Аннотация: Краткий обзор столь нашумевшей за последнее время трилогии "Властелин Колец", и некоторые соображения по поводу самой книги, фильма (как причины шума, собственно говоря) и того, с чем это все подавать к столу! Написано на родном языке Профессора.
"All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither
Deep roots are not reached by frost."
J.R.R.Tolkien "The Lord of the Rings"
J.R.R. Tolkien's book "The Lord of the Rings" is an outstanding creative work, by all means. It "lives its own life" for nearly 50 years already (being published in 1954 for the first time). "The Lord of the Rings" succeeded in breaking the border between written pages and real life; it forms the basis of the whole subculture. All the heroes of Tolkien's or Professor's (the way in which this writer is often called)
book have so much in common with a number of young generations, that they became immortal, living in hearts of boys and girls.
Speaking about the book itself, we should necessarily mention its profound philosophical sense. It's difficult to find any other creative work, where you can observe such a wide picture of Man's positive features, true feelings, sincere love and friendship. Tolkien reveals sacred sense in simple, common-knowledge phrases such as: "All that is gold does not glitter" or "From the ashes a fire shall be woken".
Judging by everything, mentioned above, one can realize the importance of "The Lord of the Rings" in our culture. That's why it's not surprising that it was adopted for the screen and became one of the most popular movies all over the world. Although "The Lord of the Rings", as a movie, was a great success, there still exist some drawbacks in it, which are worth being mentioned.
To begin with, the movie was made by a Hollywood director Peter Jackson, that's the main reason for a great number of the so-called "American tricks" - special devices, used while making American movies. In the process of analyzing, "The Lord of the Rings" can be divided into 3 main parts: wonderful filming part, satisfactory casting and staging part and, at last, absolutely failed plot and philosophical part.
There's no sense in commenting upon the first part. The scenery is beautiful, one really enjoys observing sweet valleys, round hills and rocky mountains; the atmosphere of Middle Earth, this fairy country, is depicted fully and wonderfully.
As far as the second part is concerned, many elements of the "classical" Hollywood staging can be clearly seen. It's expressed first of all by a great number of battle-scenes, twice as many, as there are in the book. From my point of view, the main failure of the staging is quite surplus dramatization. The action doesn't follow the original, containing pure "Hollywood" devices of persecution and feeling of constant danger, instead of rising the intensity by means of the plot (imitating the original Tolkien's way).
Among fatal discrepancies I should mention the changed meaning of the clue of the story - the Ring of Power. The fact is that Peter Jackson strictly divides the Good and the Evil, good wizards (Gandalf, Elrond) and wicked wizards (Sauron, Saruman). Alas, the movie doesn't show that the Power, used to please someone, is Evil. But this statement is specially marked by the writer and is extremely important in the book. Tolkien also states that the Ring gives the Absolute Power, which itself can bring nothing but harm.
No doubt, the Ring is Evil, but just because wicked Sauron made it - that's the director's commentary. This point deals with the philosophical part of the movie.
The next point to be discussed is the plot, which has to do absolutely nothing with The Professor's book. From my point of view, the main "minus" is the absence of logic and vagueness of the narration. To clarify my idea, I would like to tell that while organizing his magic world, Tolkien combined 3 mythological cultures: Scandinavian, Celtic and Finnish. Peter Jackson quitted all these elements, including pre-histories of most heroes (thus, a spectator can't make out, for example, why Aragorn is the heir of the throne in Gondor or why Gollum behaves in such a strange way). Moreover, the movie doesn't give any information about time and distance. A spectator is able to realize where do the heroes go, or how long have they been already wandering, only if he read the book.
The short comparison that has just been made unfortunately cannot bring us to any satisfactory conclusion. Well-balanced and deep-rooted "The Lord of the Rings", written by the Professor, J.R.R.Tolkien, is reduced to a small fairy tale, corresponding to the frame of the narration only, and taking into account several most vividly marked lines of the plot.