|An illustration for the book by Greg Hildebrandt and Tim Hildebrandt (more info here)|
|A still from the movie. So far, so good.|
The Hobbit movie
has gotten plenty of press for its shortcomings (and its long-drawn-out-ed-ness). Well, the husband and I saw it over the
weekend and . . . most of what you’ve heard is right. The filmmakers have made drastic and sweeping
changes from the original Tolkien book that make a big difference in the
message it sends to those who watch it.
Lord of the Rings movies, assumed
that The Hobbit movies would be worthwhile
as well? What if THEN maybe you told
your kids who also watched and
enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies
that if they read the book (or you read it to them) they could watch The Hobbit? What then?
exactly the same as their source material.
I totally understand that the screen is a different medium than the page
and that artists need freedom to work within their medium. As long as a movie is true to the heart of
the book I can happily accept changes in characters and action. But The
Lord of the Rings is a Big Important Story involving self-sacrifice and the
triumph of good over evil and literally
saving the world, while The Hobbit
is a fun adventure story about a fish-out-of-water hobbit who goes on a quest
with some hapless, scaredy-cat, gold-crazy dwarves to get their treasure back from
a dragon. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson,
who did such an admirable job on his Lord
of the Rings movies, has tried to make The
Hobbit into the same sort of movie that those are, and in doing so The Hobbit has lost its heart AND its
my kids see the movie (they can wait until it’s on DVD). But before and after (and maybe during) I plan
to talk with them about what’s different and why it matters.
going to turn a 300 page book into three movies, when the Lord of the Rings
trilogy at over 1000 pages was made into three movies. Well, the answer is that they added a lot of
beheadings. A lot. A hour or so’s worth of beheadings. Dwarves, orcs, trolls, goblins, wargs, all
beheaded. Also shot with arrows, hit
with slingshots, stabbed with swords, and bitten. It was a long movie. “But wait”, you say, “the Lord
of the Rings Trilogy was violent, and you said you liked that!” True, true, but in the Lord of the Rings
movies the violence was worthwhile and unavoidable. The filmmakers try to give the action of The
Hobbit the same heft, but it’s not in the source material, and it never rings
true. The dwarves come across as
warmongering, when they ought to just be greedy. Which brings me to . . .
I have read The
Hobbit probably half-a-dozen times over the course of my life, and I have
to admit I had never imagined dwarves as handsome. The bulk of the dwarf party is as I had
expected them to look, but Fili and Kili and Thorin are all quite
good-looking. Kili gives Flynn Rider a
run for his money in the smolder department.
Mostly I actually liked the
casting. I found it made them seem more
real and made it easier to take them seriously, when they weren’t all so cartoonish. It made it easier to sympathize with their
characterization as a pitiful band of dispossessed warrior refugees fighting to
regain their homeland. But there’s where
the problem comes in, which is that the dwarves were characterized as a pitiful
band of dispossessed warrior refugees fighting to regain their homeland. Where’s the fun in that? And what in the world do these guys need Bilbo for?
3. Everything Is on Purpose
Hobbit more Big and Important, Peter Jackson has robbed the story of all of
its best happenstance. So many things,
good and bad, just happen to Bilbo in The
Hobbit book, but in the movie everything is purposeful and the story has
lost its feel of providential-ness. In
the book, when Bilbo finds The Ring, he is crawling on his hands and knees down
a dark passage, his hand finds the ring (or the ring finds his hand) and he
puts it in his pocket. In the movie,
Bilbo watches the ring fly out of the pocket of Gollum’s loincloth (I know, I
was confused too) as he finishes off a goblin.
Bilbo then, in full knowledge of the fact that it is Gollum’s ring, steals
it and puts it in his pocket. Later,
during the riddles scene, all of the charm of Bilbo’s dawning realization of
the ring is lost. In the movie, Bilbo IS
a thief, just as Gollum says.
trees as the wargs approach because he can’t reach the lowermost branches has
always been one of my favorites from the book.
He’s rescued by Kili in the nick of time of course, but what a lovely
example of the littleness and childlike-ness of Tolkien’s hobbits. Well, in the movie, Bilbo has somehow become
the kind of guy who would draw his sword and charge a maniacal super-orc with a
grudge against Thorin (Don’t remember him?
That’s because the “Pale Orc” is a new addition to the story). The heroism of Tolkien’s Bilbo is accidental
and therefore, much more relatable.
in some completely unnecessary burping and farting and what appears to be
mind-altering-substance smoking. Shame
on them for that.
Seriously, a goblin stenographer is as awesome as you could possibly
imagine it might be. The whole goblin
underground world, including the goblin king, was extraordinarily well done. The acting and casting and setting really are
all very, very good. The dwarf-singing
is haunting and beautiful, and the song over the end-credits is refreshingly
non-radio-Disney. But I am left with a
feeling of great disappointment over what might have been, an ache over the Christian themes that have gone missing, and a feeling of
foreboding over what’s to come in the next two installments of The Hobbit.
So what do you think? Have your kids seen The Hobbit? How did you handle the changes?