Two Impressions of Return of The King
Jan. 2nd, 2004 07:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWent to Return of The King with my mother over the holidays; it was only fitting since I saw the first two installments with her. My mother is *not * a fantasy geek nor has she read the books. Basically she’s a good representative of 55% of the audience. I, on the other hand, have read the books, albeit 20 years ago, and seen the Ralph Bakshi animated versions of The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings. I also played the Great Goblin in a theater version of The Hobbit while in the seventh grade. I’m no expert on the works and do not consider myself a fanatic – ie. I don’t read all the literary criticism, haven’t re-read the books, and have yet to see the extended versions on DVD. (Don’t own a DVD player nor do my parents – yes, I know we are behind the times, but my parents don’t see the need quite yet. ) So the comments in this review are based on impressions of people who just saw the film – not all the add-ons.
While Mom enjoyed the flick, her comments echo those of most of the critics I’ve read:
Includes Spoilers for Return of The King.
1. Too long – did we *really * need all those long battle scenes? And how long did we have to spend on the hobbits climbing the mountain?
2. Not much character development outside of maybe Sam. (Mom’s favorite character was Sam.) Too much emphasis on fight scenes, not much on character or dialogue.
3. Enjoyable but drug towards the end. Also got a tad on the smulchy side.
Okay, disagree with most of this, but must concede that she has a point about the dialogue and character development – most of that happens in the first two movies. These films really don’t work by themselves. They sort of build on each other. They aren’t episodic sequels so much as serialized chapters.
There is much more character development and dialogue in the book – but I must admit I got as bored of the fight scenes in the book version of Return of The King as I did in the film version. Actually I think I may have skipped over them and focused on the hobbit sequences. Never been very fond of battle scenes in books – I struggle through Dorothy Dunnett’s as well. They all sound a like to me. So and so raises sword, parries, thrusts, screams, bloodshed, etc. This truly is a case of taste. If you love battle scenes and like to see lots of sword play and stabbing – then you will love Return of the King. Approximately 100 minutes of it is nothing but battle sequences. It’s a war movie. I knew this going in, of course. Mom’s not crazy about war movies. I sort of like them. My own view of the film was quite different than my mother’s – of course I had an advantage – I’d rented Two Towers at Thanksgiving and read the books. While I did have problems with certain sections of the movie – the battle sequences did drag a bit at times, there were other sections that made up for it – the scene with Eowyn and her father moved me to tears, as did the scene between Sam and Frodo in Mount Doom. I also adored the interplay between Sam/Frodo/Smeagol. Plus, I admit, I’ve always been a little bit in love with Gandalf. Could have done without the spider bit, which worked wonderfully on the page, but seemed over-long on screen. Shelob is a fascinating character – but only if you can see inside her head – which you do in The Two Towers – the book. On-screen? She’s just an ugly spider creepily chasing the hobbits. One reviewer scoffed that after all this – they have to fight a big bug? Now if you read the books, you’d have understood Shelob was more than a bug, but you don’t get that in the film. To give Jackson credit? He does successfully bring her to life as a realistically scary spider and a clever one. Certainly bugged the hell out of me, I watched it through my fingers. Also I think Jackson could have cut a little of those battle sequences – we didn’t need quite as many nor did we need all the creatures…I think he got carried away on FX. On the other hand, it was fun to see all those creature brought to life.
****
My analytical impressions on character, metaphors and story regarding Return of The King.
In some ways the books may be richer than the films and in some ways the films are better than the books. Andy Serkis who plays Smeagol/Gollum lends a vulnerable humanity to the character that I do not remember in Tolkien’s prose. Gollum’s journey is a counter-point to Frodo and Sam.
When Smeagol comes upon the ring of power – in the excellent prologue to the film – we discover that it was his close friend who found it, underwater. Instead of congratulating his friend on the find – Smeagol insists his friend should give him the ring. Because it’s his birthday. The ring manages to pit the two friends against one another, until one is dead. By killing his friend – Smeagol takes possession of the ring or rather the ring takes possession of Smeagol.
Through the character of Smeagol, Jackson visually explores the battle between dark and light going on in each of the characters – the internal split between the best and worst in human nature – which often comes out in war. I think this interplay may be what lies at the heart of Tolkien’s work, remember Tolkien wrote the books after he returned from fighting in World War I. The War to End All Wars. Smeagol is what happens when the worst or dark part of our nature gains dominance. Samwise Gangee is what happens when the best does. Frodo throughout RoTK is shown caught in the middle of Sam and Smeagol whose names both start with the same letters, S and G. Or in other words, shown caught between the two sides of his own nature – the light represented by Sam, who can still resist the ring’s influence enough to give it back to Frodo to bear, who never gives in to his lust for the ring nor appears to lust for it, and Smeagol, who is consumed by lust and literally transformed by it, who hangs by a thread, unable to resist its influence. RoTK has an odd ending, a mislead as it were, since Frodo ultimately fails the test of the ring and gives in to his own lust. Beaten down, he finally succumbs. Letting the ring take him over. Sam does not stop Frodo, Smeagol does. It is Smeagol who knocks out Sam and grabs the invisible Frodo, biting off Frodo’s finger to get the ring. (We aren’t entirely sure if Frodo and Smeagol are fighting or if it’s the ring who has taken possession of them.) And here is where the ring’s own power does it in. Smeagol and Frodo’s fight over the ring of power results in the destruction of the ring and ironically in Smeagol – whose entire existence became about the ring, his precious, until Smeagol is no longer sure where he begins and the ring ends. Once again we see Frodo caught between Sam’s outstretched arm and Smeagol’s fiery doom. Sam insists Frodo take his hand, tells Frodo – he is * not * allowed to give up. Meanwhile the ring slowly becomes devoured by the very forces that created it along with it’s own creation Smeagol who eventually brought about it’s ruin. Evil eventually consumes itself. As Smeagol and the ring are devoured, Sauron and Mordor which created the ring, fall. The tide in the battle turns. And the shadows engulfing the land and the men, finally recede.
The ring appears to bear the bearer, not the other way around. It controls them like a puppeteer. You get the feeling watching Sam, Frodo, and Smeagol’s journey towards Mount Doom – that the ring is taking them there. The only reason they succeed in their quest is the ring outsmarts itself – by pitting Frodo and Smeagol against each other for possession – it is cast into the abyss along with the winner. Smeagol dies with a smile on his face – the ring still within his grasp. Although Frodo and Sam emerge triumphant from their journey – you can see by the expressions on their weary faces – they do not feel it. Both are haunted by the toll the ring took on their lives. Both haunted by what “almost” happened and was averted by the doomed creature they chose to guide them. My mother argued that there was “never” any hope for Smeagol who made his choice early on – killing his friend for the ring – a choice that never tempts Sam or Aragon. Yet, is that completely fair? Perhaps what the ring offered neither wanted or needed? Invisibility. The ability to control how others perceive you – to move about unseen, unnoticed, take what you wish, disappear. A peculiar power for Tolkien to have chosen – invisibility. Yet throughout literature and film – it leads to delusions of power and madness. Those who become invisible seem to believe they can control what surrounds them yet in reality – all that occurs is they become somehow less real. The metaphors for visibility and invisibility are seen throughout the film. Shelob – the monster spider, who remains hidden within her webs until Frodo shines the elfin light upon her, illuminating and blinding her. The eye of Sauron who sees everything but what is underneath its very nose – what eventually destroys it. Pippin, the hobbit, who always must look, must see – even if it leads him to disaster. The old Steward/Regent who cannot see his living son Faramir for his own desire for power – which has driven him mad. The ghost army that remains hidden, invisible in the mountains, cursed for fleeing, yet becomes visible when Aragorn shows up with the sword reclaiming his heritage – the sword making them visible. Gandalf who hides Solomon’s globe which provides Sauron’s eye with a view – within his cloak. Elrond who hides his vision of a hopeful future from his daughter, hoping she’ll live for the faraway lands with the rest of her people. And finally Smeagol who reflects the lust for the ring which Frodo struggles to hide. The ring seems to provide invisibility to the wearer but the power is a false one – since the moment Frodo or Smeagol puts the ring on is the moment Sauron can see them clearly – they become connected to Sauron, to the evil. They become disconnected and invisible to their friends, to the world around them, yet visible and connected to the darkness. It reminds me a bit of HG Wells story – The Invisible Man, about the scientist who loses his mind when he discovers the means to become invisible. Or S6 BTVS episode – Gone, where Buffy’s good qualities fade with her visibility. Or S1 BTVS episode Out of Sight Out of Mind – where Marcy becomes so disconnected that she literally disappears.
Tolkien’s work lasts, I think, because of the way these metaphors reflect universal themes – psychological desires and conflicts that reside inside us all. Whether we wish to admit it or not – the demon Smeagol became is a mere reflection of the demon that sits sleeping inside us, just as the stalwart hero Sam resides inside us, so does Gollum/Smeagol. We see those two characters reflected in all the characters of The Return of The King. The story shows us how each one deals with that internal struggle. And how each fall victim to one side or the other during that struggle between darkness and light. Aragorn, Eowyn, Gimli, Leglos succeed, while Boromir, the Steward, Solomon, Smeagol, and poor dear Frodo fail. By showing this struggle and all it’s permeations and spectrums, Tolkien may have grasped something many do not, that light – dark is not an either/or prospect but rather a spectrum of changes that takes place over time. It’s not one act, it’s many acts that take us to one extreme or the other. And there is always a chance that you can come back – sometimes the heroic part is coming back from the darkness – which is what both Boromir and Frodo manage to somehow accomplish. Most of us are like Pippin or Merry – we never make it entirely to one extreme or the other – we reside somewhere in between the two. While others have become so twisted by their deeds they become like Smeagol – unable to climb back completely. Poor Smeagol, even with Bilbo and Frodo’s acts of mercy, he was unable to find his way back. He wasn’t reached in time. Too many acts, too disconnected, too twisted by the thing pulling his strings. But Frodo, Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Theodyn, Eowyn, Sam, Merry, Pippin – they do make it back somehow. The one’s who got lost – sold out long ago – through many acts over a long period of time. It’s not what was done to each of these characters that matters – I think, but rather what they chose to do about it that made the difference. The ring offered one path – a path the appears easy and safe, yet only leads to becoming a puppet to its desires. Aragorn the king of the title – finds the other one – where you are your own man and take the consequences, stand up and face your fears, not allow yourself to become their puppet.
While Mom enjoyed the flick, her comments echo those of most of the critics I’ve read:
Includes Spoilers for Return of The King.
1. Too long – did we *really * need all those long battle scenes? And how long did we have to spend on the hobbits climbing the mountain?
2. Not much character development outside of maybe Sam. (Mom’s favorite character was Sam.) Too much emphasis on fight scenes, not much on character or dialogue.
3. Enjoyable but drug towards the end. Also got a tad on the smulchy side.
Okay, disagree with most of this, but must concede that she has a point about the dialogue and character development – most of that happens in the first two movies. These films really don’t work by themselves. They sort of build on each other. They aren’t episodic sequels so much as serialized chapters.
There is much more character development and dialogue in the book – but I must admit I got as bored of the fight scenes in the book version of Return of The King as I did in the film version. Actually I think I may have skipped over them and focused on the hobbit sequences. Never been very fond of battle scenes in books – I struggle through Dorothy Dunnett’s as well. They all sound a like to me. So and so raises sword, parries, thrusts, screams, bloodshed, etc. This truly is a case of taste. If you love battle scenes and like to see lots of sword play and stabbing – then you will love Return of the King. Approximately 100 minutes of it is nothing but battle sequences. It’s a war movie. I knew this going in, of course. Mom’s not crazy about war movies. I sort of like them. My own view of the film was quite different than my mother’s – of course I had an advantage – I’d rented Two Towers at Thanksgiving and read the books. While I did have problems with certain sections of the movie – the battle sequences did drag a bit at times, there were other sections that made up for it – the scene with Eowyn and her father moved me to tears, as did the scene between Sam and Frodo in Mount Doom. I also adored the interplay between Sam/Frodo/Smeagol. Plus, I admit, I’ve always been a little bit in love with Gandalf. Could have done without the spider bit, which worked wonderfully on the page, but seemed over-long on screen. Shelob is a fascinating character – but only if you can see inside her head – which you do in The Two Towers – the book. On-screen? She’s just an ugly spider creepily chasing the hobbits. One reviewer scoffed that after all this – they have to fight a big bug? Now if you read the books, you’d have understood Shelob was more than a bug, but you don’t get that in the film. To give Jackson credit? He does successfully bring her to life as a realistically scary spider and a clever one. Certainly bugged the hell out of me, I watched it through my fingers. Also I think Jackson could have cut a little of those battle sequences – we didn’t need quite as many nor did we need all the creatures…I think he got carried away on FX. On the other hand, it was fun to see all those creature brought to life.
****
My analytical impressions on character, metaphors and story regarding Return of The King.
In some ways the books may be richer than the films and in some ways the films are better than the books. Andy Serkis who plays Smeagol/Gollum lends a vulnerable humanity to the character that I do not remember in Tolkien’s prose. Gollum’s journey is a counter-point to Frodo and Sam.
When Smeagol comes upon the ring of power – in the excellent prologue to the film – we discover that it was his close friend who found it, underwater. Instead of congratulating his friend on the find – Smeagol insists his friend should give him the ring. Because it’s his birthday. The ring manages to pit the two friends against one another, until one is dead. By killing his friend – Smeagol takes possession of the ring or rather the ring takes possession of Smeagol.
Through the character of Smeagol, Jackson visually explores the battle between dark and light going on in each of the characters – the internal split between the best and worst in human nature – which often comes out in war. I think this interplay may be what lies at the heart of Tolkien’s work, remember Tolkien wrote the books after he returned from fighting in World War I. The War to End All Wars. Smeagol is what happens when the worst or dark part of our nature gains dominance. Samwise Gangee is what happens when the best does. Frodo throughout RoTK is shown caught in the middle of Sam and Smeagol whose names both start with the same letters, S and G. Or in other words, shown caught between the two sides of his own nature – the light represented by Sam, who can still resist the ring’s influence enough to give it back to Frodo to bear, who never gives in to his lust for the ring nor appears to lust for it, and Smeagol, who is consumed by lust and literally transformed by it, who hangs by a thread, unable to resist its influence. RoTK has an odd ending, a mislead as it were, since Frodo ultimately fails the test of the ring and gives in to his own lust. Beaten down, he finally succumbs. Letting the ring take him over. Sam does not stop Frodo, Smeagol does. It is Smeagol who knocks out Sam and grabs the invisible Frodo, biting off Frodo’s finger to get the ring. (We aren’t entirely sure if Frodo and Smeagol are fighting or if it’s the ring who has taken possession of them.) And here is where the ring’s own power does it in. Smeagol and Frodo’s fight over the ring of power results in the destruction of the ring and ironically in Smeagol – whose entire existence became about the ring, his precious, until Smeagol is no longer sure where he begins and the ring ends. Once again we see Frodo caught between Sam’s outstretched arm and Smeagol’s fiery doom. Sam insists Frodo take his hand, tells Frodo – he is * not * allowed to give up. Meanwhile the ring slowly becomes devoured by the very forces that created it along with it’s own creation Smeagol who eventually brought about it’s ruin. Evil eventually consumes itself. As Smeagol and the ring are devoured, Sauron and Mordor which created the ring, fall. The tide in the battle turns. And the shadows engulfing the land and the men, finally recede.
The ring appears to bear the bearer, not the other way around. It controls them like a puppeteer. You get the feeling watching Sam, Frodo, and Smeagol’s journey towards Mount Doom – that the ring is taking them there. The only reason they succeed in their quest is the ring outsmarts itself – by pitting Frodo and Smeagol against each other for possession – it is cast into the abyss along with the winner. Smeagol dies with a smile on his face – the ring still within his grasp. Although Frodo and Sam emerge triumphant from their journey – you can see by the expressions on their weary faces – they do not feel it. Both are haunted by the toll the ring took on their lives. Both haunted by what “almost” happened and was averted by the doomed creature they chose to guide them. My mother argued that there was “never” any hope for Smeagol who made his choice early on – killing his friend for the ring – a choice that never tempts Sam or Aragon. Yet, is that completely fair? Perhaps what the ring offered neither wanted or needed? Invisibility. The ability to control how others perceive you – to move about unseen, unnoticed, take what you wish, disappear. A peculiar power for Tolkien to have chosen – invisibility. Yet throughout literature and film – it leads to delusions of power and madness. Those who become invisible seem to believe they can control what surrounds them yet in reality – all that occurs is they become somehow less real. The metaphors for visibility and invisibility are seen throughout the film. Shelob – the monster spider, who remains hidden within her webs until Frodo shines the elfin light upon her, illuminating and blinding her. The eye of Sauron who sees everything but what is underneath its very nose – what eventually destroys it. Pippin, the hobbit, who always must look, must see – even if it leads him to disaster. The old Steward/Regent who cannot see his living son Faramir for his own desire for power – which has driven him mad. The ghost army that remains hidden, invisible in the mountains, cursed for fleeing, yet becomes visible when Aragorn shows up with the sword reclaiming his heritage – the sword making them visible. Gandalf who hides Solomon’s globe which provides Sauron’s eye with a view – within his cloak. Elrond who hides his vision of a hopeful future from his daughter, hoping she’ll live for the faraway lands with the rest of her people. And finally Smeagol who reflects the lust for the ring which Frodo struggles to hide. The ring seems to provide invisibility to the wearer but the power is a false one – since the moment Frodo or Smeagol puts the ring on is the moment Sauron can see them clearly – they become connected to Sauron, to the evil. They become disconnected and invisible to their friends, to the world around them, yet visible and connected to the darkness. It reminds me a bit of HG Wells story – The Invisible Man, about the scientist who loses his mind when he discovers the means to become invisible. Or S6 BTVS episode – Gone, where Buffy’s good qualities fade with her visibility. Or S1 BTVS episode Out of Sight Out of Mind – where Marcy becomes so disconnected that she literally disappears.
Tolkien’s work lasts, I think, because of the way these metaphors reflect universal themes – psychological desires and conflicts that reside inside us all. Whether we wish to admit it or not – the demon Smeagol became is a mere reflection of the demon that sits sleeping inside us, just as the stalwart hero Sam resides inside us, so does Gollum/Smeagol. We see those two characters reflected in all the characters of The Return of The King. The story shows us how each one deals with that internal struggle. And how each fall victim to one side or the other during that struggle between darkness and light. Aragorn, Eowyn, Gimli, Leglos succeed, while Boromir, the Steward, Solomon, Smeagol, and poor dear Frodo fail. By showing this struggle and all it’s permeations and spectrums, Tolkien may have grasped something many do not, that light – dark is not an either/or prospect but rather a spectrum of changes that takes place over time. It’s not one act, it’s many acts that take us to one extreme or the other. And there is always a chance that you can come back – sometimes the heroic part is coming back from the darkness – which is what both Boromir and Frodo manage to somehow accomplish. Most of us are like Pippin or Merry – we never make it entirely to one extreme or the other – we reside somewhere in between the two. While others have become so twisted by their deeds they become like Smeagol – unable to climb back completely. Poor Smeagol, even with Bilbo and Frodo’s acts of mercy, he was unable to find his way back. He wasn’t reached in time. Too many acts, too disconnected, too twisted by the thing pulling his strings. But Frodo, Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Theodyn, Eowyn, Sam, Merry, Pippin – they do make it back somehow. The one’s who got lost – sold out long ago – through many acts over a long period of time. It’s not what was done to each of these characters that matters – I think, but rather what they chose to do about it that made the difference. The ring offered one path – a path the appears easy and safe, yet only leads to becoming a puppet to its desires. Aragorn the king of the title – finds the other one – where you are your own man and take the consequences, stand up and face your fears, not allow yourself to become their puppet.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-02 04:45 pm (UTC)I didn't notice any lack of character development, but that might be a result of my having rewatched the extended editions of both previous films only days before seeing this one, so it felt as it was supposed to feel, like one long film. I can see how one could possibly not grok the characters as well had there been a full year for them between each installment, particularly if they hadn't read the books, but watching them in a row, I found myself thinking things like, "Good old loyal Legolas and Gimli, as always not allowing Aragorn to go into danger by himself, especially after thinking him dead for a while in 'The Two Towers', and they're still wagering over who can kill the most enemies!" and "Wow! How much Merry and Pippin have grown from the first film! You can see from the role they played in the second film in convincing the Ents to go to war that the idea that such small creatures can make a difference were playing in their minds. And of course, there are things that stay the same: Pippin, as always, is too curious, just as we've seen in the past chapters." For such an epic work, I found it remarkable how well the characters were developed; a film that wasn't more about characters than epic moments after all wouldn't have ended on Sam and Rosie at home but on the final battle, the coronation, or Frodo's departure. One of the Big Moments. This film rather devoted around 40 minutes to the falling action at the end of the story, saying farewell to each character; for each epic moment, we were given an intimate character moment, even amidst the huge battle sequences, which is why I loved the movie so much. Actually, I liked the characters of the film, on the whole, more so than the book, particularly in the cases of Legolas, Gimli, Faramir and Denethor, all of whom became more three-dimensional as actual characters rather than The Elf, The Dwarf, and the uncorruptible Men. Come to think of it, I cared more for all the characters in the film than in the book. I don't want to be too disparaging to the book, because I haven't read it in a long, long time--in fact, I just started rereading it today, because I want to see if my opinions have changed--but I never fell in love with the story or the characters on page the way I did in the film. I guess you could say I respected the book but never felt that at-one-with-them feeling that I have with other books (including "The Hobbit," actually, which is a favorite of mine). A great deal of it may be the fact that I don't like reading battle scenes because I can't really visualize the placement of people or what is going on in them; also, you never get the excitement and sweep of a battle happening before your eyes. I don't love modern war films, but I do love medieval/swordfight type battles, having been an Arthurian legend addict from the ages of 13 through 17, so this was perfect for me. The movies clarified for me what I couldn't "see" while reading the book and also drew the characters into sharper relief for me. I'm curious to see whether the added knowledge I took from the movie will improve the book for me on my current reading of it.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-02 08:12 pm (UTC)Which may be a disadvantage - in the sense that the films were shown a full year apart. On the other hand - a good percentage of the audience has access to VHS or DVD and was able to re-watch the first two. In some places in the country - you could watch all three in order - a 9 hour movie going experience.
It was interesting to get the take of someone who hadn't recently rewatched Two Towers or Fellowship. What I did before each sequel was go out a month before - and rent the previous film - in 2002 - I rented Fellowship before seeing Two Towers. In 2003, I rented Two Towers before watching Return. In fact, I told a friend who is completely unfamilar with Tolkien to rent Fellowship and Two Towers before seeing Return. You just can't appreciate Return properly without seeing the first two films. Mom had forgotten much of Two Towers - I had to remind her of it after the film. While Two Towers was still fresh in my head. I'd even read a good portion of the Shelob sequence from the book. (That section is a lot better in the book than on the screen by the way - it's one of the few sections that is better in the book.)
I agree on the battle scenes - far better on screen. I skimmed over them in the book. Also Jackson expanded the roles of Arwen (sp?), Eowyn, and Galaderial - taking information from Tolkien's appendix to the series. Much of the Aragorn/Arwen romance is from the appendix. Same thing with Eowyn. One of my favorite scenes in the film - between Eowyn and her father - I do not remember seeing in the book. Jackson is better at writing women roles than Tolkien apparently was. Also, like you, I preferred the Hobbit - but I was in six and seventh grade at the time, have no clue which one I'd prefer now. The biggest difference I see between the books and the film is the characters of Gollum and Aragorn who seem to oddly enough stand out more - be more developed in the films. Same with Gimili and Leglos.
Interesting group of films. Possibly the best fantasy films ever made. And certainly among the best films made in the last ten years. Not to mention the highest grossing.
The Lord of The Rings Trilogy is projected to gross over a billion dollars by the end of 2004, that does not include DVD sales. It's already at the half a billion mark. Bodes well for more fantasy films of this calibre to be made.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-02 11:49 pm (UTC)From what I've heard, post-production is already starting on a new film version of the first "Narnia" book, also to be shot in New Zealand. Although it can't be as good as the LotR films (which I agree are probably the best fantasy films ever made), because the story just isn't as strong and the hodgepodge of the different myths, rather than the consistent vision of LotR, makes it a bit more childish than the Tolkien stories, I have high hopes for it thanks to these films. We should at least expect a very high budget. I'm really hoping though that Peter Jackson will be able to secure the rights to The Hobbit, because it would really be fantastic to have the *entire* story documented on film like this, particularly knowing how well he handled Lord of the Rings.