“The Lord of the Rings” (1978)

The Lord of the Rings

Grade: B-

The feverish rotoscope animation is trippy and very unique, and the screenplay is remarkably faithful to J.R.R. Tolkien’s iconic novels, but Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 The Lord of the Rings adaptation is ultimately too tedious to be anything more than a cult curiosity.

Directing:

Peter Jackson’s live-action film trilogy from 2001 to 2003 will always be the definitive Tolkien adaptation, but let’s not forget how much he was influenced by Ralph Bakshi’s initial attempt in 1978. Scenes such as the voiceover prologue that tells of the One Ring’s creation and the frightening first encounter with the Nazgûl are very similarly shot and staged across both versions. Part of that might have to do with just how detailed Tolkien’s descriptions were, but it’s also because Bakshi truly captures a one-of-a-kind mise en scène in these sequences, perfectly expressing the darker aspects of Middle Earth. It’s no wonder Jackson took direct inspiration.

So, yes, Bakshi’s experimental animation style, with a reliance on delirious red backgrounds, is the most interesting part of the movie. But it unfortunately cannot consistently convey the magic and adventure that made Tolkien’s original novels so fascinating. More often than not, Bakshmi’s stylistic choices are intoxicating and uncanny, like a bug-eyed bad trip that never ends.

Acting:

If you’ve seen the trilogy but have yet to see the 1978 version, you’ll be surprised to hear how much Elijah Wood sounds like voice actor Christopher Guard. Obviously, Frodo Baggins is far more fleshed out in live action, but the basis for the accent and inflections were already there (another example of how much Peter Jackson was influenced by Ralph Bakshi). On the other hand, you’ll marvel at how much better Sean Astin plays Samwise Gamgee when compared to the goofy, dimwitted voice acting of Michael Scholes.

Writing:

As mentioned, the adaptation is very faithful to Tolkien’s text. Too faithful, unfortunately. Bakshi is so focused on closely replicating the events of the novel that he’s made a film devoid of humor, charm and fun. The action sequences, while visually impressive, drag on for far too long, and as cool as it is to watch a seamless transition between The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, the screenplay overall suffers from weak pacing. If this was your first exposure to Middle Earth, I’d imagine it’d be very hard to comprehend exactly what’s going on. It feels more like a collection of illustrations rather than a standalone film.

Music:

Bakshmi apparently hated Leonard Rosenman’s orchestral score (he wanted Led Zeppelin instead), and I’ve got to concur with him. Not that I necessarily “hate” it as well, but it’s certainly nothing special: loud, clattering, generic, symphonic sounds that aim for faux-majesty. Something more left-field would’ve been a better fit for the avant-garde animation.

Ending (SPOILERS):

Easily the film’s biggest flaw is that it only covers the first two books. A planned sequel from Bakshi and United Artists never got off the ground, and so the entire saga ends at Helm’s Deep. Surely the studio is more to blame for the unfinished conclusion, but maybe if Bakshi hadn’t made every battle sequence so long and repetitive, he might’ve been able to squeeze in The Return of the King. By the time the Battle of Helm’s Deep is finally over, I’ve completely forgotten about Frodo and the Ring, and apparently so has the film. (Completionists are advised to seek out the Rankin/Bass cartoon Return of the King TV film from 1980, which includes such bangers as “Frodo of the Nine Fingers” and “Where There’s a Whip There’s a Way.”)

“I wish it need not happen in my time.” — Frodo Baggins

Why The Lord of the Rings gets a B-

Ralph Bakshi’s artful animation makes this early Lord of the Rings adaptation worth watching, but it still can’t hide the fact that most of the film is a boring slog.

---