Lord of the Rings: WHY???

Well, it's pretty certain who's going to win the Oscar for Best Picture, but what I find a little less certain is why. Yes, I'm talking about Return of the King, the most nauseatingly overrated entry in the most nauseatingly overrated trilogy in film history. Now don't get me wrong: I concede that these movies were terribly difficult to make, and what wound up on the screen is a feast for the eyes. But so's Jurassic Park. After all, those dinosaurs looked realistic, didn't they? If I told critics I thought Jurassic Park was the best film of its year, most of them would decide I had no more discernment in me than the T-rex so ably incarnated in that movie. And yet, I hear the Lord of the Rings trilogy being hailed by them as the greatest cinematic achievement of our time, and Peter Jackson being called the new Eisenstein. This comes as a bit of a shock to me, for the following modest reasons:

1) In a total of nearly 12 hours, with countless characters and extras running about, and some pretty stupefying special effects, the LOTR trilogy fails to do one simple thing: tell a story. Let's compare to another equally grand fantasy epic: Star Wars. Sure, I wouldn't call that trilogy an amazing work of moviemaking, but at least it offered constant developments, twists and turns (e.g. "I am your father"), and each of the three films had an arc that made it a complete entity unto itself. LOTR is so empty, that each four-hour entry just makes more obvious that painful fact: the result is like some shrieking vacuum, piled over with glittering visuals and elf ears.

2) But, you may protest, how can LOTR be expected to surprise us when we already know the books? Well, I answer, here's the problem. The books were as much an academic venture as a storytelling one, if not more so. Tolkien, a scholar of literature, particularly of Old English epics such as Beowulf, wanted to create an epic mythology for his English homeland, a pre-Norman invasion England of magic and warriors. Hence: Middle Earth. Hence also the incredible amount of detail Tolkien bestowed on the novels, the languages he created, the ways in which he adopted historical and literary traditions to inform his epic. All that is, of course, pretty much lost in Jackson's LOTR, which is essentially one huge action movie. You see, there's an inherent problem with adapting something like LOTR, which in the end relies less on story than on details, many of them academically inspired, to the big screen. What was Jackson's solution? Turn it into a bunch of really cool-looking battles and monsters. Oh, and have it go on forever.

3) But, you may protest, there is a lot of color and detail in these movies. Yes, I agree, the sets are nice. And so are the costumes. But the characters . . . well, then again, there ARE no characters. Gee-wiz, in 12 hours, you think you could have a little character development. Everyone's a completely one-dimensional caricature. Only Gollum comes anywhere near a hint of complexity, and I have no complaints with him. That little creature is pretty much the only non-technical feature LOTR gets right.

4) Which brings me to my penultimate point. Other than Gollum, who's brilliantly done, let's come out and face it: the acting is pretty pathetic. Oh, of course, Return of the King is winning all these best ensemble awards, but I don't buy it for a second. The supposed "lead," Frodo, as played by Elijah Wood, of whom I'm otherwise quite a fan, does absolutely NOTHING but look wide-eyed and scared. The little hobbit overwhelmed by the enormity of his mission works for about half an hour, but, when he still looks the exact same way at the end of 12 hours, except with some dirt on his face to pass as some sort of cheap "hardening" of the soul, I call it a pretty poor performance. None of the other actors, not even the great Ian McKellen, do much better. Of course, there's not much they can do at all with the dialogue they're given.

5) But, you may finally protest, who cares about the finer points of acting or character complexity or a story that surprises or moves us, or dialogue (let's never forget: "A red sky. [pause; breath] Blood has been spilt tonight. [cue ominous music]"), or any of that nonsense? These movies kick ass. And, I answer, well they might. I personally was bored half to death, but I understand why so many people dig them. The problem I have is, once again, the Jurassic Park conundrum: I have no problem with movies like JP, as long as they don't flaunt themselves as much more than they are. I wouldn't be ranting and raving if LOTR were widely considered what it actually is: a well-done, very very big-budget, action blockbuster, and not some sublime artistic masterpiece that in any way breaks boundaries or moves cinema forward. LOTR has no more brains or innovation or punch in it than Die Hard or Speed. That's the bottom line. What's really amazing about these movies is NOT the movies themselves, but the extent to which the critical world has bought into them, as if they subscribed to the mentality: "Well, if it's big enough, and has enough special effects, and costs enough, and, by golly, is LONG enough, it's gotta be good enough!"

Roger Ebert, in a review of Lawrence of Arabia for his Great Movies column, wrote: "The word 'epic' in recent years has become synonymous with 'big-budget B picture.' What you realize watching Lawrence of Arabia is that the word 'epic' refers not to the cost or the elaborate production, but to the size of the ideas and vision." Size of ideas. Hmm......... Let's just say, as a conclusion to my first post here, that I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that Return of the King, and all of LOTR for that matter, do not belong in the "big-budget B picture" category.

Comments

[Barney Martin]

Haven't bothered to go see any part of the LOTR trilogy yet (found the book stupifying enough), but I am pleased to see that not everybody is worshipfully humbled by its majesty. Will probably go see it, as I'm easily suckered in by special effects (anyone remember 'Event Horizon'? Great special effs, but was there a plot?).

Do have to disagree about the Star Wars series, though... several characters were two dimensional (Princess Pastry Earmuffs, Bigfoot second mate, Furby natives, etc.), and little of the saga appealed beyond a level of pandering to the sense of wonder of the formerly religious.

I really want to make it known that the last examplar of the SW genre (attack of the clones) was the absolute worst movie I have ever sat through. It was bad. It was badder than bad. It added a new dimension to bad. Lordy what a bad awful bad stinker.
What could have been the best seen of the movie, which would have given a point and a cohesiveness to the effort expended, was ruined entirely by the "heroes", who were tied to pillars and about to be ripped to bloody shreds by great ferocious beasts, getting saved at the last moment.

I have never been so disappointed.

BMM

[Bill Schipper]

I can't agree more with your analysis of LOTR. I saw the first one, and was deeply embarrassed at the kind of dialogue we were being asked to take seriously. And so I've refused to see the rest. I'd rather reread the books for the 20th time, and use my own imaginatino.

[John Campea]

Wow. I just can't imagine a senario where I could disagree with you more about Return of the King. In my opinion the best film ever put on screen (yes, it even beat out The Godfather and Life is Beautiful for me).

A summary of why feel this is can be found at:
http://www.themovieblog.com/2003/12/is_rerun_of_the.html

But like I always say. The most beautiful thing about film is the pure subjectivity of it. Keep watching. I like your site.

[Amber Wood]

LOTR is the best film ever screened, I have read the books and it is the only film that has captured the imagination of Tolkein. They spent a lot of money to capture that and I congratulate Peter Jackson. Every actor was perfectly picked and they loved doing it. As for the dialogue I personally think that it is beautiful and makes the film, there is some lovely language, I havent heard a single line that is wrong. Why do people have to think that they are wonderful just because they don't like it? Everything from the actors to the director, the sets to the costumes and the music to the dialogue is perfect and I would like to say "well done" to Peter Jackson for giving us all this wonderul piece of work!

[Michael]

Haven't heard a single line that was wrong? In what sense? Do you mean wrong, as in if Gandalf had said 'I used my time machine to save myself from the Balrog'? If so, then yes there certainly aren't any 'wrong' lines but there are plenty of superfluous, tacky and poorly delivered ones.
The dissenters who don't like this movie don't think that they're 'wonderful' because they don't like these movies, they just take offence at the claim that this is somehow the 'the best film ever screened'; which is a grave insult to all the true greats.
I agree entirely with Mr. Chazelle's review, although you will find that I am much less charitable when it comes to evaluating the supposed good-points that these films are meant to possess.

[Salvi]

Lord of The Rings...Best movie ever made

[Jesse]

I find myself agreeing with Mr Campea up there-although Return of the King did win the Best Picture oscar, and consider it a wonderful chapter in american cinema, the wonderful thing about this medium is that it can be completely subjective. One person may find it a deeply moving piece of art, and another may find it (although i think this is a gross mis-statement) a "big-budget B picture." everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i say bravo to you for not giving in to the mindless hero worship of this film. It's right to say that some people are mindlessly lauding LOTR as a cinematic milestone just because everyone else is. Way to stand by your opinion.

[a]

haha