So here you go, 12 hours later from my Midnight viewing of the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I may add more or edit more as the day goes on as I collect my thoughts a bit more. I had so much I wanted to talk about last night after the movie but I was soooo tired when I finally crawled into bed at 4:45.
WARNING: SPOILERS! ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK.
When you sign up to see a Peter Jackson Tolkien film, you should already expect epic scenery shots, walking single file, and Gandalf talking to moths. It's just a fact, and it's really not a deterrent IMO. New Zealand has some amazing scenery and it deserves to be shown off as much as possible.
That being said, I was really quite pleased with the film in ways I didn't expect. I had read reviews that the pacing absolutely killed the film - however, many of the reviews also cited the film's lighter tone as being amiss from the more serious storylines and feel of the Trilogy. This leads me to believe that these critics have not read the book and therefore should be mocked.
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit is, at its very core, a book for children of all ages. The story centers around Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit with an inherent desire for adventure (thanks to his Tookish tendencies), and his adventures with a troupe of dwarves heading East to reclaim their kingdom under Lonely Mountain (also known as Erebor). Although he has no experience as a burglar, he proves to be clever and quiet enough to earn his place among the Dwarves, led by the ever-serious Thorin Oakenshield (he's seen some stuff, man.). It's an epic fairytale, at times cheery and sing-songy, and other times dark and solemn. Much of the story involves Bilbo's personal growth as he experiences, accepts, and desires adventures in the world beyond the Shire.
The first time I read the Hobbit, I was in 5th grade. I re-read it in 7th grade (along with my English class), and I grew up with the Rankin Bass cartoon (The greatest adventure is what lies ahead, after all). I really ought to have re-read it completely before I went to see the movie but I've been busy, you guys, lay off me, but I DID bone up on some of my favorite parts when I found my mother's old copy of the book the other night.
Okay, now to get to the nitty-gritty. The film opens with a flashback to Dale, a thriving town at the base of Lonely Mountain populated by humans. I remember Dale was known as the place to go for toys, and the city thrived because of the immense wealth of the Dwarves - even the least skillfull of the smiths had wealth beyond measure. Needless to say, it was a pretty bitching time. And then Smaug came. And the Dwarves fled. I understood the changes made here; in the story, Thorin was out in the woods gallavantin' around and thus he was spared from Smaug's destruction. In the movie, he was at the forefront of the defense. This gives him a more polished vendetta against Smaug - he's seen the destruction up close.
Of course, all of this information wasn't disclosed until Thorin retells the story to Bilbo at Bag End in the book. I actually believed this change in narrative was almost necessary - as it was, the dinner party scenes were starting to drag on. Aside from this shift, the movie then continues to the Shire, we see some familiar faces on a familiar day, and Bilbo starts recounting his adventures 60 years prior. From here, the film actually follows the book to a T - dialogue is directly from the pages of Tolkien's work and everything is just as described. The Dwarves arrive, are introduced, sing, and get the formalities of burglar hiring (and eating) out of the way.
There are some minor changes with narrative following - the beloved Mountain Troll scene, for instance, is under a different set of circumstances. Because much of the Hobbit relies on an omni-present narration, it's hard to visually convey what the character's thought process is (without resorting to internal monologue) and so the scene needs to be more action-oriented. It was different, but enjoyable none-the-less. But hey, the map they use is the one Tolkien drew up himself (I know, because it's the same one in my copy from the 70s). Peter Jackson needs to be given credit - he's not always spot-on, but dammit, he's not Lucasing up Middle-Earth either.
I felt that the only major killer for the movie was, and the stupid meanieface critics were right, the pacing. It dragged at some points and sped through battles in others. Giving Radagast screen time was amazing, though, and I actually felt like I could forgive Jackson a little bit for Tom Bombadil because of it. If you can get past the pacing issues then you will not be disappointed with the visuals, the musics, and the plot.
Familiar shots are re-tread, musical themes are replayed, and Martin Freeman, I'm fairly certain, mimicked Ian Holmes' "ring finding" flashback from Fellowship down to the smallest muscle twitch. It was old, but very well loved, territory for fans of the Trilogy. In a few years when the Hobbit trilogy is done, all of it will seem less like call back and more like giddy foreshadowing for what comes in the Trilogy. My favorite revisit was probably all of Rivendell. I just love Rivendell, you guys. Liek woah. (And yes, Laura, not all of the White Council was represented, but at least it was brought up).
Speaking of acting, the actors went above and beyond to accomodate for the kind of feel needed for a movie adaptation of a book like the Hobbit; Characters weren't afraid of being "silly" in moments that would have warranted a more serious reaction in the Trilogy. Again, this is a child-friendly story, which accounts for all those times Pessimistic Nerdlingers decry "surely a Dwarve or Two would be dead by now!". If you feel to yourself "this is silly. This is too whimsical for my tastes", please remember it is not the Lord of the Rings. (For instance, keep in mind that the Stone Giants are beating each other up for game.) One major thing missing? The Goblins taunting and singing about treeing the Dwarves in the pine trees....but I could see how that's a stretch.
Gollum and Bilbo's scene, Riddles in the Dark, was enjoyable and spot-on. That is all. Also, Jackson was correct; Martin Freeman was born to play Bilbo Baggins.
Overall, I really enjoyed the entire movie experience. I felt the movie was as faithful an adaptation that one could expect, and I look forward to the next installment. Fans of the book, I believe, will be pleased with the film - movie-goers not familiar may be confused with some plot points (what's the deal with the Necromancer, anyhow? Did they just kinda forget about him? Well...) but, again, if one can get past pacing then the movie should make for a great afternoon or evening.
EDIT: Thoughts After Second Viewing
Lolololol, Fili and Kili have fangirls on the internet...they're going to be so disappointed by the time the Trilogy ends...
Gloin is totally spot-on as the father of Gimli. Red hair, love for food, and everything!
Bofur is just full of dead-pan lulz. And his hat!
One of the goblins that falls to his inevitable death in Goblintown totally Wilhelm screams. It's kinda funny.
I realized that Jackson included an over-arching story that wasn't in the Hobbit, like, at all. In the book, the messes they get in (and inevitably out of) just kind of happen and move the plot along.In the movie, however, great pains are made to establish that this band of Dwarves are wanting to not just reclaim their gold but their home. They are a ragtag band of outcasts, few with any true skill in battle. Gandalf comes and saves them from many a pickle, but there's some visible changes; from their failed "battle" with the Trolls to the fight through Goblintown, you see them working together, as a team, as Dwarves, coming into their own as warriors. They're finding themselves, and they don't wait on Gandalf (well...a couple of them do...) to take action when their King has been, at least momentarily, felled. Taking back Lonely Mountain has a new meaning in the movie as not just righting a wrong, or saving their cultural history, but actually taking back the Dwarven way of life itself and restoring its glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment