Let's talk about "The Lord of the Rings." No, not the books. No, not the Peter Jackson film trilogy. I mean the 1978 animated film, directed by Ralph Bakshi. Bakshi might be one of the most divisive animators of the history of the medium. His early films tried to portray the "real" of America, in the hippie-inspired and anti-establishment 1970's. Always going for controversy instead of quality, he would use explicit sex, racism, foul language, usually in the frame of comedy, like a Mad Magazine comic come to life. He's one of the only directors to simultaneously make both my favorite and most-hated animated films. But given his style, how did he get the role to adapt "The Lord of the Rings," one of the most acclaimed fantasy stories ever written? Bakshi grew more interested in Fantasy around that time, having just released his original "Wizards," so the jump isn't so difficult to believe. The behind-the-scenes story of how Bakshi got himself the role and issues during production are so fascinating, it'd would be difficult to go into here, and worthy of reading a full-length book to get the details.Cutting to the chase: is Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" any good? The short answer is, surprisingly, yes, although it has some major flaws that were out of Bakshi's control.The movie was meant to be the first of two movies, and therefore adapts a little less than 1.5 of the books "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers." The final movie would never come about (despite the plan to do so, United Artists refused to fund the sequel), although confusion with separately produced animated films "The Hobbit" and "The Return of the King" make this the unofficial middle part of the so-called cartoon trilogy. In the story of hobbits and orcs and wizards and elves, there exists a magical golden ring. The one ring is the source of dark power that threatens to destroy the world. Gandalf the wizards knows and fears this power: they cannot afford the ring to exist any longer. Under the keep of an old hobbit named Bilbo, a group of adventurers is formed to travel to the volcanic mountains to destroy the ring. Frodo and Sam, hobbits themselves, join the party as keepers of the ring.
Despite being animated, this is mature high-fantasy storytelling. It's engaging and fascinating... but clearly missing an ending. Depending on your reason for watching, that alone will ruin the experience. But if you already know the books or the other films, or have intention of visiting them to finish the story, then the movie makes for an interesting experience. There is relatively good writing and work, and good direction: I was surprised to see several iconic scenes recreated from Peter Jackson's live-action adaptation... except Bakshi did it two decades earlier. Another suspect feature is the type of animation used. "The Lord of the Rings" uses both standard cel animation and rotoscoping, where live-action shots or traced-over animation would be used. In some scenes, it's effective. But naturally, the two styles don't blend seemlessly. And in terms of visual detail, I was surrpised to think higher of the cheaper 1977 film "The Hobbit" in terms of visual design. Even so, the animation is of high quality. There's a lot of smooth movement, and the use of rotoscoping seems to work best with more subtle moments, like talking in a tavern or eating. Occasionally, Bakshi's design sensibilities become an issue: the hobbit characters are generally too "cute," looking up and smiling like children, in a manner that would come across as disturbing today. Or perhaps simply homosexual, which may or may not be an issue, depending on who you ask. Hey, it was the 70's. Finally, there's the runtime. This is an unusually long movie for animation, and it does drag on a bit. There was once interest in adaptng the entire trilogy in a single film, which thankfully they gave up on, but I can't help but wonder if greater sections of the story could have been cut. 1980's "The Return of the King" certainly cut a lot, but probably was worse off for it...This review might seem harsh, because there are too many glaring issues to wholeheartedly recommend the movie. But I still recommend 1978's "The Lord of the Rings." It falls in the better half of Bakshi's films, and is an interesting companion piece to the Hollywood adaption that has since become a modern classic of cinema.