I have been wanting to talk about a certain Ralph Bakshi film for a long time on this blog, and that's...
Regarding Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated take on The Lord of the Rings, people would most likely either call it a horrible, messy film or a mixed bag. I'm more in the latter camp. Unsurprisingly, compared to Jackson's epic trilogy, this film can easily be considered dismissible garbage with no value. While, of course, Jackson's trilogy more than surpasses this film, I don't think the film deserves the bad reputation it gets. The cons in this film are strong, yet the good the film has, if not close to perfect, gives the film some substantial merit.
The best place to start that people will catch onto the most with its problems is the animation. The creative process behind the film is very intriguing, and it comes across as one of the most ambitious projects by a legendary animator. To give the film a sense of realism with an adult feel and cut a few corners under its low budget of 4 million, Bakshi filmed the majority of the scenes in black and white with live actors (there were over 3,000 people he filmed with eight cameras for the film's climatic Helm's Deep battle). After shooting was complete, Bakshi used rotoscoping to animate. Rotoscope animation basically traces and draws over live-action film footage to make the live actors appear cartoonish while still keeping their movements intact. Bakshi would also use solarization for some animation by partially developing the black and white film. Instead of going through the "fixing process" to be stabilized, the image would be re-exposed to light and sent through the entire development process once more. The solarized footage would then be painted over or colorized to look like a cartoon. The time it took to shoot the scenes, rotoscope, and solarize the footage lasted about two years, causing Bakshi to make the same movie twice in different styles.
This was not the first time that Bakshi (nor animation in general) used rotoscope animation, and compared to his previous film, Wizards, it looks better. Still, it does not quite look as great as his later film, American Pop. While Bakshi's hard work is commendable, half of the animation does lean into the uncanny valley. The movements are sometimes unnatural, and the facial expressions are awkwardly over the top and look off-model enough to make one laugh or creeped out. The animation also has some horrible continuity, background characters noticeably freezing in one place, and jarring scenes of these 2-D characters now looking too realistic (mainly from the solarization process). Sometimes, I find these mistakes highly questionable, like why animate Aragorn tripping on his own sword, why the orcs use a battering ram to knock down a wall instead of a door right next to them, how Frodo put on the ring when falling, or how a Nazgul exactly injures Aragorn? For those looking to nitpick odd images and choices in the animation, you won't find yourself falling short of problems. And yet, despite the many errors in the animation, I still find plenty to appreciate and legitimately enjoy from it.
At a time when Disney was marketing very safe films, Bakshi went above and beyond by creating animated films to cater to adults instead of kids, making him the Walt Disney of animated movies for adults. He made a previous "family movie" entitled Wizards, but he could not let go of the violent, suggestive, and political imagery associated with most of his films. As a fan of the book, Bakshi wanted to adapt the story so that kids and adults could take it seriously. With the many flaws in animation (and a few others I'll cover soon), it is hard to take the film too seriously, but not once is the labor of love he has for the project, and the story feels absent. Considering how Bakshi couldn't let go of his trademarks for the last "family film" he made, here, while he doesn't completely abandon them, they work in a way that makes sense rather than forcing them into his adaptation. Blood is not necessarily needed in a fantasy family adventure, but it does not ruin the film. The grotesque imagery, the sound effects, and the movements when people get slaughtered look very hardcore, which really builds a sense of danger in this world. While half of the movements and expressions are laughable, the other half are believable, tense, creepy, and subtle. And as jarring as the solarization can be with the heroes, they look eerie for the Nazgul, the Balrog, and the orcs. To be clear, Bakshi was not the only popular animator at the time to make a profound and disturbing film for kids and adults (that very same year had Watership Down and Disney's short film The Small One), but he did take more chances, at least compared to Disney during this period.
My favorite thing Bakshi does for the movie is to use different animation and storytelling styles. Like the animated Hobbit movie, the overall film looks like illustrations from a book coming to life, except appearing more realistic and ancient. However, the film's style changes when the characters go to different locations or give backstories to specific events. The Shire and other hobbits resemble Rankin/Bass' The Hobbit. The backgrounds resemble classic Disney fairytales when encountering the elves or walking in the beautiful woods. The film's prologue is mainly done in shadow play. The flashback to Gandalf's fight with the Balrog is told through beautiful stills (most likely concept art, given that the Balrog looks different). The encounters with the Nazgul are in a disoriented and nightmarish environment. Treebeard is the only character in traditional animation to stand out as another kind of magical entity. And Helm's Deep looks like a fight against demons in Hell. While changing styles would work better in "American Pop," given this film is an artistic fantasy, I find it more appealing than bothersome, giving each scene and location a personality of its own. And carrying the movie through providing the right emotion, whether for whimsy, fear, triumphant, or relaxation, is the subtle use of songs and Leonard Rosenman's score; that's no Howard Shore, but I think it's underrated, despite Bakshi's objection. Though I guess I'd be a little disappointed after knowing that Bakshi couldn't get the rights to have Led Zepplin songs play in the movie (considering they're fans of the books who wrote a few songs based on them). And yet the music doesn't overpower the film as there are plenty of quiet scenes to build on mood and atmosphere.
Comparing the characters and performances to Jackson's trilogy is almost no contest, especially when three movies are given to develop them with timeless performances. The two characters that rival Jackson's films are Frodo and Aragorn. Elijah Wood is perfect as Frodo, but this Frodo can fight and fend for himself while still having the lovable qualities Wood brought to the role. Aragorn's character arc is better told in Jackson's film of a man escaping his destiny as King by becoming a ranger. While Viggo Mortensen gives the character plenty of layers, John Hurt gives an epic Shakespearean performance of a noble ranger with King-like qualities. Aside from Gandalf, the rest of the characters are pretty basic but still carried by strong voice work that sounds as epic and natural as the Jackson trilogy. There are only two who get a little under my skin. Saurman, sometimes oddly referred to as Aruman in this film, does not sound as dignified as Gandalf and is more like a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain. But the worst character is sadly Sam, who gets turned into a bumbling moron with a village idiot design. To be fair, he's not as annoying as I remember him, and he does have his humble and sentimental scenes that match the film's tone. But even then, without comparing him to Sam in the Jackson films, he's not someone I would take on during an important quest. As for the creatures, they're mainly hits despite me still favoring the Jackson trilogy over them. The orcs and Nazgul look awesome (though the moaning from the latter is a little forced). I don't mind the Balrog's ferocious lion-like design (not to say I don't wish to see the Balrog we could've had through the concept art). And I like how less is more with Sauron and the Watcher. The only monster design I despise is the cave troll for looking like a giant orc with horns and less like a troll.
The biggest problem I, and plenty of other people, find with the film, outside the animation, is the pacing. When people came into this film, they expected the whole The Lord of the Rings story, but with Bakshi intending to make a second film, the studio forbade him to call this a part 1, fearing audiences wouldn't see half of a movie. The film combines the whole Fellowship of the Ring story and part of The Two Towers. The movie was known for having the longest running time for an animated film during its release, and while the adaptation of the first book is solidly told, the second book is pretty much rushing itself to the Helm's Deep battle. This may be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who felt Jackson's Two Towers film dragged too much, I'm not as bothered by it as others have felt. I won't deny it is not still flawed for dragging out the scene when Pippin and Merry escape into Fangorn during a battle, becoming very expositional at times and giving Éowyn nothing to do. Still, in its own right, it keeps most of the crucial scenes and details. I won't say this telling is better than Jackson's Two Towers, as it could've been a little longer, but it certainly gets to their points much better. And had we received a sequel, I would imagine that some scenes missing here would make their way into the next sequel, which sadly never happened. Not because of financial reasons, the film actually did very well at the box office but failed to overwhelm audiences and critics. Therefore, they wanted to wait awhile as well as see how the Tolkien Estate's lawsuit against Rankin/Bass' The Return of the King turns out (which the producer of the film Saul Zaentz tried to stop the Rankin/Bass special from happening). Eventually, they lost interest in the project despite Bakshi still having ideas for the second half.
I don't think this film is a masterpiece or even close to as solid as the Jackson trilogy, but it's underrated. The best way I can compare it to any other film is Robert Zemeckis' The Polar Express, a film that is full of flaws and leans plenty into the uncanny valley but has plenty of good scenes, lovely animation, charm, and commendable harder than usual work where the technology just wasn't perfected yet. Bakshi's film is very artsy, takes risks, has fabulous voice acting (some of the actors were hired to do a famous radio play based on the books), grim action and suspense, a delightful soundtrack, and does a few things better than the Peter Jackson trilogy. Speaking of Jackson, he was introduced to the story through the movie and made some homages of the film in his version, which gives the film a positive historical impact. And as part of Ralph Bakshi's work, it's one of his best, especially when finding the balance for kids and adults to enjoy. This film is full of flaws that fans of the franchise and critics can pick apart, which is not unwarranted, and when viewing it as an epic fantasy adventure while comparing it to Jackson's films, it's doomed. However, when viewing it as an artistic experimental grindhouse fantasy based on a rich story with a mad genius as a director with a lot of passion and ambition, it's a unique kind of special that will leave a memorable impression, good or bad.
