A few months ago we watched the trio of movies that make up Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, these being The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014). It’s a bit of a puzzle when it comes to reviewing, isn’t it, because it’s not clear as to what the focus of any review should be.
For the hobbit purist, the deviations from the original may seem the natural focus, and there are substantial deviations, including the prefixing of an introduction to Middle Earth at the beginning of An Unexpected Journey, the disappointing scanting of the dwarves’ imprisonment in the castle of the Wood-elves of Mirkwood, and the addition of an inter-race romantic subplot, in The Desolation of Smaug, and the explicit and grisly deaths of Thorin Oakenshield and his nephews, Kili and Fili, at (and in) The Battle of the Five Armies. With regards to the last item, in the book, Bilbo suffers an injury early on that renders him unconscious, and he returns to his senses barely in time to bid Thorin farewell, while Kili and Fili are already dead. The movie version of their deaths is wholly invented.
The outrage of the purist could be palpable and understandable.
But, at least in this reader’s estimation, the story delineated in The Hobbit, that is, the book, is imperfect. The plethora of dwarves leads to a lack of strong characterization of most of them. It’s true that the obesity of Bombur, and sometimes the counsel of Balin, distinguished them, and, of course, Thorin, as heir to an unavailable throne, and later a dwarf driven to the edge of insanity by his pecuniary lust, have some attainments of individual existence. But what of Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Fili, Kili, Dori, and a few others? In case my reader wonders, yes, I had to look some of those names up. That I had to attests to their annoying anonymity.
In general, the book reads like, well, the author is learning the art of story-telling. I can’t help but wonder if a more mature Tolkien might have assigned each of the dwarves a theme or character flaw, and used the battle as a way to winnow out those carrying an inferior theme – or have them discard or repair their flaw or theme.
Which is not to condemn The Hobbit. There is much to laud as well, such as the moral dilemma Bilbo faces when he finds the Arkenstone, the ultimate treasure of the dwarves, among the hoard of the late dragon Smaug, or the entire creepy sequence in Mirkwood, from entry to exit. It’s a book worth reading, particularly if you can assume the mindset of a child, eager for adventure.
Another option is to consider the movie trilogy in isolation, as a standalone artistic achievement. A quick appraisal of these many hours of action is a challenge, but I would note that the problem of the dwarves from the book remains a glaring problem in these movies; the aforementioned romantic subplot, which results in the graphic death of Kili in front of the elf Tauriel, left me wondering as to the point of the subplot in the first place.
On the other hand, the special effects are generally spectacular and occasionally funny, such as the death of the Great Goblin. The special effects are a signature of Peter Jackson’s, and occasionally work against the story-telling, reducing some of his work in the earlier Lord Of The Rings trilogy to little more than Let’s go kill some orcs! A similar observation applies here.
The acting is generally top-notch, but some of the details, such as discovering the Elves have a class system, was disappointing. Perhaps Jackson derives this from other material, such as The Silmarillion, which I’ve read but do not recall; I cannot say.
Generally, these three movies do not disappoint.
But I think, at least from a theoretic point of view, what interests me is the change to point of view from book to movies.
The Hobbit is told nearly entirely from the point of view of Bilbo, the hobbit. From the visit of Gandalf to Bilbo’s home, called Bag End and kicking off the tale, throughout their journey through the caves held by the goblins, in and out of the dungeons of the Wood-elves, into the nest of the malevolent worm Smaug, to Bilbo’s return to Hobbiton, interrupting one of the greatest injustices of the age, all we see and hear are what Bilbo sees and hears, with the exception, as I recall, of the minor, if critical, incident in which Bard of Lake-town battles Smaug.
This decision serves to concentrate the ties of empathy between the reader and Bilbo. Yes, there are similar ties organically built between the reader and Gandalf, and perhaps to Thorin Oakinshield, and even Bard of Lake-town.
But Bilbo’s role as the otherwise exclusive point of view permits the reader to learn as Bilbo does. His existence in isolated Hobbiton serves to place him nearly on the same level as the reader new to the book, learning about the wonders and friendships of wizards, dwarves, and proud elves, as well as the dangers of trolls, goblins, and orcs, all in concert with the reader, and the reader with Bilbo.
The movies make a different choice. For the audience member unfamiliar with the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, in book or movie form, these new points of views potentially can be confusing, as Gandalf the Grey hares off[apology] with fellow wizard Radagast the Brown to investigate the contents of the tombs of the Nazgûl; Tauriel and Legolas, the latter of whom is in LOTR but not the original The Hobbit, have a colloquy concerning a possible romance; the ever mysterious Elrond pops up; and during the climactic battle, keeping track of all the characters and their survival or deaths becomes quite a chore.
Not that this is a bad choice! Confinement to a single point of view does threaten to make the story difficult to comprehend, and necessarily constrains drama to that which affects, in this story, Bilbo.
In the end, it’s more the stuff of spirited discussion, rather than condemnatory or adulatory conclusions, and perhaps more of interest to professional story tellers and unqualified speculators such as myself, than to an audience eager to experience a land of good and evil.
In the end, if you’ve read and approved of the book, see the movies. You can compare your judgments to that of Jackson and his collaborators, who are not an inconsiderable lot in themselves. I think the movies might have done well to have more humor than they do, but admittedly it’s a grim story if you’re a dwarf, or an elf, or a goblin of Middle-Earth, particularly at the clash of the Five Armies.
apology I do apologize for that quip. If you’re puzzled at the phrase, it means to run rapidly and/or wildly, and if you remain puzzled, see the movies and use your imagination.
