So I know almost everyone has seen the movie version of The Hobbit by now. But since in the Western Hemisphere it is still J. R. R. Tolkien's birthday, I thought I'd post this review I wrote and never finished.
I took the older boys to see The Hobbit with their “Catholic
Youth Group” friends. They’ve figured out that if they say the youth group is
doing something then I’ll say yes much easier than if they say they are want to
go to the movies with “friends.” I had promised we’d go to see the midnight
premier, and they were planning to go in costume. One of the boys was Gandalf
the White a couple years ago for Halloween and the hat and sheet are still
around. Another was going to take his bow and be Legolas. And the youngest was
going to glue fur to his feet and be a hobbit. BUT the premiere here was a
Thursday night, and I couldn’t reconcile myself to staying up until 2 am and
then getting them up for school at 6, so we went Friday night. Since it turns
out that GIRLS were going with the group – in our car, even - only the 12 year
old ended up wearing hobbit fur. He relishes being the object of hilarity and
had a great time playing annoying little brother in the back seat.
The kids loved the film, and I enjoyed it, but I have to admit I was a little
disappointed in it. I didn’t know it was
going to be 3 parts until the week before, which I feel is blatant
money grubbing, not an attempt to make a faithful interpretation of the book.
Since I’ve been reading the book, I was fresh up on the
text, and I have to say that Peter Jackson takes a number of liberties, so
fidelity to the text is not the motivating factor for making a trilogy.
In order to make the movie long enough, a lot of battle scenes and background storylines were added. My oldest seemed to think it was great that some of the background mythology was included, but I wondered how much of it is true to Tolkien's vision. First, all these orcs are running around riding the wargs and hunting the dwarves from the beginning. I guess they are supposed to add suspense and special effects wonderment.
Then there’s the addition of the Pale Orc story. I had just read the one mention of the Pale Orc in The Hobbit, but I wondered if maybe the legend came from one of the background texts. Mr. Darwin points out the source on his post, so it is quite elaborated by the filmmakers. A problem I see with it, is that is seems to humanize the orc by giving him a motive for revenge. Then again, he is seemingly indestructible.
Another addition: Radagast, the brown wizard very briefly mentioned by Gandalf in the book, and his cute animal friends. I believe he must have been added to charm the young ladies who come to the movie and need something lovable to oh and ah over. His rabbit sled bordered on ridiculous, but my daughter loved that part.
The scene with Gandalf and Galadriel seems a needless moment - the quote about "small acts of kindness of love" being the only thing that can defeat great evil makes Gandalf seem like the author of one of those little gift books you get for graduation.
And finally, the worst offense is the addition of the scene where Bilbo rescues Thorin from the orcs after they’ve escaped the goblins and are stuck in the pine tree. Giving Bilbo this heroic moment in order to win Thorin’s admiration seems totally out of character. Bilbo survives by being clever, not dashing. With the addition of some syrupy platitudes along the way, I was starting to get annoyed with the whole thing. It was exciting, but I nearly got a headache from all the twists and turns, although the dizziness of the movie may also be due to its high definition filming. I was ready to go at the end, not reluctant to leave my seat.
The 8 year old didn’t get to go, because he hasn’t finished the book, so his dad will take him when we're done reading, but I’m wondering if the movie won’t be too intense. It almost seems more threatening than The Lord of the Rings – yet another change from the book. The Hobbit has a more humorous tone - Tolkien often prevents suspense by telling that Bilbo DID rescue the dwarves before he actually does, as in the scene when they are all imprisoned by the wood elves. The movie is breathtaking and gripping, but the narrative voice of the book has a warmth that's missing in the movie.
It is present, however, in this letter from Fr. Christmas, reprinted at Letters of Note:
In order to make the movie long enough, a lot of battle scenes and background storylines were added. My oldest seemed to think it was great that some of the background mythology was included, but I wondered how much of it is true to Tolkien's vision. First, all these orcs are running around riding the wargs and hunting the dwarves from the beginning. I guess they are supposed to add suspense and special effects wonderment.
Then there’s the addition of the Pale Orc story. I had just read the one mention of the Pale Orc in The Hobbit, but I wondered if maybe the legend came from one of the background texts. Mr. Darwin points out the source on his post, so it is quite elaborated by the filmmakers. A problem I see with it, is that is seems to humanize the orc by giving him a motive for revenge. Then again, he is seemingly indestructible.
Another addition: Radagast, the brown wizard very briefly mentioned by Gandalf in the book, and his cute animal friends. I believe he must have been added to charm the young ladies who come to the movie and need something lovable to oh and ah over. His rabbit sled bordered on ridiculous, but my daughter loved that part.
The scene with Gandalf and Galadriel seems a needless moment - the quote about "small acts of kindness of love" being the only thing that can defeat great evil makes Gandalf seem like the author of one of those little gift books you get for graduation.
And finally, the worst offense is the addition of the scene where Bilbo rescues Thorin from the orcs after they’ve escaped the goblins and are stuck in the pine tree. Giving Bilbo this heroic moment in order to win Thorin’s admiration seems totally out of character. Bilbo survives by being clever, not dashing. With the addition of some syrupy platitudes along the way, I was starting to get annoyed with the whole thing. It was exciting, but I nearly got a headache from all the twists and turns, although the dizziness of the movie may also be due to its high definition filming. I was ready to go at the end, not reluctant to leave my seat.
The 8 year old didn’t get to go, because he hasn’t finished the book, so his dad will take him when we're done reading, but I’m wondering if the movie won’t be too intense. It almost seems more threatening than The Lord of the Rings – yet another change from the book. The Hobbit has a more humorous tone - Tolkien often prevents suspense by telling that Bilbo DID rescue the dwarves before he actually does, as in the scene when they are all imprisoned by the wood elves. The movie is breathtaking and gripping, but the narrative voice of the book has a warmth that's missing in the movie.
It is present, however, in this letter from Fr. Christmas, reprinted at Letters of Note:
2 comments:
Having avoided Tolkien for 37 years, I totally enjoyed the movie. Must have been doctored for people like me.
Thank you, Emily! I wish I had read The Hobbit again before seeing the movie, but I am thrilled that now my husband is willing to read the book with me. It's been too long since I paid much attention to Middle Earth - maybe I'll be more prepared to critique the second movie! I appreciate your pointing out some specific departures from the warmth of the book, other than the increased amount of "action" and battles - ugh! - which I was expecting after The Rings movies.
My theory is that Peter Jackson the artist just had too many imaginative ideas for making his movie, so he allowed himself to keep all of them, which required three movies. It's his last chance to spin off Tolkien - what will he work with after this, I wonder?
Post a Comment