 February
2004
This month's review:
The Lord of the
Rings:
The Return of the King
Who’s the Hero?
All things considered, the best movie of 2003 for me was
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Whether or
not it wins the Oscar for Best Picture, it’s very much worth seeing.
However, so much is packed into it that it might seem a bit
overwhelming without a scorecard. Director Peter Jackson doesn’t
give any summation at the beginning of what’s come before, and
someone who hasn’t read the book might have some difficulty figuring
out what’s going on, at least for a while. So for anyone who hasn’t
already seen the movie or read the book, here’s a brief summary:
At some time in the dim, distant past, the evil Dark Lord Sauron
made a number of rings of power. Unfortunately for him, he lost the
one most powerful ring, which causes anyone who puts it on to become
invisible and which eventually corrupts the person who continues to
wear it. In a flashback scene at the opening of The Return of
the King, Smeagol and Deagol, two hobbit-like creatures, are
fishing in the Great River. Pulled by a gigantic fish to the bottom
of the river, Deagol finds the one lost ring, but his cousin Smeagol
kills him, takes it, and flees. Many years pass and Smeagol, now a
recluse living in the bowels of the earth, is consumed by the ring.
Along comes Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit from the Shire, who finds the
ring and takes it away. Smeagol, aka Gollum, wants to get it back,
and so of course does the Dark Lord. Thus ensues a major struggle
between the powers of good and evil. The forces of good, represented
by hobbits, an elf, a dwarf, a good wizard, and men; are trying to
destroy the ring. The forces of evil, represented by the Dark Lord,
orcs (goblins), and a bad wizard, must get the ring back if they are
to exert total control over the world. Hobbit Frodo Baggins, Bilbo’s
nephew, is appointed the ring-bearer. Frodo’s quest is to destroy
the ring by throwing it into the Crack of Doom, a fiery volcanic
chasm in the Land of Mordor, where the ring was made. He is
accompanied by his friend and gardener, Sam Gamgee. In this last
episode of the trilogy, Frodo and Sam are excruciatingly near their
goal. Will they make it?
Not too long after writing the trilogy, author J.R.R. Tolkien was
asked what various things in it stood for. Was, for example, the
Dark Lord really Joseph Stalin and Mordor the land behind the Iron
Curtain? No doubt exasperated by questions like these, Tolkien said
he detested allegory (i.e., the use of one thing to symbolize
another more important thing) but “much preferred history, either
real or feigned.” He further said that in reference to The
Lord of the Rings, people seemed to be “confusing allegory
with applicability.” Tolkien’s point is well taken; this is not
Pilgrim’s Progress but a story with real, flesh-and-blood
characters. Still, it’s interesting and profitable to try to figure
out what some of the people and things might “apply to.” It seems
pretty clear that the Shire represents England, and if that’s so,
the hobbits are the English. But what about the Dark Lord? What are
the palantirs, the four “crystal balls”? And what is the ring and
the attempt to destroy it? Tolkien was a Christian, and his trilogy
is certainly applicable to the Christian walk.
The Lord of the Rings has it all: exciting battle
scenes, appealing characters, excellent acting, majestic scenery,
and a wonderful sweep that sets it apart from most other movies.
Best of all, it’s about something important. There is no
objectionable language in it and no glorification of immoral
behavior. It is frightening in places and quite violent, however, so
anyone younger than 10 or 11 perhaps shouldn’t see it.
I’ll leave you with this one final question: Who is the hero
and, by extension, the main character? Is it Frodo? Aragorn, the
man who “returns” to become the king? Gandalf, the good wizard?
Gollum? Or maybe Sam? Yours to choose.
Rating:
4 stars--Highly Recommended
|
|
Index of movie
reviews...
(2003 reviews through present)
Jay Maurer, a member of West Side Presbyterian Church, is
a long-term movie buff and former college teacher of The Film as
Literature. He has written movie reviews for The Good News
(West Side newsletter) since 2002.
If you have comments or questions
about the movie (or play) reviews, please contact Jay at
dramachap@msn.com.
Ratings are expressed in
increments of ¼ star.
A rating of 2 ½ stars or higher is meant to be a recommendation.
1 star: poor
2 stars: minimally satisfactory
3 stars: quite good
4 stars: superb
Criteria for determining the ratings:
- Reflection, either explicit or implicit, of Christian values,
including suitability of language and lack of gratuitous violence
- Quality of the acting
- Originality
- Unity of the entire picture
- Substance, or in the words of C.S. Lewis, weight
Other Christian movie review Web sites:
Plugged In Online
ChristianityTodayMovies.com
|
