Continuing on from my earlier post, I review Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 version of The Lord of the Rings:
My first experience of the The Lord of the Rings was watching this film at the impressionable age of eight. So, I admit that my experience of Rings will be forever influenced by this animated gem. I therefore also admit that my opinion of this film is undoubtedly basked in a glow of nostalgia. However, many other films from my youth had my nostalgic views of them shattered in the harsh light of adulthood. Not so this one!
After several attempts by filmmakers such as John Boorman and the esteemed Stanley Kubrick to adapt the The Lord of the Rings to the silver screen the task was finally accomplished by adult animator Ralph Bakshi (Fritz the Cat, among others). While he admitted that many story elements were required to be omitted to bring the tale to cinematic life, he strove to honour the spirit of Tolkien’s book. As far as I am concerned, he succeeded.
The tale starts, as expected in The Shire; the home of quaint wee folk called hobbits. As the book was written by an Englishman in the 1930′s and ’40′s the tone of the hobbits character, and the book in general, is very English. The Shire is effectively a small English village affected by a hint of fantasy.
Bakshi’s film, in turn, is also English in tone. The Shire scenes have the feel of a warm, rustic, village pub; while, the later scenes in Bree feel like the Shire pub’s slimy, city brother. A similar feel but slightly more dangerous and less inviting.
The initially part of the story establishes the desire of Sauron, lord of all things creepy, to have the One Ring. Pursued by ring-wraiths, the four hero hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, flee to their meeting with Gandalf the Grey; wizard and wise advisor to Frodo. And, then, when he does not show, they are accompanied by the stranger, Strider, a supposed friend of Gandalf, who leads them to the elf safehaven, Rivendell.
In the book, this early part of the story has the feel of an old British horror; such as the Hammer horrors, Witchfinder General, and The Wicker Man. Bakshi’s film captures this beautifully. And, when Frodo slips on the magic ring, he slides into a surreal and misty dimension where the ring-wraiths focus their sickly energies onto him; it has a feel to psychedelic British rock of the late sixties and early seventies; I found these sequences to be highly cinematic and enchanting.
The most effective element of the film is the screenplay. It condenses The Fellowship of the Ring and a good portion of The Two Towers into little over 2 hours of screen-time. The scenes are efficient at establishing character and plot, while remaining atmospheric and engaging.
The focus on character, and the focus of Bakshi’s direction, also pay dividends. With a small budget, and perhaps just good story sense, all of the set-pieces centre on the characters experiences and how they are affected by the action, instead of the action itself. Never lingering on action for actions sake, the narrative flows easily and the film never drags.
The filmmaking also displays an effective imagination for lucid yet enchanting magic. One example of is of how Gandalf becomes imprisoned at the top of Isenguard by Saruman. The verbal confrontation plays out between the two wizards as magic lights flicker in the background, And, then, as Saruman walks away, confident that he has won the argument, we see that the background has changed and Gandalf is now on top of the tower. It is efficient and effective, with no theatrics or convolution necessary.
The voice cast is largely made up of unknowns but a few known faces (or voices) do appear. John Hurt plays Aragorn with a deep, throaty authority, and allows the character to emit both wise sincerity and a genuine warmth. Anthony Daniels (aka C3-PO) is Legolas and does an adequate if not memorable turn. The unknowns are all fine with the most effective being William Squire as Gandalf.
The film isn’t perfect. It does omit a huge amount of detail and story; although, better that than too much detail (more on that when I review Peter Jackson’s version in a few days). And the films use of rotoscoping (effectively tracing over a real, previously filmed actor) is effective in places and distracting in others. Some of the design work is lacking; particularly the Balrog, which looks like a stuffed lion toy with wings and fangs. And, with the small budget of the film, I didn’t feel that it lived up its full potential.
However, after almost 24 years since first viewing it, I am plesantly surprised by how enjoyable I found the experience of watching it again. It is an easy watch and it is perfect for a rainy Sunday morning with the kids. Who knows, like me, they may be inspired to then read the magnificent novel!
