The Lord of the Rings: Film Analysis

The Lord of the Rings: From Novels to Films<r>Summary

One of the most remarkable aspects of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is its faithfulness in spirit and detail to the J. R. R. Tolkien novels on which the films are based. Books and movies tell stories in vastly different ways, and one of their primary differences is length. Novels often tend to contain more information than a two- or three-hour movie can possibly cover, and short stories are frequently used as the basis for film adaptations instead. When a director chooses to turn a novel into a movie, he or she must often eliminate or de-emphasize important subplots. Clocking in at over nine hours, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is much longer than the usual feature film, but Tolkien’s trilogy, plus the related novels The Hobbit and The Silmarillion, is itself long, spanning thousands of pages. Jackson’s ability to capture the diversity and richness of Middle-earth’s lands and peoples is therefore a substantial achievement. Jackson is evidently a reverential reader of the original books and did not want to deviate too much from Tolkien’s vision. In a sense, Jackson’s faithfulness to the books was necessary for the trilogy’s success. Dedicated readers of The Lord of the Rings are the book world’s equivalent of Trekkies: they are archivists of obscure, trivial details, even protective of these details. If Jackson had disappointed them, he would have lost a crucial audience and perhaps even caused a public relations mess. Tolkien fans, however, generally love the films.

Despite Jackson’s careful dedication to the novels, some differences do exist between the books and the films. In order to turn thousands of pages into roughly nine hours of film, Jackson had to simplify the original story by eliminating or changing certain characters. For example, Tom Bombadil, a significant character in the novel version of The Fellowship of the Ring, is absent from the movies. As a hard-to-classify godlike creature, he may have required more explanation than a fast-paced film could make time for. Crucial scenes involving Bombadil are therefore missing, including one in which the four hobbits come across a cache of elf weapons, weapons that prove important when Merry uses an elf sword to slay the witch-king, which cannot be killed by a human, in The Return of the King. Jackson works around Bombadil, however, to get the same information across. He gives the hobbits their weapons more directly: Aragorn gives the hobbits a sack of weapons on the hill called Weathertop in The Fellowship of the Ring.

The book-to-movie adaptation also affects the elf princess Arwen, but instead of dropping out of the film altogether, she actually takes on the characteristics of two characters from the novel. Arwen appears in the novels but plays a less significant role than she does in the films. The movie Arwen is a combination of the novel Arwen and an elf warrior named Glorfindel. In the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring, Arwen rescues Frodo after he’s been stabbed by a wraith and whisks him safely on horseback to Rivendell, with the wraiths in close pursuit. By giving Arwen this role, which Glorfindel carries out in the novel, Jackson does much more than simplify his story: he portrays Arwen as a heroine. This rescue is our first impression of her, and her bravery and strength in this scene balance out the more subdued role of delicate princess that she plays later, as she idles in Rivendell wondering whether to choose a mortal or immortal life. Her courage in saving Frodo puts her in the same league as the warrior-princess Éowyn.

Despite these changes, the essence of Tolkien’s novels remains intact. Jackson’s decision to forgo the obscure, extra details that round out the author’s trilogy didn’t lessen the thematic and narrative meat of Tolkien’s work, and the conflation or elimination of characters from the novels ultimately does not change the story very much. The films and the novels are not interchangeable, but the films prove as faithful as they can be to the novels without testing the limits of viewers’ patience and attention.

<r>Analysis<r>The Ending of The Lord of the Rings <r>Summary

Though Peter Jackson had to change certain aspects of certain characters to smoothly create films from Tolkien’s novels, no change he made to a character affects the general spirit of Tolkien’s work. However, Jackson did make one major change to his trilogy that differs vastly from Tolkien’s novels. This change concerns what happens at the end of The Return of the King, when the hobbits return to the Shire. In the films, Frodo and Sam return to find the same green, peaceful countryside they left, exactly how they’d imagined it throughout their journey. In the novels, however, they return to a land ruled and terrorized by the evil wizard Saruman. In the films, Frodo looks into Galadriel’s mirror and sees visions of a burning Shire and hobbits marching in chain gangs. Galadriel says that this is what awaits the Shire in the future, if Frodo fails in his mission. In the novels, these visions are of the actual future, even though Frodo succeeds.

Throughout the trilogy, the Shire is a peaceful idyll far from the horrible wars of Middle-earth. While the trilogy’s human heroes, such as Aragorn, thrive in the wars and political intrigue of Middle-earth, hobbits seem to prefer to be far from the center of action. This separation engenders in hobbits a kind of innocence, and Frodo’s pure spirit enables him to be a successful ring-bearer. When the four hobbits first depart from the Shire, they leave a small world of innocence for a larger world of unknown mystery, where both adventure and terror await them. This journey from peaceful home to mysterious larger world suggests the journey from childhood to maturity, with the hobbits cast as young adolescents venturing into the adult world. However, except for those hobbits, such as Bilbo, who have ventured beyond its boundaries, the Shire is populated by adults who seem as innocent as children. The Shire, therefore, suggests a kind of Eden, where a hobbit can live an entire lifetime far from cruelty, greed, and war.

In Jackson’s films, the hobbits return to the Shire after the great battle of Middle-earth has been fought, the evil forces of Sauron have been defeated, the ring has been destroyed, and the various human kingdoms have been united under Aragorn’s rule. In other words, all of Middle-earth has become much like the Shire, a place free from strife. In the novels, however, precisely the opposite has happened: the struggles of Middle-earth have come to the Shire. Even though Frodo has destroyed the ring of power, war and hardship have not ceased to exist. In the novels, the destruction of the ring marks an important victory against evil, but the world has somehow changed irreversibly nonetheless, signaling an end of innocence.

Tolkien’s version of the return to the Shire allows for further exploration of the differences between Sam and Frodo. In the novels, Frodo, exhausted by his journey to Mordor, barely participates in the ensuing rebellion against Saruman. Sam, meanwhile, leads the rebellion and eventually becomes mayor of the Shire. This final confrontation sheds new light on what Frodo says as he departs Middle-earth with the elves. Handing the memoir of his adventures to Sam, he says, “The last pages are for you, Sam.” In the film, this line suggests that Sam will go on to live happily ever after in the Shire. In the novel, Sam will be forced to display courage and heroism in the rebellion in the Shire as Frodo did on the journey to Mordor.

Jackson’s rosier conclusion simplifies the story, certainly, since a Shire-based battle would probably have added another thirty minutes to the film, but it serves another purpose as well. By allowing the hobbits to return to an idyllic Shire, Jackson has lightened Tolkien’s much darker vision and opted to conclude the trilogy with a classic Hollywood ending. In a way, however, by presenting such a simple version of good and evil, a version in which the worst evil is vanquished and no new evil rises to take its place, Jackson renders his films even more fantastical than Tolkien’s original novels. In a world as tumultuous as Middle-earth, evil is sure to one day return.

<r>Analysis<r>Narrative Structure <r>Suummary

The Lord of the Rings films progress chronologically, following Frodo and the other members of the fellowship on their journey. A narrator relates the history of the ring at the very beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring, which is the only background information we need to understand the urgency of the upcoming journey. From there, events happen in order, from Gandalf’s arrival in the Shire at the beginning of the first film to Sam and Frodo’s return at the end of the last. While Tolkien’s trilogy relies on appendices and companion books to augment the story with historical minutiae and tangents, Jackson elects to stay close to the central narrative—incorporating such obscure details into the films would have been all but impossible. After the fellowship breaks up at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, individual characters and smaller groups pursue their own journeys, and the scenes move back and forth between them. However, their stories take place more or less simultaneously and are related in the order in which they occur. Dreams, visions, and psychic messages occasionally appear and reveal images of past or future events, but since these occur within specific characters’ minds, they still follow the chronology of the action taking place.

Only one scene in the trilogy appears out of chronological order: the opening scene of The Return of the King. In this scene, the hobbit Sméagol kills his friend to acquire the ring of power and eventually becomes the withered creature Gollum, whose singular obsession is the ring. As a freestanding scene, this episode is unique in the trilogy. In a way, the scene reveals nothing new, since Gollum’s internal debates in The Two Towers reveal enough information for us to speculate about his history. Other background information may have been equally or more useful, such as the history of Saruman and Gandalf’s relationship or the story of Aragorn’s being raised by elves.

The Sméagol scene, however, has two important effects on The Return of the King and on the trilogy itself. Though the power of the ring has been evident from the very beginning, Sméagol’s transformation shows exactly how dangerous that power is. In a way, the story of Sméagol serves as a cautionary tale or a dire prediction of what could happen to Frodo if he gives in to the power of the ring. The scene also gives new edges and layers to the character of Gollum. Gollum is a complex combination of good and evil, and this ambiguity sets him apart from other characters in the trilogy, who are usually completely good or wholly evil. Gollum’s history provides a window into his psyche, and, with him more than with any other character, we can see what motivates both his actions and his anxiety. Gollum’s utter helplessness in the presence of the ring renders him, to some extent, an object of sympathy.

<r>Analysis<r>

Previous section Film Summary Next section Key Facts