I have a few rebuttles to this article.

This article made me think quite a bit about how I feel about this movie. And while I think he has some very good points to make, I think he misses some key things that would have radically improved his impression of the movie.

His review reminds me of that old Monty Python sketch where the Pope calls in Michelangelo to talk to him about his painting of the Last Supper. He’s not at all satisfied because Michelangelo has taken *some* (OK… **many**) liberties with the scene. By the end of the criticism, Michelangelo is so exasperated he blows up and says:

You know what you want mate? A bloody photographer, that’s what you want!

Remember, this is Peter Jackson’s *interpretation* of Tolkien’s LOTR: FOTR, and his his interpretation, the story is about Frodo’s struggle with the ring, and everything else is in support of that.

Now, on to some specifics.

##Frodo

Tolkien’s Frodo was scared of the task before him, but displayed courage at virtually every step of the way. Jackson’s Frodo is a child who is babied throughout his long journey but really shows little inner strength.

It’s a shame, but I think he missed the whole point. Frodo is constantly showing his strength by being able to resist the power of the ring. From the very beginning when he volunteers in the face of the return of the Enemy to take the ring to Elrond, his will is shown to be nothing short of extraordinary. But to the specific points:

• **Weathertop**: Frodo shows huge strength by resisting the will of the King of the Nazgul. By wrenching away at the last minute, the ringwraith had no choice but to try and kill him… his main power of terror had failed
• **The Ford of Rivendell**: The strength Frodo shows is in just remaining alive.
• **The Breaking of the Fellowship**: Frodo still chooses to leave on his own… he isn’t *allowed* to go by Aragorn. Quite the contrary. Aragorn realizes that not even he can resist the corrupting influence of the ring for much longer and gives Frodo his reluctant blessing to go on alone, feeling himself a failure for not being able to complete the quest. The whole point of that scene is to show the strength of the Ring and the strength of Frodo to be able to resist it.

##Aragorn

The Aragorn/Strider that we see is conflicted and unsure of himself–a far cry from the Aragorn of the book.

Again, here I think he misses the point. While the character is definitely different from the book, it’s not that he’s unsure of himself with regards to his abilities, but rather he is afraid of falling victim to the same fate as his ancestor. This is fully realized at the Breaking, where he shows his strength as the Ring calls to him, tempting him with ultimate power.

All of this has more to do with Jackson’s vision of the movie as the story of Frodo and the Ring.

##Gandalf

I have to agree with him here… Gandalf is indeed the strongest representation of a character from the book. Overall, I think that the representation in the movie is flawless.

##Merry / Pippin

Unfortunately, I have to agree with him here, at least partially. All of the motivation for these characters is lost with the compression of the story of Frodo’s flight from the Shire and the conspiracy. I have high hopes for the DVD to fix this problem.

##Boromir

Not much here.

##Gimli

Jackson’s Gimli was an abomination. The line “nobody tosses a dwarf” alone earns immediate condemnation. But the character himself was one-dimensional and again we have no clear idea as to why the Dwarf is in the Fellowship

Actually, I think that Gimli was a very strong character. The moment in the Council when he attempts to destroy the Ring establishes so many things about dwarfs in general and Gimli specifically.

However, the whole scene in Moria where the stair case is crumbling and he utters the line “nobody tosses a dwarf” was the one point in the movie where I was taken out of the reality of it. That line, and possibly the whole crumbling stair part should have ended up on the editing room floor.

##Legolas

His character was perfect. ‘Nuff said.

##Elrond

Of the supporting characters, Elrond’s was the most poorly portrayed. Jackson’s Elrond is angry, argumentative, and stubborn. He speaks of Men with nothing but contempt; he doubts openly to Gandalf that Aragorn can stay true to the task and rebuild the Kingdom of Men. Would Elrond Half-Elven (and half man), who has been a father to Aragorn, ever speak in such a manner?

I’d have to say… Yes. Elrond Half-Elven chose the life of an Elf and rejected that of Man. Aragorn is his nephew (many generations removed), and he isn’t exactly fond of the idea. Aragorn wants to kill Arwen, his daughter, by having her make the choice of mortality, again confirming his view that men care nothing but for themselves. If you look at the whole history of Elrond, from the Silmarillion on, this is very accurate. Tolkien chose to smooth out the rough edges for LOTR, and Jackson chose to show the whole character, and, I think brilliantly.

##Galadriel

The confusing turn that Galadriel’s character takes has been remarked on in many reviews. The eerie fear that she exudes is much different from the terrible beauty and temptation which she displays in the book and greatly diminishes her character from one of the powerful of Middle-earth to a mere horror show.

I took this whole scene in a completely different way. We see her terrible beauty. That whole effect is her temptation to actually take the ring. At the end, the look on her face is surprise and relief… she passed the test, but it wasn’t easy.

On a side note… I think that this shows the strength of Frodo again.

##Arwen

Arwen was my greatest fear coming into the movie and it proved mostly unfounded. Her character really was not offensive, but as I stated above, her actions detract from Frodo and it is in that respect that she serves to reflect poorly on Tolkien’s writing.

I agree with the first part, and totally disagree with the second. See the discussion of Frodo above.

##Saruman/Isengard/Orcs

This came totally out of left field.

Not so. Although not talked about directly in the book, everything that was seen on screen was either implied or mentioned second hand in the book.

The odd “wizard fighting” was ridiculous, as was Gandalf talking to a moth.

Again, I think this is wrong. Would the Gandalf of the book simply accept that he was going to be imprisoned by Saruman, or would he have fought back. In the book, this part of the story is related during the Council of Elrond, and Gandalf *chooses* to gloss over this part, as if embarassed by what happened.

As for talking to the moth, that was anything but ridiculous. Couldn’t Gandalf, a Maiar afterall, talk to a moth? With the elimination of Radagast (an understandable cut IMHO), how else was Gandalf supposed to get in touch with Gwahir?

##Bree

One of the great scenes of the book, in the movie it is reduced to a mere transition.

Yep. Bree was very abbreviated, and that’s very unfortunate, but at the same time understandable. Think about it… you have an already long 3 hour movie. Is Bree where you would choose to expand? Or would you choose something else.

##Council of Elrond

As stated above, this scene could have contained a great deal of interesting exposition, as well as the important themes of free will and destiny. Instead we get a mishmash of bickering followed by a corny selection of the Fellowship. A scene that could have been both moving and informative–underlining the history of the Ring, developing the character of Aragorn, demonstrating the quiet mettle of Frodo–became standard boring Hollywood fare.

I agree with this to a certain extent. Like Bree (and Lothlorien), this was very abbreviated. But, I’m not sure where you could have cut enough to fit this in. Perhaps on the DVD this will be rectified?

With respect to not developing the character of Aragorn, this was done in scenes leading up to the Council while at Elrond’s house. The scene with Boromir and then Arwen moved the character of Aragorn forward and established much of his motivations in the story.

##Moria/Cave troll

An unbelievable amount of time was spent on the attack of the cave troll, and the most pressing question I would have is: why?

Simple… it was very cool! The whole thing in Moria is the high point of the movie. I can’t believe that anyone would suggest changing any of it (with perhaps the one exception of the crumbling stairs scene).

##Conclusion

While everyone is allowed their own opinion, I think that Rajesh makes the fatal mistake of expecting to see *the book”. That is a complete impossibility. The movie ”must* be judged on its own. And in that, I think that it is easily the best movie this year.

I can’t wait for The Two Towers!!!!