Rich On Lord Of The Rings

Rich on Reception goes to the movies

Have you ever heard anybody slate the bible? Seriously, have you ever listened to someone say, "You know I read that once, I got into it for a bit but you know, I didn't get it. I mean, the stories with the boat and the guy with the beard were good but, come on, talking snakes, some guy coming back to life? What the hell is that?"

No. No one says that about the bible. Maybe it's because it's blasphemy. Maybe we're all God-fearing people. I've not read the thing cover to cover but I'm not going to admit that's because it's boring. It's just not the right thing to say, is it? Maybe we don't see ourselves as being qualified to attack something so clearly cleverer than us.

It's not just the bible this applies to. Go into any class of film students and ask them what they think of Citizen Kane and you'll get a lesson in how classy, intriguing and downright brilliant this Forties classic is. You'd be lucky to find anyone that's willing to turn around and say, "Hang on a minute, it was just a sledge. He had it all and would have traded it in for a few nails and four pieces of wood! The guy was an idiot!"

Scary series

These days, in order for a film to gain the sort of success makers dream of - the sort that continues to produce money long after the theatres empty and has a cult following - they need to do a little more than just 90 minutes of drama or action. Face/Off would have made a packet when it came out but I bet it's making very little these days.

Like Star Wars, The Blair Witch Project had a secret to its success - a story to its story. You can buy books on Star Wars chartering every inch of the universe the films are set in, stuff never even hinted at in the films. The Blair Witch writers created a whole backdrop to their story; consequently, people thought it was true.

And so we have The Lord Of The Rings. A series of books I was scared to read because they were so daunting. Pile the three books up and they're as high as my leg. And that's with small print. So, for me, the dream would be that a film or three could be made to tell the tales. JRR Tolkien was so into his stories that he not only created a new world in print but a completely original language too. The depth is stunning. So much so that it was always going to be nigh on impossible for the movie to do it justice.

Freaks and drunkards

The local cinema was packed. It's a rare occasion but it does happen when a blockbuster opens. They don't run the cinema to make money. It's more of a care in the community thing for those members of our community who can't get jobs in the circus any more. All the freaks come out. It's the only cinema I know that is hidden in a back alley disguised as a Favorite Chicken (no one goes in Favorite Chicken, you see). I didn't know homeless people had so many friends.

The drunkards were out in force. It was like a distillery in there. If ever you needed proof that this film is different to Harry Potter, you only had to look around at the goblin-like adult freak show. I donned my ugliest expression and crouched over slightly as I went in. The Management know me and, although they'd have turned most normal folk away, my regularity makes me their only, well, regular. It was the rest of the clientele who worried me. I was there to see the film, not the freak show. But they didn't know that.

Once the lights went down things were fine, of course. Although I did feel like I was sitting in the home end at Millwall wearing a Crystal Palace shirt. Every time the Orcs came on screen, the place went mad. I think some of my co-viewers were extras. Saved on make-up, I guess.

Shoe-horned

And so to the film. And what a film it was. I gather it is indeed faithful to the book and, having read The Hobbit, I could tell straightaway that it made in a Tolkien tone But most of all I realised I knew absolutely bugger all about the whole thing. And that's the way I liked it. I watched Potter wondering how they were going to transfer it to screen. But I watched Rings wondering what it was like in the book. And that was certainly a better way to do it.

The basic story is that there are a bunch of rings and one of them is very important to world peace in the fantasy land of Middle Earth. Threatening the peace is some Dark Lord fellow, who is rising again after being defeated many years earlier. The ring in question needs to be destroyed and can only be destroyed in a particular place, which is very hard to get to. And so we have what is effectively a road movie with a group of characters travelling across country on a mission to destroy the ring. The holder of the ring is Frodo. He's a hobbit and they're little people. He and three friends are originally charged with carrying out the job, but are soon joined by several others in their quest.

As I said, the story within the story can be integral and The Lord Of The Rings has enough of one to make its own standalone film. This was, however, summed up in about six minutes at the beginning - but that was the only time it seemed as though the story had been shoe-horned in. Even then it was no bad thing. I was riveted. Director Peter Jackson has not shied away from telling the story as it should be told. It burns slowly but captures your attention and holds it, without fail, for three hours. Like the bible, to fault the story is to mess with something you don't feel you have the right to mess with. The care and craft that has gone into this film is second to none.

Instant classic

The performances are spot-on. Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler turn in understated performances as the elves; they look good without looking too good and speak Elvish, which makes it all the more convincing. Ian Holm's turn as Bilbo Baggins is quality. The lead roles are just as good: Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen are both mean and moody and it's great to see the Goonie himself (Sean Astin) proving he has more to offer the acting world, playing Frodo's mate so touchingly. Elijah Wood is perfectly cast as Frodo. In fact I could go through the whole cast list and say the same. It's a credit to them that they all seemed to care so much about what they were doing, and it's visible on screen.

Being the first in a trilogy is a tough call. I said before, Potter and Star Wars needed to set up characters and stuff for future reference, while still trying to create a self-contained movie. It's not a problem with Rings because, from the word go, they had no intention of putting an end on the film. I think you do need to know beforehand: there is no big climax. You will surely be rewarded for your patience when the two sequels arrive but don't bemoan the fact that there isn't a huge-scale battle like every bloody Star Wars film. It's cleverer than that and expects you to be clever about it too.

I advise anyone and everyone to see it. It's an instant classic. A true piece of cinema history. I don't have a favourite film. It's just not possible. But if I had to choose which film I felt was the best ever made, it would probably be this. It runs rings round the rest. Maybe even... nah, people will think I'm going too far!

Rich
Unit 2 Reception
For the benefit of others, please leave meeting rooms clean and tidy. Thank you!