The Hobbit

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A director returns, after several years and more than one lackluster attempt with other kinds of movies, to a genre he redefined. He had some little known but modestly successful works before his big breakthrough, but since then he just has not been the same man who gave us such an epic, fantastic spectacle full of industry-defining special effects, wonderful music, thrilling action, and, above all, a new world to explore with characters we wanted to accompany. Special effects have come a ways since his magnum opus was crafted, and if used correctly they have the potential to enhance the visual experience even more than before. What could possibly go wrong?

Peter Jackson’s latest project is out in theaters. I wish I could say it was called The Hobbit, but honesty compels me to report that the name is actually The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The reason for the alteration is that The Hobbit will be brought to us not as a short adventure thrill ride, in keeping with the pace and feel of the source material, but rather will be extended into a movie trilogy that, when finished, will outlast a typical BBC miniseries. The motive behind this sort of reverse editing, whereby Tolkien’s notes were raided for things to stuff into the story and plump it up, is Mr. Jackson’s belief that we are stupid enough to triple his box office take if he triples the number of movies to be made from the story. He is probably right. I know I bought my ticket.

Even with his triumphs Jackson had a tendency to let a project get bloated. The best example, I believe, is the sudden barrage of scenes that hit us in The Two Towers right as we should be, could be, would be cruising toward the third act if a drawn-out and apocryphal love story were not fed to us by way of flashbacks, many in a languid, dreamy style that makes one wonder if one has just witnessed something shot wholly in slow motion. When Jackson had over 1,000 pages of material to convert to nine hours of footage this was an annoyance. With The Hobbit, he has fewer than 300 pages to make into nine hours and the filler has now surpassed the beef in the hotdog.

It is blatantly obvious, too, when we are watching scenes newly minted for the movie and when we are watching something adapted from what Tolkien first created. Given that the first movie only gets us to chapter seven of the book, there are precious few scenes from the source material, but the ones that are there work. The angle they take is unique: Bilbo challenges Gollum to a high-stakes game of riddles, or he tries to distract some trolls so the sun will catch them unawares with its morning rays.

For me, these are superior to giants throwing boulders and a scrotum hanging off the chin of a goblin king. Although he debauches the old scenes, a thing he usually managed to avoid in The Lord of the Rings, they yet crackle with the vitality of creativity, not to mention the kinetic energy of plot momentum. The added scenes in An Unexpected Journey usually just add action, special effects, and some bland dialogue. Not a one of them would harm the movie with its absence. Contrast that with the troll scene, without which Sting does not get found. Contrast that with the riddle scene, without which Bilbo never finds The Ring. It is almost as if Tolkien planned out his story pretty well and already included every scene he needed to make it work.

A prequel like An Unexpected Journey presents some dangerous temptations to a director. Lucas fell for them all when he made a prequel trilogy; Jackson’s record is mixed. He does nothing so grotesque as making R2-D2 fly through the air, but he does include a lot of characters from the first trilogy who have no business in this one, and they enervate the proceedings. The story is fine without them, yet they are given screen time anyway and lines of dialogue that we must get through so the story can get going again. Saruman’s role in LOTR was both crucial and engrossing; here it is just a mundane visit from an old friend.

It cheapens Saruman, I think, and even worse it subordinates the newer film to the older ones. The older ones had no characters to borrow from other films, and so had to develop their own and make us care. Of course, An Unexpected Journey has new characters, but it leans for support on a few roles from another tale, and in so doing it becomes a me-too, a tag-along. The moment Jackson decided to stretch the work to over 500 minutes, he was committed to trying to repeat LOTR, trying to equal or even best it. The Hobbit is a fine and entertaining tale, a true delight, but it simply is not suited to take on LOTR in epic territory. Jackson should never have tried, but by borrowing on the credit of that trilogy’s characters, he made a difficult job nearly impossible. He was at once trying to match LOTR with The Hobbit and subordinating The Hobbit to LOTR. It is as if Jackson were stepping on the accelerator and the brake simultaneously.

The One Ring

Another manner in which Jackson makes LOTR the dog and The Hobbit the tail is his reuse of magical moments from the trilogy. The Ring first finds its way onto Bilbo’s finger in exactly the same fashion as it will do to Frodo at the inn in Bree. In The Fellowship of the Ring, this moment, a small but positive deviation from the book, was an indication that The Ring was indeed an acting entity and wanted to return to its master. Now it is unavoidably diminished, like a joke that was funny in the moment the night before. Gandalf the Grey also uses his moth trick again, the one that summons giant eagles to carry him away to safety. It does not matter that it technically, in the world of the story, happened first in The Hobbit. It happened second in the real world, and that is the one I live in. To say nothing of the fact that it was simply done better in Fellowship, it stands out as an obvious homage to the older film.

There are certain directorial touches that mark the film as Jackson’s. He continues his fascination with sloppy eating, for instance. It is not enough to eat a tomato, but its juices must squirt forth and dribble down the chin. It is not enough to tip back a mug and drink ale, but the ale must spill over the sides and wet the drinker’s whiskers. To this day I cannot decide if this helps paint his picture or if it is merely distracting. I think I would appreciate it more if it were a bit less flagrant, but the attention given to characterization, both of person and location, is welcome.

Also present is the juxtaposition in the battles of gritty, gory wounds with cartoonish physics. This was something that always bothered me about LOTR, whether it was Legolas breezily climbing an Oliphaunt to kill it or horses at Helm’s Deep marching through goblins and knocking them aside as if the horses could act on the goblins without the goblins acting on them. No matter how far-fetched the fantasy, Newton should not be cast aside lightly. After one viewing, it seems to me the problem is worse now.

Not all his usual touches are accounted for, however. Gone are the abundant, stylized, close-up, slow-motion reaction shots that permeate the films from a decade ago. Like the sloppy eating shots, they would be more effective if they were toned down. In the present film they have been toned down to the point of disappearing, or so I remember it.

The shortest summary is to say that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an overly long work that should have clung to the cannon, the presence of which in the movie constitutes its best features. However, its best features are good features, and there is much of the new stuff that feels like setup. While I doubt I shall ever be convinced that Jackson has navigated his course wisely, the movie does leave the story in a position to do more in the sequels. If the movie got sidetracked now and then, these diversions have built something of a foundation for the future. It is almost enough to give one hope.

Until one remembers that there are only 12 chapters to go, and it is going to take us six hours to get through them.

3 / 5 stars     

Help Promote Prometheus Unbound by Sharing this Post

Send to Kindle

About the Author

Matthew Bruce Alexander Staff Writer

Matthew is a libertarian living in central Ohio. A graduate of Ohio State University, he majored in Spanish and has published a work of libertarian science-fiction called Wĭthûr Wē.

{ 4 comments… add one }
  • Outside the Box December 19, 2012 @ 5:42 pm | Link

    Good review, Matthew. I shared many of the same thoughts and feelings about the Hobbit. I’m a massive Tolkien fan, and I walked away from the LOTR thanking random dieties that they’d found someone – jackson – who gave the material proper respect and caring. I walked away from the Hobbit more disheartened. Entertained, yes, but not nearly as satisfied.

    Some of this is not Jackson’s fault: I’ve never cared for the book version of The Hobbit as much as LOTR. LOTR was a darker, more serious tale with a grand scope whose importance keeps your tension at all times. The Hobbit takes a much lighter note, with little on the line except the battle between adventure and stodginess on Bilbo’s part and what I always felt was a rather unsympathetic desire on the part of the dwarves to go sit on a pile of gold (it never helped that Tolkien’s understanding and depiction of economics was poor, e.g., exactly *who* values the insane amounts of gold that Smaug supposedly has when it is so plentiful? Surely supply and demand still matter in Middle Earth).

    Jackson seems to want to capture both the lightness of the Hobbit and the dark and serious tone of the LOTR in the same film, and I can’t say that it worked for me. The scenes in Bilbo’s house in which the dwarves sing and toss his plates and bowls about with an almost magical precision just don’t gibe with later scenes in which we are supposed to believe in realistic physics, harkening back to your point about inconsistent physics. The overly long battle/flight scene in the goblin’s mountain mixes heavy, realistic combat with silliness like them falling down thousands of feet by still surviving by the sturdiness of the bridge they are “riding”… the same bridges that only moments before had fallen to pieces time and again from a single person landing on them.

    I do hold out a lot of hope for the 2nd and third movies, as some of the best parts of the book – Beorn, Mirkwood and the capture by the wood elves, the Battle of Five armies, and all of the Smaug bits – still await us. There was a lot of setup in this first film, and I’m hoping that it leads to a smoother experience in the sequels.

    Finally, I just have to say it: Rhadagast. I mean, come on. I understand pulling bits of Tolkien’s history of Middle Earth into the film, and Rhadagast and the Istari in general are certainly interesting enough for consideration. But putting him a sled pulled by super rabbits and having him race around like an ewok on those zooming motorcycles is not at all in the spirit of Tolkien. Surely, *someone* in the studios should have leaned over to Jackson and said “this doesn’t work”.

    Altogether, I thought this movie was really disappointing. I had big hopes for it, and I can’t say I’m all that eager to see the movie again, after having watched LOTR dozens of times. The worst part for me is that I really can’t recommend it to the casual fan, unless they are a 14-year old boy. It just misses too often.

    Reply
    • Matthew Alexander December 22, 2012 @ 12:39 am | Link

      Gracias, senor!

      I like The Hobbit quite a bit. Definitely not as much at stake, but as an adventure story that moves at a good pace, hard to beat for my money. This thing should have been one movie and it could have been a good one.

      Jackson seems to want to capture both the lightness of the Hobbit and the dark and serious tone of the LOTR in the same film, and I can’t say that it worked for me.

      Good insight. Hard thing to pull off.

      I do hold out a lot of hope for the 2nd and third movies, as some of the best parts of the book – Beorn, Mirkwood and the capture by the wood elves, the Battle of Five armies, and all of the Smaug bits – still await us. There was a lot of setup in this first film, and I’m hoping that it leads to a smoother experience in the sequels.

      Get those hopes up real high! 😉

      I agree about the Rhadagast thing, too. Not exactly Jar Jar, but too far in that direction for me.

      Reply
  • Vangel January 14, 2013 @ 11:03 pm | Link

    I went to see the movie with my wife, two boys aged 12 and 14, two friends who are big LOTR fans and their two girls also aged 12 and 14.

    My wife is Chinese and has no idea about Tolkien or his books. She enjoyed the Hobbit but did not understand much of it and could not figure out why it had no ending. My two friends, a patent lawyer and his teacher wife, liked the movie but thought it a bit long. What was most interesting was the response of the kids. Not only did they enjoy it very much, even though they complained about a few of the ‘errors’ that Jackson made, but they picked up on the main themes that Tolkien was concerned about. They understood that Tolkien agreed with Acton that power corrupts and that he preferred anarchy to organized government. My friends were surprised that their girls were that knowledgeable and could see the movie through a lens that they had no awareness of but began to fill in the gaps by going over parts of the movie that made some of Tolkien’s ideas more clear.

    The kids looked at my friends as if they were retarded in some way and asked why they were not familiar with the Riggenbach podcast that explained some of Tolkien’s ideas or why they had not bothered to read the letters in which Tolkien explained his views. The funny thing is that when I suggested that they write a nice book review in school they said that their teachers might not be receptive to the type of views that Tolkien held and might reduce their marks if they write something that was not politically acceptable to them.

    I have to agree with the kids. If you know about Tolkien’s view of power and government the movie becomes a very decent watch even when it is running a bit long and has scenes that do not add much to the story. This knowledge actually enhances the slower parts of the movie when more of the serious discussion takes place or when you see how the quiet Hobbit society functions. And as much as I agree with some of the flaws noted above, I am not that displeased from what I saw and look forward to seeing the next instalment with the kids.

    Reply
    • Matthew Alexander January 30, 2013 @ 6:10 pm | Link

      Not only did they enjoy it very much, even though they complained about a few of the ‘errors’ that Jackson made, but they picked up on the main themes that Tolkien was concerned about. They understood that Tolkien agreed with Acton that power corrupts and that he preferred anarchy to organized government. My friends were surprised that their girls were that knowledgeable and could see the movie through a lens that they had no awareness of but began to fill in the gaps by going over parts of the movie that made some of Tolkien’s ideas more clear.

      That’s wonderful! Sounds like someone is doing a good job raising them!

      And as much as I agree with some of the flaws noted above, I am not that displeased from what I saw and look forward to seeing the next instalment with the kids.

      I had a mildly decent time at the theater. I hope the next two are better, but I am not overly optimistic.

      Thanks for stopping by!

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy

Please keep the following in mind when commenting:

  • Real names preferred but not required.
  • If your comment contains several links, your comment may be held up in moderation; please, be patient.
  • Strive for the ideal speech situation: civility, mutual understanding, no eristic debating tactics, no ad hominems.
  • So long as the comments are not overrun by spammers, trolls, and general incivility, registration will not be required to comment.
  • We reserve the right to delete or mark comments as SPAM, and to moderate or ban abusive commenters, at our discretion.

Next Post:

Previous Post:

Support Prometheus Unbound








$


Donate toward our web hosting bill!




Get 1 FREE Audiobook from Audible with 30;Day FREE Trial Membership


We recommend Scrivener as the best content-generation tool for writers.

Recent Comments