I have been a fan of Tolkien’s
books for many years. When my son was younger, I read to him from The Hobbit
each night at bedtime until we’d finished the book. From there we moved on to
the “Lord of the Rings.” Before that, I wasn’t sure he even had much interest
in books, but something about Tolkien’s works sparked his imagination, and he’s
been an avid reader ever since.
One of the appeals of Tolkien’s works
is the great care he takes in describing the settings and their history. He
weaves a rich, multicolored fabric that is both enthralling and believable.
Immersed in a Tolkien story, one does not doubt for a moment that eagles can be
gigantic and noble and fierce or that wargs can talk and be sinister or that
trolls come out at night and turn to stone when exposed to sunlight.
So it was that I anticipated Peter
Jackson’s big-screen adaptation with impatience and enthusiasm. The idea of the
sprawling adventure unfolding before my eyes was too much to resist. I couldn’t
wait to share in the adventure with my son.
Unfortunately, this film falls into
the same trap that snares far too many big-budget Hollywood projects in
believing that nonstop action, CGI and over-the-top fight scenes always make
for a winning combination. In this case, it just plain ruins everything.
From the overblown
computer-generated effects to the preposterous story embellishments and
obtrusive additions, Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” robs
the original story of the magic and charm that makes it one of the world’s most
enduring works of literature.
Jackson makes no pretense about the
embellishments. We are forewarned by the very title that this is not Tolkien’s
work, and a fitting title it is because I was, in fact, taken on an entirely
unexpected journey.
Jackson uses Gandalf to give voice
to how he has taken liberties with the beloved prelude to “The Lord of the
Rings.” After relating the tale of Bilbo’s great granduncle Bullroarer, Gandalf
remarks that every good tale deserves some embellishment. But by this point I
had already become unsettled as I sat waiting patiently for the real story to
begin. Jackson chose to open the movie with scenes from his previous Tolkien
epics. In fact, throughout this film reference after reference to--you know--those other movies crops up time and again, as if Jackson is either paying
homage to his greatest success or trying to bludgeon the audience into
remembering what comes after these adventures. Oh, and by the way, the many
flashforwards seem to warn, something really bad is coming, really, really bad.
As if anybody needed reminding at this point.
Jackson’s embellishments are many,
and it is not my aim to catalog them all, but to point out how those
embellishments are thievery, pure and simple, and his victims are those of us
who loved the original tale as it was told by a real storyteller. Why, this man
could rip the magic clean out of Hogwarts, I tell you, and not shed so much as
a single tear.
Many Tolkien purists took exception
with Jackson’s embellishments in the “Lord of the Rings” films. I forgave those
transgressions because he still spun a rip-roaring adventure tale and gave some
depth to the characters that was lacking in the books. It was a fair trade-off,
I felt.
In “The Hobbit” it’s entirely
different. The movie is a patchwork quilt of events and scenes and references
in the book all sewn together into a raggedy quilt that doesn’t feel at all
like the source material, quite often doesn’t make much sense and, more
often than not, deteriorates into utter absurdity.
His depiction of Radaghast is
nothing short of criminal. First off, Radaghast doesn’t even appear in The
Hobbit. He’s mentioned in passing in a conversation between Gandalf and Beorn,
who, you might have noticed, isn’t in this first film of the trilogy. But what
does Jackson do to him? Turns him into an addle-brained, hare-sleigh mushing
fool who carries a bird’s nest on his head and has hair matted with bird droppings. Bird droppings! He seems like a funny character, but, really, he’s just absurd--far too absurd
for this story, if you ask me. I understand Jackson’s wanting to give some
depth to the characters. One of the appeals of Radaghast is that he’s such a
mysterious character. Tolkien manages to drop his name here and there
throughout the books without really giving us a good look at the man except for
Gandalf’s secondhand account of having met with him. I just hate it that Jackson turned him into
such a foolish figure, perhaps taking his interpretation from Saruman’s
derisive assessment of the wizard as a bird lover. And, unfortunately, this is
how everyone will forever think of Radaghast.
Everything in Jackson’s film has to
be hyperbolic to the extreme. The storm giants Bilbo sees in the distance
hurling rocks back and forth become the very mountains they’re attempting to
navigate, and the whole party is nearly crushed in the fray. The whole scene is
comically overdone Saturday morning fare and ridiculously contrived.
Worse by far is the charm Jackson
wrenched from the scene in which Bilbo and dwarves fall onto the menus of
hungry trolls. The book shows off a bit of Gandalf’s magic and cleverness, but
the movie’s got to make it a big, action-packed spectacle. Never mind that
Bilbo got nabbed trying to pilfer something from one of the troll’s pockets,
and never mind that the dwarves all got popped into sacks coming to find out
what the racket of the trolls’ bickering was all about. But that whole business
of Gandalf smiting the side of a hill with his staff and cracking it in two so
the sun could shine through and petrify the hungry monsters was infuriating to
me. The scene in the book is full of so much humor, and the manner in which
Gandalf saves the party from the stewpot is clever and funny at the same time.
The movie ruined it, positively ruined it.
The dwarves are also problematic.
The dwarves of The Hobbit are polite, bungling and cheerful. Thorin is a bit
more stern, but they’re dwarves, and they’re comical. Jackson makes a big show
of turning them into these big screen movie warriors who whirl about with
swords and fancy attack moves and slice and dice everything and loose arrows
with deadly accuracy. Yes, as we see in many parts of the books, dwarves are
stout warriors, fierce and brave, but Jackson’s interpretation of them entirely
robs the story of its character. Yes, again, I understand his wanting to give
each and every dwarf some kind of unique identity and depth. He manages that
pretty well, but I’m certain he could have done it without ruining the story.
Don’t get me started on the albino
orc. Where that comes from I have no idea. And the animosity between the
dwarves and elves? Not in the book and taken to the extreme in this version of
the tale. Contrary to what Jackson would have us believe, Thorin treats Elrond
with respect and reverence in the book. Every single detail from the book
depicted in the movie is magnified and embellished to such a degree as to
hardly resemble what actually happened. Someone ought to tell Jackson that a
little subtlety can go a long way and that if a work has a certain charm about
it because of its humor and lightheartedness, then sometimes it’s best to try
to preserve those qualities instead of trying to turn the whole thing into something
it shouldn’t be. I’d hoped for an honest, faithful rendition of the story, but
Jackson’s version is a violation of everything that makes the book worth
reading.
I never dreamed it could be
possible, but I sat for most of the movie wishing for it to be over. Not even
the fast pace and oooh, looky-looky special effects could save this film from
being a tiresome affair. The only positive thing I can say is that Martin
Freeman was pretty good as the young Bilbo. I like Martin Freeman. And Gollum
was okay. The CGI has gotten really good. You’d almost never know he wasn’t
really there.
All I can do now is let out a long
sigh as I realize I haven’t the slightest desire to see the next installment.
I’ll just go read a book instead.
