The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Review by Jack Waghorn

Novel/Film: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Author (novel): J.R.R Tolkien

Director (film): Peter Jackson

Genre: Fantasy

Overview: The Fellowship of the Ring is the first novel in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The story follows Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit tasked with the burden of carrying the One Ring. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring begins the journey of Frodo, as he ventures to the cracks of Doom to destroy the One Ring, the only thing preventing the Dark Lord’s return.



Novel Review:

Would it be fair to call The Lord of the Rings a timeless classic? The answer in an absolute yes!

The Lord of the Rings has revolutionised the way fantasy is written and depicted. It has been one of my favourite novels for years. Almost all major fantasy novels and stories owe something to The Lord of the Rings. It set the fantasy groundwork that has been built upon since it was first published in 1954.

Although slightly outdated by today’s standards of story telling, Tolkien’s language is both poetic and full of detail. His way of describing is almost unmatched, even today. He doesn’t just tell the reader what the character is looking at, he shows them.

The Lord of the Rings was unique because there was nothing like it at the time of its publication. The sheer extent of the world that Tolkien created is staggering. He not only created characters in his novels, but maps, cultures and a complete history of Middle Earth. The attention to details in the story is truly something to marvel at.

But Tolkien’s great details can also be a weakness of the text. At certain points I believe that the passages on detail can drag on for a bit, without making any advancement in the story. Getting the reader to visualise the text is both fun and rewarding, but grasping the reader’s attention is also important. Tolkien seems to do this well, with only the occasional slipup.

But is The Lord of the Rings really a great book, or a classic that no one would dare speak out against? In all honesty, the novel really does hold up. Granted, it does require some patience and an understanding of the world of Middle Earth.


Film Review:

It had originally been thought that The Lord of the Rings could never be translated to film. The story was too vast and complex and would require more effort and effects than could ever be available. Most believed it couldn’t be done. But in 2001, director Peter Jackson proved all of them wrong with his vision of The Lord of the Rings.

Of course, the movie adaptation has many differences to the original text. At first I was almost sceptical, as so much had been changed from the text. But I left the film feeling fulfilled by the content. It seems whatever plot points that Jackson didn’t include where either non-essential to the main plot or would slow the plot down. Keeping in mind that the film is already three hours long, imagine how long it would be if they included all the scenes from the text!

I was pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of the film. The costumes were great, the sets were amazing and the special effects were very convincing.

But most of all I was impressed with the cast. They looked the part, sounded the part and acted the part. I especially applaud the performances of Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins, Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White.

You just have to glance at this movie to see the humongous amount of work, thought and care that went into the making of this film.

I was simply blown away! It truly is a great film!


Comparison:

It’s difficult to compare such entertaining works of film and literature. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses. But which one tells a story better, which is more entertaining, which is superior?

In all honesty, I’m going to have to say that I had a more enjoyable time watching the film than reading the text.

A big problem I had with the text was that it had scenes that would break the tension too often. The tension would subside, but then quickly pick up again. This wouldn’t be a problem if it only happened once or twice, but it happens quite frequently, especially during the first half of the text. The film doesn’t seem have this problem. The scenes that break the tension are almost completely removed, allowing the suspense to build appropriately before being resolved. This gave the film a far more intense and urgent feeling, which made it all the more exciting.

I also feel that the text may be too heavy on descriptions. Descriptions are great in novels because it helps the reader to visualise a scene. But in a film the visualisations are done for us. When you take away the description all you’re left with is story, and the film’s story just seemed more condensed, quicker paced and reached an appropriate climax towards the end. It’s one thing to read descriptions, but another to see them. This wouldn’t have worked if the film was not accurate in translating the descriptions, but everything looked almost exactly how I pictured it.

Granted that both the novel and the film are great, and it’s obvious that they both had a lot of work put into them. But I’m going to say that the film is superior, but only just barely. The film had great directing, great sets and great actors.