The Best of Pictures: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), by Josh Long

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen

Entering into any discussion of The Lord of the Rings makes me feel a little like the way I feel in preparing to watch The Lord of the Rings. It’s good, but there’s SO MUCH of it. You get tired before you even start. I can’t touch on everything, so I’ll try to hit a few of the major points about this movie in relation to the Oscars and its cultural significance.

So first a little bit of Oscar info, for those who don’t already know it. The Return of the King won eleven Academy Awards, tying Ben-Hur (1959) and Titanic (1997) for most Oscars won by a film. Besides Best Picture, it took awards for directing, adapted screenplay, special effects and sound, and more 1. Many people are of the opinion (and I am with them) that The Return of the King’s big win for 2003 was really to recognize and award the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, and not just specifically the third installment. Though that might be a little odd, I like the idea of recognizing the series as a whole instead of individual films. Also, this is one of the longest Oscar winners, clocking in at two hundred and one minutes (that’s three hours and twenty-one minutes for those who would rather not bother with math) 2.

Oscar has a history for loving big, sweeping epics (see Braveheart [1995], Lawrence of Arabia [1962], or of course Gone with the Wind [1939]). Seeing as this was the first wide-scale big budget adaptation of Tolkien’s classic, and it was well executed, all three movies in the trilogy had a big shot at Best Picture. It was a lot to undertake, but director Peter Jackson was up to the challenge.

All three films are very well made. The directing and cinematography capture the tone of Tolkien’s work, the engaging performances take on carefully crafted and well-loved characters. The film very honestly enters the world of Middle Earth, and takes its audience along for a concurrently thrilling and moving ride. Though much of the film’s appeal must be attributed to Tolkien’s creation, the film faithfully brings us into that world and opens it to our imaginations. Some of the special effects masterminded by Jackson or created by the Weta Workshop were astounding 3. The work that was done with perspective to fake the diminutive size of the hobbits was extremely innovative and well thought out – if you haven’t already, check out some of the “Making Of” features on the Fellowship of the Ring DVD.

All that being said, the film’s cult status has given it a prematurely exalted position in the annals of film history. The Internet Movie Database currently ranks it as the number thirteen film of all time, several slots above To Kill a Mockingbird, Sunset Blvd., and Citizen Kane 4. While it’s a great movie, and I think we’ll still consider it great many years from now, I’m not sure we have the hindsight now to rank it among the best of all time. Many movies that were hugely popular upon release have, over the years, waned drastically in both popularity and critical acclaim. Gigi (1958) won eight Academy Awards. Have you seen it? I didn’t think so.

One of the engines that drives the film’s popularity and cult status is its mythology. Like Star Wars or the Harry Potter series, there are a few films that bring us such an engaging and complex world, that they fully capture the viewer’s imagination. From the homeland of the elves, to the story behind Aragorn’s sword, the mythology is so well-developed, and is wrapped around a solid, driving, heartfelt story. Tolkien’s Middle Earth fascinated loyal fans for generations, and with the exception of some die-hards, viewers joyfully re-entered the world through Jackson’s films.

This brings me to one of the issues often used to deride the Lord of the Rings films. We’ve all spoken to someone who, in regards to these movies, feels compelled to use the phrase “the book was much better.” I’m sure this person is eager to let us know that they’ve read the book, and that they were fans before it was “cool,” but comparing in this way is a mistake with which I’ve always had problems. It does not make sense to make cross-medium comparisons. You cannot flatly compare the book to the movie; they are different art forms, and should be compared to other art forms of the same type, otherwise it’s apples and oranges. The comparison you can make is to say “it wasn’t as good a movie as it was a book,” or “it wasn’t as good as a movie as it was as a book.” If you felt the medium of film was not the proper vehicle for this story, then that’s a fair criticism 5. Or if you felt the book was a ten (as far as books are concerned) and the movie was an eight (as far as movies are concerned), then that also is a fair criticism. However, I think that neither of these criticisms can be applied to The Lord of the Rings. The beautiful landscape and sweeping scenery that is integral to Tolkien’s books is well-served by the breathtaking scenery of New Zealand 6, and the screen is a wonderful medium for the epic. And from a general quality perspective, I think the movie is as good a movie as the book is a book. Some might disagree with me on that, and I’m not a literature expert, but I feel confident in saying the quality of Tolkien’s books and the quality of Jackson’s films are at the same level.

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy brings a fresh new perspective to the much-loved classic tales, and its epic status both as a story and as a film earned it a record number of Academy Awards. Whether or not future film lovers look back on it as one of the greatest adaptations of all time, they will certainly esteem it with a notable place in film history.

1 And since you were probably wondering…the film won the following Academy Awards: Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Director, Best Editing, Best Make-up, Best Music (Original Score), Best Music (Original Song), Best Picture, Best Sound Mixing, Best Visual Effects, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay).

2 The extended edition adds another fifty minutes, coming in at four hours and eleven minutes. Compare to Lawrence of Arabia’s two hundred sixteen minutes. Weren’t you just hoping that you could spend today learning about runtimes for long movies? I know I did.

3 With the exception of a great deal of the CGI (computer generated imagery, for the uninitiated). The first film is much better with using camera tricks and complex makeup and set design. By the end of the third film, we are seeing a lot of CGI orcs, elephants, even people, and I think it detracts from the viewer’s suspension of disbelief.

4 I should note that I almost hate to use the IMDB rankings as a source – they’re dependent on votes from virtually anyone who knows how to use the internet, and just because you can use a keyboard doesn’t mean you know anything about movies. It’s kind of like asking a group of second graders who’s the best baseball player of all time. They know a lot more about Manny Ramirez than they know about Ted Williams.

5 See 2006’s disastrous adaptation Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, based on Patrick Suskind’s novel.

6 Honestly, I really wanted to do a review of the movie without being the ten thousandth person to mention “New Zealand’s breathtaking scenery,” but there it is. I apologize.