"The Fellowship of the Ring" Film Versions - Jacob's Thoughts

Per Ben's suggestion, I post now about the film versions of Fellowship of the Ring--both the 2001 Peter Jackson version that we've ragged on relentlessly throughout this blog, and the 1978 Ralph Bakshi animated version--before we continue on to The Two Towers.

The Jackson was a revisit for me, but I had never seen the Bakshi before.  As such, it intrigued me to track how much the Jackson is indebted to the Bakshi, viz: the massive data dump that opens each film (which I think Jackson succeeds at better than Bakshi, though both are still stupidly confusing to the uninitiated, to the point where I just wanted to shout at both a la Homer Simpson, "NEEERRRRRRD!!!"); also, the utter elision of The Old Forest chapters; Gollum's voice; the green cloaks; the Hobbits hiding under a tree root at the first appearance of the Black Rider, right down to the same camera angles; and of course the decision to portray 50+ years old Frodo Baggins as some sort of child.

The Bakshi version especially presents the Hobbits as, in effect,  the sort of goofy, naive adolescents that I can only assume the producers thought all LoTR fans must be like.  Baby-faced Elijah Wood looks positively adult compared to the children-Hobbits of Bakshi.

Also, I couldn't help but observe a curious note of homoeroticism about the Hobbits in both cinematic versions--recall the way it became a cliche to say Sam and Frodo were almost too friendly in the Jackson films; not to mention the almost feminine movements and giggly smiles of Bakshi's Hobbits (I can't get out of my mind the spazzy way Frodo first greets Gandalf).  These are intriguing choices given how often Frodo in the novel almost openly lusts after other men's wives (as Eric oft pointed out)--the Hobbits of the novels may be domestic, but that does not make them feminine or unmanly; they may be small, but that does not make them childish; they may be inexperienced, but that does not make them naive.  It's telling to me that male Hollywood producers so often subconsciously equate the former with the latter.

But now I've covered enough of how the two films are similar; now I want to track how they diverge.  For starters, though Bakshi's Hobbits still look like children to me, they don't exactly look human.  For a film that engages in so much rotoscoping, tracing human actors directly onto the animation, that is no mean feat.  The Hobbits' eyes are just a little too big, their general bodily proportions just a little too off, for them to just look like little human beings (like in the Jackson).  They are indeed some sort of totally different species in this film, which adds to the sense of otherworldiness about this space.  This is the sort of effect one can only accomplish in animation.

Bakshi's Nazgul, too, are more of a kind with the creeping, inhuman creatures described in the novels, as opposed to the more martial figures presented by Jackson.  This is not to claim one version as better than the other (I think both interpretations have their charms), but simply to observe another moment where animation allows for portrayals that one can't do with live actors.

This is not to claim myself a convert to the Bakshi; for though the many dreamlike, nay, nightmarish animated sequences were a-times genuinely inspired in my estimation, ultimately the film lacks a cohesion or comprehensibility for anyone who has never read the books before (and even for those of us who have).  In his attempts to adapt this massive novel, I think Bakshi finally fails; but at least he fails in interesting ways.  I can totally understand why this fascinating failure has such a cult following.

The film is also interesting in how it foreground the, well, campiness of this story!  LoTR really is sort of campy, isn't it; Elves and Wizards and Hobbits and Invisibility Rings--in its barest elements, this is a story that can invite its own kind of winking fun (Bakshi making Strider look like a He-Man extra certainly doesn't stop the campy feeling, either).  I do not mean this as a knock against the story, simply as another manner by which to approach it, as less a grave epic than as pulpy fun.

For campiness is most certainly not the M.O. of the Jackson films, is it.  From the opening shot to the last, you are meant to take this movie as seriously as possible.  Even in Galadriel's overly-dramatic scenes, I found it impossible to smirk, for Jackson's directing and Cate Blanchett's acting simply would not so permit me to do so.  For better or worse, the Jackson films demand that you take this story as grimly as possible. To quoth the Joker, why so serious.

Of course, that super-self-seriousness is helped by the quality acting, more important than any CGI.  There's Sir Ian McKellen most obviously; but also Viggo Mortenson, Bernard Hill, John Rys-Davies, Rudy (er, Sean Astin), Liz Taylor, and yes, even Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood, all bring their A-Game to this film, to which I tip my hat.  New Zealand, likewise, is a character in this movie--and a good one, too.  Watching all these ringers run across this breathtaking landscape can make one utterly forget that this, perhaps, can also be approached as a campy piece of pulp fiction.

Have either of you guys rewatched either or both films yet?  What are your thoughts?