- Things I like and dislike about The Good Doctor 2017 full movie
- The Good Doctor full movie: A medical drama from House experts
- How The Good Doctor Full Movie Finally Won Freddie Highmore a Golden Globe Nom
- The Good Doctor Full Movie Review: The show is new and exciting along with unique
- The Good Doctor full movie: finally, TV got autism right this time
We find Hobbits with qualities that can’t be visualized. In my mind, they are good-hearted, bustling, chatty little creatures who live in twee houses or burrows, and dress like the merry men of Robin Hood–in smaller sizes, of course. They eat seven or eight times a day, like to take naps, have never been far from home and have eyes that grow wide at the sounds of the night. They are like children grown up or grown old, and when they rise to an occasion, it takes true heroism, for they are timid by nature and would rather avoid a fight. Such notions about Hobbits are able to be found in Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring, but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off the spotlight.
If the novels are about fearless little creatures who recruit powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the film is about powerful men and wizards who take on a dangerous crusade, and bring along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.
The Ring Trilogy embraces the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler era. The Hollywood that made “The Wizard of Oz” might have matched it. But Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring is a film that comes after “Gladiator” and “Matrix,” and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre – that it is a well-made and sometimes stirring journey is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien’s Middle-earth it is not.
Wondering if the trilogy could possibly be as action-packed as this film, I searched my memory for sustained action scenes and finally turned to the books themselves, which I had not read since the 1970s. The chapter “The Bridge of Khazad-Dum” embodies the basis for perhaps the most sensational action sequence in the movie, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the evil Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.
Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, traveling places, being places, and moving on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations. There are a great many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, low roads, and along them the Hobbits and their larger companions travel while paying great attention to mealtimes. Landscapes are carefully depicted with the faithful detail of a Victorian travel writer. The travelers meet strange and fascinating characters along the way, some of them friendly, some of them not, some of them of an order far above Hobbits or even men. Sometimes they must fight to defend themselves or to keep possession of the ring, but mostly the trilogy is an unfolding, an adventure, a quest, told in an elaborated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice.
Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which serves the purpose for the quest, makes Tolkien the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic journey while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins’ neck.
Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film (and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right; the Hobbits may not look like my idea of Hobbits (may, indeed, look like full-sized humans made to seem smaller through visual trickery), but they have the right combination of twinkle and pluck in their gaze–especially Elijah Wood as Frodo and Ian Holm as the worried Bilbo.
Yet the taller characters seem to stand astride the little Hobbit world and steal the story away. Gandalf the noble wizard (Ian McKellen) together with Saruman the treacherous wizard (Christopher Lee) and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who is the warrior called Strider, are so well-seen and acted, so fearsome in battle, that we can’t think of the Hobbits without them. The elf Arwen (played by Liv Tyler), the Elf Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Arwen’s father, Elrond (Hugo Weaving), are not tiny like literary elves (“very tall they were,” the novel says), and here they tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much dramatic sound and lighting that it’s a miracle they can think to speak, with all the distractions.
Jackson has used modern special effects to great purpose in several shots, especially one where a massive wall of water forms and reforms into the wraiths of charging stallions. I like the way he handles crowds of Orcs in the big battle scenes, wisely knowing that in a film of this kind, realism has to be tempered with a certain fanciful fudging. The film is remarkably well made. But it does go on, and on, and on–more vistas, more forests, more sounds in the night, more fearsome creatures, more prophecies, more visions, more dire warnings, more close calls, until we realize this sort of thing can continue indefinitely. “This story grew in the telling,” Tolkien’s famous first words of his foreword; it’s as if Tolkien, and now Jackson, grew so fond of the quest, they dreaded the destination.
That Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring doesn’t match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien’s son Christopher, who is the “literary protector” of his father’s works, said, “My own position is that Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form.” That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents.