followers fled howling, as Boromir and Aragorn sprang at them.'

And finally, at the end of the movie the Company is viciously attacked by a marauding legion of steroid-enhanced, George Lucas-inspired, odiferous orcs. Sorry, but the orc attack comes at the beginning of the second book of the trilogy, "The Two Towers," which means the hobbits Merry and Pippin have not yet been taken prisoner, which means the man Boromir has not yet been killed, which means Jackson once again takes liberal license with Tolkien's masterpiece. But the two mediums agree that the Fellowship is broken and Frodo and Sam head onward toward Mordor -- just two little hobbits against the Dark Lord himself.

The epic is well paced and nicely crafted. Sensational scenery, great acting and many moments of high drama. Humor and light-heartedness are sprinkled throughout. No movie less than, oh, 15 hours long could capture all the characters, richness, texture and atmosphere of Middle-earth. But this rendition, as rewarding as it is, should have been more accurate. That is the purist in me talking.