The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.
Much that once was is lost. For none now live, who remember it.
The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring, opens with a prologue. The first seven minutes
of the film are all exposition, backstory, delivering us information about the history
of Middle Earth and the rings of power. Like every scene in the Lord of the Rings trilogy,
the prologue is iconic. I guarantee that just now, you were saying the words along with
Galadriel at the start of this video, and when the music began, it stirred an emotion inside you.
So why does this prologue of exposition work, when so often, an info dump at the start is the
sign of a mediocre film? Why is exposition so often a bad word in storytelling and writing,
and why is the Lord of the Rings an example of perfection in storytelling and worldbuilding?
Well, to answer these questions, I am going to compare the perfect prologue at the start of the
Fellowship of the Ring, with a prologue that gets just about everything wrong.
It’s the prologue to a movie you may not have seen before, called The Lord of the Rings.
The reason this comparison works so well is because these two prologues
seek to convey the same information, are based on the same source material, and
although the Fellowship prologue is twice as long as the one in Ralph Bakshi’s film by screentime,
the scripts are only 100 words apart in length. So what makes the Fellowship’s prologue perfect,
while the 1978 version is so…stale? The first, and most important factor is
the writing itself. It helps that screenwriters Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, and Peter Jackson,
had a wealth of Tolkien’s literature to draw on when adapting his work to film, but just
having good source material is not enough. After all, the Bakshi film drew on the same material.
Much of the dialogue is quoted directly from Tolkien’s novels.
Give us that Deagol my love. Why Smeagol?
Because it’s my birthday, my love. And I wants it.
Well, literature is a different language from film. Tolkien is known for his long-winded, highly
detailed descriptions of people, places, and events – and when you read the books
they often include details that on the surface are superfluous or unnecessary to the story.
This is acceptable in a novel, but not so much on film.
Look at these details in Bakshi’s script In the early years of the Second Age,” “pf
the mighty kings from across the sea,” “during his travels with the Dwarves”
See, what the Bakshi prologue focuses too much on is the content of Tolkien’s work.
What the Fellowship of the Ring’s screenwriters did was adapt the
feeling and tone of Tolkien’s language. If you can sum up Tolkien’s style in one word,
I would choose depth. His writing and world has a richness to it that no one has matched
since – yes, that does include this guy, it’s not even close, don’t ‘at’ me.
So when beginning the story on film, we need to give the script depth and texture. How do we do
this? Well, we don’t jump right in with this: Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age,
the great elven smiths forged rings of power. We don’t start with exposition at all. In fact,
we don’t even start with English. We start with elvish
Before the main titles, we have not been given a single fact about this world – nothing we would
call exposition. But we have done something much, much more important. The words have connected with
us on an emotional level. They have drawn us in, built a mystery, and established the mythical,
fable-like quality of this fantasy world. Only then, do we begin with the backstory.
But again, the writing is designed to resonate with us emotionally. Using words like “fairest
of all beings,” “craftsmen of the mountain halls,” “malice” – these are Tolkien’s words – not
directly, but they echo the famous poem at the start of the novels. People familiar with Tolkien
will see his influence at work, while people who have never encountered it are getting their
first glimpse at what makes it so special. Let’s compare it to Bakshi’s prologue. It’s
factual, simple and boring. Nine for mortal men.
Seven for the dwarf lord. Three for the tall elf kings
The prologues introduce Sauron and the One Ring – the main antagonist and the evil, driving
force behind the entire story. In Fellowship, this is given the significance it deserves.
The writing builds up to it – it creates more mystery and suspense. The script uses words like
“deceived,” “the fires of Mount Doom” and “secret” – all before we meet the dark lord himself.
As for the Ring itself, well… And into this Ring, he poured his cruelty,
his malice, and his will to dominate all life. One Ring to rule them all.
Yeah, the audience is left in no doubt that this is a force to be reckoned with.
Or…you know, we could just introduce Sauron and the Ring like this:
But then the Dark Lord learned the craft of ring-making and made the master ring. The One
Ring to rule them all! Oh, Middle Earth geek side
note here – Sauron did not learn the power of ring-making after the great rings were forged.
In fact he was a Maiar who tricked Celembribor and taught the elves how to forge the great
rings in the first place – so not only is this prologue bad writing, it’s also just wrong!
Yeah I’m really fun at parties. Writing matters. The choice of words matters.
And how you introduce your main antagonist matters. This kind of thing happens so often in
expository prologues. Usually the entire point of the prologue is to establish the villain – so why
is it always just another line in the script? After meeting this villain, we then see what
he can do – or rather, what the Ring can do. Notice that the script is constantly
referring to the Ring, not Sauron. Between his introduction and death, Sauron is mentioned by
name twice. The Ring is mentioned six times in the same period. The screenwriters know that
the Ring is the true antagonist in the story. This is echoed visually as well – we see Sauron,
but are reminded the Ring gives him the power. Sauron’s defeat gives us a moment of hope – but
again, listen to the script. Sauron was defeated. But evil is not.
The Ring of Power…the true villain lives on. The Ring comes to Gollum. Bakshi tells us how
it came to him. In fact, a full third of the prologue is spent on how Gollum came to be, and in
this time we learn almost nothing about the Ring – the script implies Gollum is just an evil soul,
rather than one who was corrupted by the Ring. He used the Ring for thieving, and to find out
secrets. His own people began to despise the wretched creature, and to call him Gollum.
In Fellowship, the how is not important – at least not right now.
In the prologue, the important thing is the Ring, and its corrupting influence.
The Ring brought to Gollum unnatural long life. For five hundred years it poisoned his mind,
and in the gloom of Gollum’s cave it waited. But this is not simply a subtitle that says “500
years later.” The script goes beyond than this. Time did not simply pass by – the world changed,
and we learn of the returning darkness, the lingering power of Sauron and the forces of evil.
We now know why it is important to learn this history, and why it is important to
know about the passing time. But the writing alone is just one
part of why Fellowship’s prologue works and Bakshi’s does not.
Film is a visual medium, which means in addition to the script, you have a whole other storytelling
language to use. The Fellowship of the Ring delivers perfection because the script is
complemented by amazing film-making. In Fellowship, key elements of exposition
are delivered visually. In the prologue alone we learn about the geography of Middle Earth,
Galadriel, the distinctive appearance of the races, Elrond, the breaking of the sword,
the Ring’s ability to move, Gollum’s deformity. We don’t need any of this
to be told to us verbally – we are shown it. The production design obviously needs a special
mention here too. Every shot is dripping with detail. We believe what we are being told about
the depth of the world, because we can see it. Bakshi’s choice to use silhouettes automatically
limits his ability to use this visual language. Now, I don’t mind this too much – I know it will
have been driven primarily by budget issues, and the red and black is actually quite striking
visually. But I still think Bakshi could have made much, much more use of the visuals to tell more of
the story. The Death scene in Harry Potter shows that silhouettes can be used effectively to tell a
story. Instead, Bakshi just gives us something to look at while someone reads narration to us.
On the subject of narration, we have already seen how Fellowship’s script is so, so much
better than Bakshi’s. But the script is just a tool in the hands of the actors who read it.
Actor Willian Squire, who plays Gandalf in the 1978 film, is the choice of narrator
for the prologue. It works thematically to have Gandalf be the one delivering this exposition,
but the actor just conveys so little emotion. It was prince Isildur, of the mighty kings from
across the sea, who took the Ring. He is simply reading the script – rarely
does he give us any clues as to what we should be feeling in any one moment.
Now let’s listen to Galadriel. It was in this moment,
when all hope had faded, that Isildur, son of the King took up his father’s sword!
Lesson for film-makers – have Cate Blanchett read your script.
If you needed any more proof that the actor is just as important as the script,
I’ll leave you with this: You cannot pass.
You shall not pass! Lesson for film-makers – have
Sir Ian McKellen read your script. Finally, let’s not forget Howard Shore’s
absolutely perfect music. I still believe that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has the best score of
anything put to film. Every scene, every character moment, is perfectly accompanied by his music.
Every track is distinctive, and has a clear association with a person, place, or theme.
I could talk much, much more about Howard Shore’s music in these films – seriously, I am really fun
at parties – but we have to move on. Walsh, Boyens, and Jackson have discussed
how the prologue was the hardest scene to edit. How does so much information get
conveyed in such a short space of time, while keeping the viewer engaged?
Well one of the key things – with both writing and editing – is being ruthless about what information
the audience needs to know at that point in the film. In Fellowship alone, we return to the
prologue on three times, four if you count Aragorn’s explanation of the Ringwraiths,
and again in Return of the King. These scenes were mostly written as part of
the prologue – but they were not necessary at the start of the film. We do not need to know
that Elrond tried to destroy the Ring – only that Isildur did not. We do not need to know
how Gollum was corrupted by the Ring, or how the nine kings became the Ringwraiths. These
scenes were moved to moments where they would not only have greater relevance to the story,
but a deeper emotional impact. Bakshi could have removed the entire
scene between Smeagol and Deagol, and given himself an extra 40 odd seconds of prologue
to flesh out other important aspects of the world – like, say, the One Ring.
Writers have this tenancy to want to front load all of the exposition,
to get on with the “main plot.” Fellowship understands that backstory is only relevant
if it relates to the main plot. That’s why we keep returning to the prologue – because the ideas,
themes and characters introduced are all directly relevant to the story being told
It should have ended that day, but evil was allowed to endure.
The prologue of the Fellowship of the Ring is a masterclass of exposition, and shows us why
its opening narration works, when so often this technique fails. The prologue to the 1978 Ralph
Bakshi animation is reminiscent of other, more modern examples of clunky exposition, so it is
useful to compare it to its modern successor. Now look, I know I knocked Bakshi a lot,
but overall his adaptation does a decent enough job of condensing the core Lord of the Rings
story into one film, while working within both the technologies and genre tropes of the time, as well
as the animated format. It’s also very much a kids movie so requires a certain level of simplicity
but some things are just unforgivable. I wish it need not have happened in my time.
So do I. That said,
you can see how Jackson’s films were influenced by Bakshi’s. I mean, he came up with this scene.
So if nothing else, we have to acknowledge Lord of the Rings’ place in cinema history.
Like all art, film-making is an ever changing medium, building on and adapting what came
before it. I hope this essay has been useful to show how we can learn from what works,
and what doesn’t, to try and improve the art of tomorrow. But…I’m not entirely confident…
It began long ago…in a land far away…it was the city of Dale…its markets known far and
wide…Erebor…stronghold of Thror...King Under the Mountain…in the lives of his sons
and grandson…the Arkenstone…even the great elven king Thranduil…love of the gold…sickness
began to grow within him…and where sickness thrives, bad things will follow.
This video was inspired by this thread on the r/movies subreddit, and specifically the top
comment by user Staedtler2018. I’ve had a version of this script drafted ever since I re-watched the
Bakshi animation earlier this year, but that thread gave me the kick to put it to video,
so my thanks to Staedtler2018, and AC-RogueOne who posted the thread in the first place.
This will definitely not be the last Lord of the Rings video on this channel, so
click all the buttons if you want to see more essays like this. See you next time.