Gene's digest — Fellowship Of The Ring

What makes "Fellowship of the Ring" so successful? Tolkien's fame and story telling genius? That may be, but one should remember that a great story doesn't necessarily make a good movie. In fact, it usually happens otherwise: great and especially well-known story gets smashed up and stumped into dust by horrible movie-making. Sad but true. The story may be compelling, and very well suited for modern times (people are getting tired of machinery and technology, as Tolkien once predicted), but nevertheless Tolkien has much less part in the film's success than many think, simply because movies are not books. The gap between those two arts is vast and impassable. A movie maker, of course, should honor the writer's work, more so if the book is as influential as "The Lord Of The Rings", but that makes his job even more difficult. More difficult than, say, Lucas' work on "Star Wars", where the story was generally unknown before the movie's release.

Jackson did it brilliantly. He managed to combine the book's own virtue with his creative approach, in a perfect proportion. The movie certainly appeals to much wider audience than Tolkien's books. I do not doubt that many people who have never being able to get through Tolkien's somewhat lengthy and somewhat boring (at least for some, let's admit) volumes, and never intend to try again, would be completely blown away by the film. It's just so good. Good on it's own, let me emphasize that, not just because it's based on a well-known story. Editing, directing, casting, location settings, cutting — Jackson really deserves praise for what he did. Simply outstanding.

In the second place, actors, being carefully chosen, kept up to what their looks had promised. Another incredible achievement, and something I have not seen for eons. All of them, with the possible exception of Hugo Weaving as Elrond ("Mr. Baggins, we kept an eye on you quite for some time now..." — just can't keep myself from quoting this joke, thanks to whoever invented it!) have played their roles exceptionally well. I bet several of them will be nominated for Oscar, and I am not quite sure who exactly (which I think already says a good deal about my impression on their performances).

CG department did a great job, too. I am not going into details here, but the special effects in the film are just superb. I don't think ILM has been put into shame, though, simply because all CG departments do what director tells them to, and it's really a director's part to decide how and where to put SFX into the footage. The special effects in the "FOTR" are on the level with the rest and blend seamlessly, which is great. Not a slightest bit of overexposure.

Soundtrack is good (worse than I had hoped for, given the name of Enya, but very good) My only complain is about camera work in some battle scenes (too erratic to my taste), but still it's adequate, if only barely.

Let me summarize, I think the movie is great in itself, not just because it's based on Tolkien's work. And that is why it smashed the box offices.

P.S. There's certainly a huge number of fans and admirers of the book out there, but their contribution to the general praise of the Jackson's work is, I think, questionable. Many might have been actually distracted from the movie which, being "only" 3 hours long, inevitably couldn't capture all the detail of the 300-page book it was based upon, and left some minor and major plots intentionally omitted. I can easily imagine such people (well, at least some of them) being blindly infuriated by Jackson's cuts and twists. Those of them who actually liked the film in no way could make a significant percentage of satisfied viewers Jackson could count on.

Gene