-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Puzzle of Petraeus
November 13, 2012 | 23 comments
Another Perspective
High Marks for The Hobbit
Peter Jackson brings Middle-Earth to life again.
After being a prey to conflicting hopes and fears, I award The Hobbit a healthy 8, perhaps 8.5, out of ten.
The complaints first: like the films of The Lord of the Rings, some of the vertical scenery is impossibly exaggerated, and there is a feeling a little too often that things have gone over the top.
These include the battle of the storm-giants and the size of the vast underground Goblin city, which seems to hold a population the size of that of New York at least. Even in Middle Earth, every precipice does not have to be about 1,000 feet high. On the other hand, can one really complain about this?
Where the book of The Hobbit tells us that Goblins can “tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves,” in the film the Goblin city is all a crazy, Heath Robinson affair, which tends to diminish the Goblins into comic figures.
Later, when the Hobbit and the Wizard Gandalf take refuge up a tree, from goblins and giant wolves, the tree has to be poised precariously on the edge of an unfathomable precipice. The scene in the book, where this happens in an evil glade in a wood, is quite tense enough.
It is a pity that at the beginning the exact wording of Bilbo’s proposed contract with the Dwarves to join them on their hunt for a dragon-guarded treasure (Gandalf has led them to mistakenly believe that the Hobbit is an expert burglar) is left out. In the original it reads with, for the reader, sardonic humor and a glimpse into Dwarvish business practices that any funeral expenses will be met “by us or our representatives, if the matter is not otherwise arranged for” – translated, as soon as Bilbo thinks about it, as: “You and we may all die and also be eaten.” Perhaps a few more pauses in the action to take in the marvelous New Zealand scenery would also be a good idea.
Apart from this, there is very little to complain about: the wizard Radagast, who is hardly mentioned on the books, gets a somewhat bigger role, and one that fits well into the story, as do the appearances of the chief Wizard Saruman and the Elf Queen Galadrial, who in the books do not appear at all until The Lord of the Rings.
The misery of Gollum, the hobbit ruined by long possession of the accursed Ring, sneaking about the slimy lake below the Goblin tunnels to seize fish or any unwary goblin he can come upon from behind, is well captured, and hints at the pivotal role he will unexpectedly play in The Lord of the Rings.
The early scenes in the Shire and Bilbo’s snug little Hobbit-hole capture the atmosphere of rustic peace with which the story opens perfectly. Gandalf at first appears as a wandering, eccentric conjurer, only very gradually transforming into a figure of power and awe.
The Dwarves are a creative triumph. When I first read The Hobbit I imagined them as all rather alike and rather comic. In fact, they show a great range of personalities and appearances, and no one could mistake the leader, Thorin Oakenshield, for anything but a grim and proud warrior. While I was glad a few Dwarvish songs have been preserved from the book, I was surprised by their gentle, wistful note.
The ruins of Dol Guldur, the ancient fortress now occupied by evil spirits, have an appropriately ghastly look, especially set against the Hobbits’ Shire and Rivendel, one of the last surviving fortresses of the good people.
Two crucial moments in Bilbo’s “growing up” are well done. The first when, the morning after having adamantly refused to join the Dwarves on their mad adventure, something in him stirs and he flings everything aside and runs to follow them. The second is when, for the first time, he draws his new sword alone against a hideous enemy. After all, the Wizard had sent him on this adventure because he had found to his dismay that Hobbits had become greedy, fat, and complacent, and in no shape to survive the storms that were about to beat upon the Earth.
The battle scenes, as in The Lord of the Rings, are magnificent, though some may find them overly violent for children.
We hardly see Smaug the dragon yet, but I have a feeling that this will not be the case in the succeeding films.
Overall, The Hobbit lifts the heart, shows evil can be defeated, and, like its great successor, makes one’s belt feel a little light without the weight of a good sword on it.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/10/high-marks-for-the-hobbit
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 1.10.13 @ 6:53AM
I have finally massed enough "scene points" on my affinity card for a free movie and plan to see this one on Sunday, now that my bout of flu-like-illness is receding into the distance I have heard a wide variety of reviews, but in the end I think it's a personal preference matter and we'll see where we get to, when we see it.
By the way, which character do you think Obama imagines himself to be, when he's watching this in his jammies?
The Big E| 1.10.13 @ 8:16AM
Saruman, who views himself as all-knowing and all-seeing, but who in fact is a dupe for the forces of evil.
JimH| 1.10.13 @ 9:00AM
Saruman and BO have much in common. Both come from a distant place though they resemble the locals. Both started out well intentioned but became corrupted. Both think they are doing things for their own ends though they are pawns of others. Both have the ability to persuade the weak minded by the sound of their voice. When persuasion fails, both display arrogance and resort to issuing commands. In LOTR, after his final defeat Saruman is killed by his flunky Wormtongue. I don’t think we can expect this from Biden.
PolishKnight| 1.10.13 @ 10:10AM
I don't think BO ever was well intentioned. He figured out early in his life how to play the race card and hang out with the cool crowd and make fun of people similar to his grandmother who made sacrifices to raise him. I made up a new joke about liberals. Tell me if you like it:
What does a liberal tell someone just as after they shove them under a bus?
"Stop being so selfish and caring only about yourself!"
Alan| 1.10.13 @ 7:39AM
Easy, Goblin King.
notfooled| 1.10.13 @ 7:43AM
I do not think there is a character powerful enough in "The Hobbit" or the "Trilogy" to have much appeal to the Bum. All they want is Middle Earth; he wants the World.
The ring would come in handy when TOTUS breaks down and he has to try to string three sentences together without stammering.
I liked the movie. It played a little fast and loose with the book; but compared to some other Hollywood interpretations, it wasn't too far off.
JimH| 1.10.13 @ 8:34AM
Taken by itself, the Hobbit film was entertaining, though as you say somewhat over the top and impossibly exaggerated. As a representation of the tale as told in the book it left much to be desired because of all the unnecessary changes and additions made to the story. If the additions were confined to things which happened offstage in the book and further described in other Tolkien works it would not be so had. But this movie makes up things out of whole cloth to no real purpose. This happened in LOTR as well though on a more limited scale. BTW, I thought the Goblin King, though voiced by Dame Edna, bore more than a passing resemblance to Michael Moore.
PolishKnight| 1.10.13 @ 10:18AM
I hated what he did with LOTR. Of course, it's reasonable to play around a little with a book to make it into a screenplay (there's even an Oscar for that art) but these changes were not only unnecessary but also detrimental:
Making Treehorn into a dupe of the hobbits rather than the ancient, charming, hidden relic he was in the book.
I puked when Gandolf told Frodo to "follow his heart."
Making Faramir into a jerk who has a change of heart after dragging Frodo into a battle rather than an example of the nobility, and restraint, of men. It was a waste of 20 minutes of time.
While they wasted time with "hollywooding" portions of the story, they threw fantastic elements that were ideal for film on the cutting room floor such as Tom Bombadil: An intriguing magical character with almost infinite power.
I enjoyed the 1970's cartoon a lot more.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.10.13 @ 10:33AM
The biggest sin of LOTR was leaving out the Scouring of the Shire. Watching the movie itself felt a little like watching snapshots of the book; it left out a lot of the backstory for the various incidents.
On the whole, it was a worthy good effort. In the future, LOTR might receive a better interpretation.
PolishKnight| 1.10.13 @ 10:53AM
What made the Hobbit and later LOTR so engaging was that even with the backstory missing, you turned the pages breathlessly and then came back for more. Even though The Silmarillion was a hodgepodge of notes that Tolkien's son put together, it was enjoyable for fans but not necessary to enjoy the book because your imagination could fill in the gaps.
The film felt a need to dump Hollywood tripe around, glam up the scenery (this is about Middle Earth, NOT New Zealand!) and give us TMI (Why do we need to see the Orc birthing process?) But sure, I guess it was a good effort.
JimH| 1.10.13 @ 12:22PM
PK are referring to the Ralph Bakshi movie or the animated Hobbit with I think it was Orson Beene as Bilbo and Richard Boone as a terrific Smaug?
PolishKnight| 1.10.13 @ 2:41PM
I honestly don't remember. I just have fond memories of it. It was REALLY 70's looking though.
Ryan| 1.10.13 @ 4:39PM
Changing Faramir's character was the worst mistake, I believe. I still enjoy the rest. The parts cut out were the least essential to the storyline, and I felt that it generally worked well. Otherwise, you're looking at another 2 hours of film...
Robert Nowall | 1.10.13 @ 10:23AM
Well, I saw it Tuesday (crowded schedule before that), and I liked it. However, it tended to drag in spots---and, often, those spots were the "interpolated" stuff (Radagast, the White Council) or the modified stuff (the aforementioned "dwarves in the trees" scene).
I found some things spot on---"the Unexpected Party," the riddle contest, the trolls---despite modifications.
On the whole, I look forward to the next part---and to catching this one again on video. But, geez, with a three hour movie, I wish they'd put an intermission in the middle---us older types have to, er, get up and go, more than the youth crowd they pitch movies to.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.10.13 @ 10:34AM
Okay, you've convinced me. I'll go see it this week.
Pecos Pete| 1.10.13 @ 11:56AM
How come Tim's Contest get started on Thursday?
Ronsch| 1.10.13 @ 11:58AM
I think part of the scenery being so "height exaggerated" has to do with making the actors seem smaller...After all, Hobbits and Dwarves are, well, short (or is that vertically challenged in PC Newspeak.) Therefore to create a sense of shortness for the actors, the scenery would have to appear larger than might be expected. Further, it adds a sense of danger and menace to the world outside of the shire and for the dwarves.
Le Cracquere| 1.10.13 @ 12:02PM
Add my thumbs-up to the consensus as well. I don't think the movie was nearly as good as Jackson's LOTR, but that's a case of praising with faint damns. The fans' primary fears have been that Jackson would "tarnish his legacy" or embarrass himself by going back to the well; put those fears firmly to rest.
"The Hobbit" certainly has its flaws: partly because of temperament, and partly because he doesn't own the rights to the "Silmarillion" and other minor Tolkien works, Jackson squeezes in tons of extraneous stuff the movie could've done fine without. In truth, a single 3+ hour movie could have done the story perfect justice.
On the other hand, it says something about Jackson's skill that all the padding doesn't badly hurt the story, either. Martin Freeman is almost perfectly cast, and I think his performance has been underrated--everything rides on his ability to provide a strong, believable focus for the action. And as Colebatch points out, the Dwarves were more strongly sketched and individualized than most would have thought possible.
darcy| 1.10.13 @ 2:22PM
Not only is Martin Freeman perfectly cast as Bilbo, but Richard Armitage as Thorin is a master stroke. (Have you seen him in North and South? He's terrific in whatever role he takes on.)
Heretofore I have not been a huge fan of Tolkien's works, but with Jackson's Hobbit being so well done, I have decided to read The Hobbit to prepare myself for the 2nd and 3rd film installments. I do agree that the goblins' earthen cave dwelling is overwrought, though, and that the violence involving the goblins and orcs, as well as the stone giants' fight, needn't have been so exaggerated. But then the 9-12 year-old boys would not be so pleased.
Bob S| 1.10.13 @ 1:21PM
I had no problem with the sheer heights. Peter Jackson makes them work. The scene in the Two Towers when you find out what happened to Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring show him falling seemingly to Middle Earth's core, where he is then resurrected by the higher power of Middle Earth (which, as Tolkien was a Catholic, is modeled after God). I guess since watching that scene, I have no problem believing that Middle Earth has some huge falls around every corner.
Overall, I liked the movie. It featured more adventure, like the Fellowship of the Ring but less dramatic, more adventurous. It also ends on a high note, unlike the Fellowship of the Ring, even as it manages to set the table for the following movies with an ominous dragon eye peering out of the gold.
PolishKnight| 1.10.13 @ 3:22PM
"After all, the Wizard had sent him on this adventure because he had found to his dismay that Hobbits had become greedy, fat, and complacent, and in no shape to survive the storms that were about to beat upon the Earth."
I don't recall Gandalf saying such a thing or it even being implied in the books although Aragorn certainly said that the rangers performed a thankless service in protecting the Shire but it was necessary for the lands to remain innocent and unspoiled.
As fans of the books know, the Hobbits were provincial and Gandalf was regarded as a troublemaker and Bilbo and his nephew were suspicious by association.
StanAmSpec| 1.10.13 @ 4:03PM
While I agree with your final conclusion, I'm a bit startled by your interpretation of the book.
"These include the battle of the storm-giants and the size of the vast underground Goblin city, which seems to hold a population the size of that of New York at least. Even in Middle Earth, every precipice does not have to be about 1,000 feet high. On the other hand, can one really complain about this?"
It was very much how I envisioned it, and while goblins may be good tunnelers, it would be consistent with Tolkien that they would not be organized or tidy.
The best part of the dwarf characters is their varied nature in the book, some silly, some serious and some a bit morose. I thought the movie captured it well.
My problem is the Hobbit should have been two parts. Get rid of the added fluff. And the bizarre changes that added nothing, like the burning trees, and the troll scene changes. The book was suitable to a movie.
CHAUSSURES FEMME AIR MAX LTD | 1.11.13 @ 1:41AM
My problem is the Hobbit should have been two parts. Get rid of the added fluff. And the bizarre changes that added nothing, like the burning trees, and the troll scene changes. The book was suitable to a movie.