Nominated for 13 Academy Awards: Winner of Four Academy Awards
GALLERY (thumbnails - please click to view larger image)
Edited 15/7/02 A Mom's gotta do what a Mom's gotta do.
In order to be a responsible parent and not culturally deprive my son from a film perspective, I knew there were two films that were required viewing in December of 2001. These were "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone" and "Lord of the Rings I: The Fellowship of the Ring." Having read the Harry Potter series with my son, I was prepared and looking forward to the first of these, but was none too sure about the second and other than having read The Hobbit many years before, knowing Sir Ian McKellan was playing Gandalf and hearing references in a few Led Zeppelin songs I went in cold. My background in theatre told me I'd be in good hands with Sir Ian and I have truly loved everything I have seen him do on stage and screen over the years, so the three hour running time didn't seem quite so daunting. What I wasn't prepared for was the rest of the extremely solid cast and how much I became immersed in the story. I passed on my copy of The Hobbit to my 12-year-old son last holiday season and collaborated with extended family to ensure he now has the trilogy and he's well on his way as an aspiring Ring/Tolkien geek. We had seen from the previews what a beautiful film to watch it would be and have since read that the location where it was shot was every bit as magical as many of the special effects. The result is a lush and gorgeous film to watch: it's apparent that Peter Jackson sweated every frame of this first film, but he also makes it look easy. It's obviously a story that needs to be told for a new generation and is brought into form with a dazzling setting, acting and effects. The battle scenes are extensive, but important to the plot of the story, as the Fellowship of the Ring, consisting of four Hobbits (including Elijah Wood as Frodo and Sean Astin as his sidekick Sam), two men, a dwarf, an elf and a wizard fend off Orcs, cave trolls and all manner of monstrous creatures on their quest to keep Frodo safe as they transport the Ring to Mt. Doom to destroy it. Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler have small, but significant roles as strong, beautiful elfin women who guide, challenge and at times rescue the Fellowship, working almost exclusively in their lower vocal registers which works beautifully. The two Ians: McKellan as Gandalf and Holm as Frodo's elder Bilbo are both at their brilliant best in this well written fantasy genre. Christopher Lee brings his commanding presence and incomparable voice to the role of Sauraman. The Hobbits provide excellent comic relief and there's eye candy for both genders and all ages with Orlando Bloom as Legolas, the tall, blond, gorgeous, elfin archer, Sean Bean as the conflicted Boromir and Viggo Mortensen as Strider/Aragorn, the man who would be king. The cast has not only great looks, but also acting talent in abundance and neither my son nor I could take our eyes off this film. While younger women are swooning over Bloom as Legolas or the cuddly Hobbit boys, I found myself thinking: "Wow, what a great film, and I'll bet that actor playing Strider/Aragorn cleans up real nice!" From an acting perspective, Mortensen really carries the film in the very challenging last 30 minutes of a three-hour film, yet never sacrifices the integrity of the ensemble. Our family has been back to see "Lord of the Rings I: Fellowship of the Ring," many times when I rarely ever pay a film the compliment of seeing it more than once. It was fine to see the film before reading the book, even preferable, as to avoid being one of the whiners who say, "I liked the book better." Uh… heads up? One filmmaker's vision is never going to match or surpass every viewer's individual sweet imagination, so rest it, elevate it and view without bias. You're in for a treat. While some have complained about having to wait two whole years to see the whole trilogy (I live in the U.S, and am surrounded by those who want it all and for whom instant gratification takes too long), I appreciate having a couple of years to read the books. Just don't count on me ever becoming a Ring geek. I have a family to raise.
Colleen Wallace
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thoughts on Lord of the Rings by the Webperson
"On Heroes and Archetypes"
This photograph of Viggo as Aragorn (pictured above centre) from the official Lord of the Rings book appears "Jesus-like", An observance: Viggo also played Lucifer in "The Prophecy" (but of course, if you're reading this you know he has amazing range).
Was J.R.R. Tolkiens' Strider/Aragorn based in part on Jesus? Its interesting that Tolkien was a Catholic, yet no one character in the Trilogy was the sole saviour, each of the fellowship were just a part, each bringing their unique gifts.
Of them all the closest to that character would be Aragorn, who is the bearer of ancient knowledge, from the bloodline of Kings, the vessel of hope and possible redemption. Righting past failures may be a heavy burden, perhaps some ambiguity towards the tasks exist within him. He is the uncrowned King and is the incorruptible one among men (yet as a human he should be corruptible). He is a ranger not a carpenter and heroically humble when offering his life and sword to the greater cause. He has many dimensions, nothing simple and black or white here.
The trilogy does not draw clichéd archetypal characters, all have their flaws, one can even feel a little sorry for Orcs (bred to hate - like some people still are) and Black Riders (once men - like Lucifer was once an angel), just victims of circumstance, and poor choices. The idea that no one person should be put upon a pedestal is illustrated when, at one point even sweet Frodo (who is not susceptible to the corruptive powers of the ring) is bawled out by Gandalf for thoughtlessly wishing death upon Gollum, (another character who just took the wrong road).
Faults and idiosyncrasies also make much more interesting characters . Bad guys are boring - think "I want to Rule the World Villains" a la James Bond (yawn). Yes, and Aragorn is a little brusque, for example, when the Fellowship are mourning after Gandalf falls into the chasm, and he gives everybody the big "hurry up", (of course, he appreciates the danger they are in), and there were his hobbit throwing skills at the Prancing Pony Inn that let us know he didn't stand on ceremony. This light and shade in the characters make them so much realer to the audience - these are no cardboard cut-outs.
I love that men are not the "centre of the Universe" in this story, just one of the many races sharing the land, in fact men are one of the more imperfect kinds in existence. It's rare to not make man the infallible creature/hero in a story of this genre (anyone for "Star Trek" the original series?). And so Tolkien can never be generic, but inspired, by the patterns within the patterns of life - reflections of relationships between nations and on down to the tangible importance of an individuals contribution ("even the smallest person can make a difference"). The rings themselves are such a pattern, with one ring to rule them all. But the one ring is corrupt, therefore it is a "bad pattern", as is any one thing or person with too much power, we should never be blinded by it and follow obediently, in a cult-like fashion, and so on. That we should "muddle our way through" with our heart in the right place, brings us back to the value of imperfection, thus humility, thus understanding, thus perfection!
Excuse my ramblings . . .
On "Bad Guys"
One of the two best "bad guy" characters I can think is Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List" who played the Nazi, tortured by the awareness of his own evil (but being horrid anyway) and his unbidden longings (for a Jewish woman), he is sadistic, conflicted and vulnerable at the same time, so very memorable, and the viewer actually feels some empathy for him.
The other fascinating character, not so evil, but scary is Chief Master Urgayle, none other than Viggo Mortensen. Urgayle was not a cliché, not necessarily even evil or good, just single-minded and passionately dispassionate. In movie-land this made him the bad guy, demonstrating this rather well by beating up Demi Moore (Jane) mercilessly, beyond the call of duty or perhaps within it, (as Jane knew what she was up against). Again, this character seemed to me to be a multi-layered and therefore fascinating - I have unanswered questions about this character's intent . . . and the memory lingers on . . . (didn't he fancy her just a tiny, little bit? surely)
The Following is an excerpt from Lord of the Rings.net
Another mysterious character introduced in The Fellowship of The Ring is
Aragorn, a heroic man and warrior, played with trademark intensity by Viggo Mortensen. Mortensen got so into the role it was rumored he was living in the forest
in Aragorn’s torn, mud-stained clothes! Says Peter Jackson: "Viggo embraced the character so completely it’s difficult to imagine the two being separate
now." Adds Barrie M.
Osborne: "Viggo is the perfect actor to play a man who is struggling to redeem himself from his ancestry and his heritage. He’s incredibly dedicated. He’s the
kind of an actor who one day had his tooth knocked out by a sword and actually asked if they could superglue it back on so he could finish the scene. He became
Aragorn,
and he brings a real power to the role."
Mortensen felt a strong personal connection to the project: "I’m Celtic and Scandinavian, so I was raised on the myths Tolkien used to inspire The Lord of The
Rings," he says. "It’s part of my heritage." The actor was also intrigued by Aragorn’s primal, self-reliant brand of heroism. "He can
survive in nature, live from it, read its signs and live happily, not needing anyone, not relying on anything but his own knowledge and discoveries," he observes.
"But now he has to take on more responsibility, and it’s not clear where it will lead him."
= = = = = = = = =
LINK TO NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ARTICLE ON THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF LORD OF THE RINGS