Movie vs. Book Review

Jim Obert

'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King'

It was two years ago that I reviewed "The Fellowship of the Ring," the first of three movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's legendary trilogy "The Lord of the Rings." At the beginning of that review, I stated my credentials: I am a hard core Middle-earther who read the books seven or nine times while in college at SIU in 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.

As with the first book, I re-read "The Two Towers" prior to seeing the movie in December 2002. And as with the first movie, I had trouble with the second installment for many of the same reasons - time elements out of place, too much or not enough attention given to certain characters, creating creatures and situations that were not in the books, rendering a hot romance between Aragorn and Arwen when there was but an ember, going overboard in the depiction of the orcs. ...

I reread the 385 yellowed pages of my well-worn 1967 copy of "Return of the King" prior to viewing the epic last week. As I expected, "The Return of the King" has the same strengths and weaknesses that New Zealand director Peter Jackson injected into the first two installments. However, it must be noted that when the first two movies came out on DVD as extended versions - deleted movie scenes restored and about 45 minutes longer - Middle-earth became more complete.

"The Return of the King" is a robust and brawny tale. For about a 3 1/2-hour movie, it runs at a crisp pace. Great special effects. Some of the more important dialogue is straight from the book. Some of the scenes are just as I have always seen them in my mind's eye.

Gollum was very well done, except for one thing - he still has blue eyes in the movie. He has yellow eyes in the book(s).

The enormous Battle of the Pelennor Fields before the gates of the walled mountain city of Minas Tirith in Gondor has been much ballyhooed by critics and commoners. Many are calling it the greatest special effects/live action battle ever conceived. I don't doubt that. In its scope and depth, it is even more breathtaking than the Battle of Heim's Deep in "The Two Towers." But is it faithful to the book? Yes and no.

Yes, there were orcs aplenty and siege towers on oliphants and giant trolls pushed a smoldering battering ram (in the book it had a name - Grond) toward the gate of the city. And the gate was inevitably smashed asunder and it looked like the city would fall. But no, it was not the arrival of Aragorn with the Army of the Dead that turned the tide of battle. In reality - if fantasy can be called that - Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and some of Aragorn's fellow Rangers traveled the Paths of the Dead, which led south of Gondor where fierce men loyal to Sauron were massing on ships to sail north to open another front in the battle. It was there that the Army of the Dead was used to kill the enemy, and it was there that Aragorn freed the dead from their ancient oath. The ships were then manned by freed slaves and men loyal to Aragorn and Gondor, and the ships, the Corsairs of Umbar, sailed north and when they arrived at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields the black flag of Mordor was struck, a flag of Gondor was raised and the enemy was routed.

The routing of the enemy, of course, had already begun with the arrival of the magnificent Riders of Rohan - the Rohirrim. In this the movie was pretty loyal to the book. King Theoden led the charge. And Theoden did fall in battle as the Captain of the Black Riders, atop a serpent-like Nazgul, relishes his prize. Eowyn, Theoden's niece, unsheathes her sword and hacks the head off the Nazgul. The Captain, a Ringwraith and also called the Witch King, laughs and proclaims that no man can kill him. Eowyn throws off her helmet and shows she is no man. She thrusts her sword into his black, featureless face - and Sauron's right-hand evil-doer is out of action. As the book describes it:

"The sword broke sparkling into many shards ... a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up and was never heard again in that age of this world."

The movie is totally faithful to the fact that Tolkien endows his characters - the good guys - with genuine heroism. He gives them the courage to do difficult, dangerous, noble things in spite of their fears, not because they are fearless. We root for Frodo and Sam because on their long and arduous trek to Mount Doom they never give up. They often think they will fail to destroy the ring, but they push on through every peril. Even the spidiferous Shelob could not stop them.

A character not seen in the film, and only briefly mentioned, was the evil wizard Saruman. Sources tell me his scene was cut from the film but will be restored when the extended version DVD comes out. I hope so. Because as readers of the book know, Saruman, though his staff (and thus his powers) had been broken by Gandalf in "The Two Towers," tries to kill Frodo when Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin return to the Shire and to Hobbiton. In fact, Saruman assaults Frodo with a knife at the very doorstep of Bag-End, the Hobbit home of old Bilbo and his nephew Frodo.

As good as the technical aspects of the movie are, it is the personal stories that make "Return of the King" so satisfying. I've heard many people had trouble with the 20-minute ending where scenes faded to black then another ending appeared, to be followed by several more. I thought the ending was perfect. It was more an epilogue than an ending. It was a cascade of farewell scenes laden with emotions. It brought much-needed closure to the characters of which devotees of the books and films had so heavily invested.