Peter Jackson
The Lord Of The Rings

I admit I have never read the eponymous work by J. R. R. Tolkien. A few pages in school, a few lines here and there, but it's been quite a long time. I know nothing about Tolkien: he was a writer, that's the only thing I know. And that's enough for me. Then one day, reading a pseudo-cinema magazine, I discover that a certain Peter Jackson (of whom, like Tolkien, I knew nothing) is about to make a mega movie in three episodes (or rather, in three parts) inspired by Tolkien's work, "The Lord of the Rings." At that moment, I turn the page and read about the new production from Martin Scorsese. But then, time passes, and Peter Jackson's huge project comes through, hits theaters, and the public starts going into a frenzy. "If you've never read Tolkien, you're not worthy of this world," friends tell me. Obviously, they laugh. But not entirely.
And I go to see it.

The theater is large, it's full, it's beautiful. The film starts, and the cast makes me anticipate apocalyptic visions and a masterpiece from close range: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler (Bertolucci's muse), Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Ian Holm, the great old Christopher Lee. Three hours later, my eyes are wide open, not that I had much fun. But then I decide to be patient since a year passes quickly. And here I am again: big, full, beautiful theater. The cast is the same, the film as well. But after three hours, I have a strange feeling: wasn't I right in not having known this Tolkien? The following year, I don't fall for it again. I stay home, I enjoy the last part at home. Shame, it was the best.

This long prologue (a bit sui generis) was necessary. Talking about the Tolkien/Jackson trilogy isn't easy. Sure, the press isn't happy unless it inflates and hypes things up. Reading the newspapers, it seems like who knows what: big words like "excellent," "incredible," "wonderful," "epochal" are used lavishly. Yes, indeed, on paper this great cinematic operation could have been truly excellent, epochal, and wonderful, but it should have been directed by Stanley Kubrick, Roman Polanski, Steven Spielberg (the one from a few years ago), not Peter Jackson.
Peter Jackson (don't worry, he's not related to Michael) is from Australia, he's made respectable but essentially non-essential films ("The Frighteners"), he's someone who knows little of the big Hollywood machine. They gave him carte blanche, and he went with it (in Camilleri's words). His trilogy is engaging, scenographically excellent, decently acted (some are very good, others, like Orlando Bloom or Viggo Mortensen, leave something to be desired), some characters are memorable and will remain in the collective memory (Gollum, with his nerve-wracking catchphrase: "My preciousss"), the special effects are breathtaking, and so on. But it all suffers from excessive pedantry, the screenplay is a mishmash of situations strung together a bit forcibly, and some passages are excessively cumbersome and uninteresting. Sometimes the mannerist grandiosity takes over: battles with the creature in a sort of temple; the giant spider; the moving tree, all nice to see, but after a few seconds, you're already inclined to turn your head (or change the channel).

Of the three segments, the weakest is undoubtedly the second. The first, "The Fellowship of the Ring", starts decently, with a nice overview of the village where Frodo, the main character of the movie, lives. Then follow the natural adventurous developments and the formation of the fellowship of the ring, complete with character introductions. Here the weakness is evident, but all in all, the charismatic presence of an old fox like Christopher Lee facilitates the operation. Getting to the end in one breath is hard, but doable. At the end, the screenplay's obvious weaknesses: the final duel is too drawn out, the lines become banal, and the unfinished ending is indecent (it's a film split into three parts, but that ending makes no sense).
On to the second. "The Two Towers" is very weak, the screenplay here is more than just a simple framework of exhausting sequences, battles as grandiose as they are boring, with the talking tree's entrance. Very little substance, also because the film is excessively disjointed, the constant twists and turns induce more yawns (or worse, indifference). There's a lot of epic sense, but when art is not supported by a clear project, it serves absolutely no purpose. And the story (yes, I know, it's based on a Tolkien novel) starts to seem a bit too similar to the Homeric "Odyssey."
The saga concludes. Frodo returns home, the ring meets its fate, all characters find their deserved end. Frodo, Gandalf, Sauron, Gollum, Middle-earth, everything finishes tragically. It's "The Return of the King", and it's the best episode. It raises the average of the whole trilogy a bit (the first two get a 5, this one gets a 7) and not only because finally, the ending is not incomplete and satisfying. But also because the screenplay, while demonstrating all its faults, is a bit less slapdash: apart from the long duel in the giant spider's lair, here are some of the most beautiful visual inventions ever: the initial sequence where Gollum's true face is finally revealed; the battle with elephants. And finally, grandiloquence rhymes with quality. And the Tolkien spirit, but more generally that late medieval spirit of King Arthur and Lancelot returns with conviction and sincerity. We don't call it a masterpiece, but we are thoroughly satisfied.

Huge public success, box office champion in the USA and Europe. Peter Jackson is promoted to star status, and the obsession with hobbits, elves, Tolkien seems a clone of what happened in 1993 with the dinosaurs of "Jurassic Park". Awards chapter: the first episode, "The Fellowship of the Ring" won 4, all technical (but started as super favorite, had to step aside for "A Beautiful Mind"); "The Two Towers" took home 2 Oscars, also technical; the finale, "The Return of the King" won a whopping 11, including the prestigious ones for best picture and best direction. As I have said before, the third installment is more successful than the previous ones, certainly deserving to win a good number of Oscars (say 5, always technical), but not exactly to sweep the board and make a clean sweep of the competition. This interesting novelty, specially brought about by the Academy jurors, goes under the name of 'Cumulative Oscar'. But once again, they were terribly wrong: a film is not something to which you can award belated prizes to make up for previously (if there were any) shortcomings. And in the end, the trilogy of "The Lord of the Rings" took home a staggering 17 statuettes. Quite a record, but was it deserved?