Monday, December 31, 2012

The Hobbit

It's inevitable I suppose that I was going to be a little disappointed. I've been waiting for a live action film of The Hobbit since the summer of 1978 when I read the book. I was one of those kids who was obsessed with Tolkien way before it was fashionable or even socially acceptable. I got The Lord of the Rings as a Christmas present in 1978 and I'd read it twice before school started again in January 79. I wrote to Christopher Tolkien and made my own series of maps of Frodo's and Bilbo's travels throughout Middle-Earth. When I got my first computer, a Sinclair Spectrum, I wrote a 32K adventure game based on The Hobbit and of course I played MERP the Tolkien universe equivalent of D&D. I met my wife in The Eagle and Child pub in Oxford where she'd gone because it was her local and I'd gone to geek out in the room where Tolkien, CS Lewis and the other Inklings read out first drafts of their stuff.
...
I grew out of Tolkien a little in my teens and although I still had a lot of affection for the Tolkien books I found myself increasingly uncomfortable with Tolkien's conservative ethos. Tolkien - unlike Lewis - was not a Christian evangelist but he had an old fashioned One Nation Tory attitude towards the working class (which comes across pretty clearly in the officer/footman relationship between Frodo and Sam and all the irritating king worship through the books) and I do think it's a bit creepy that the South African born Tolkien associated black skin colour with evil in the novels. Tolkien has been criticised for his shallow characters but actually some of his leads are pretty complex (Gollum, Boromir and the rather interesting Grima Wormtongue) but admittedly most show little capacity for change or growth. I never really understood the motivation of the bad guys in Tolkien's books (Sauron wants to rule over a desolate Middle-Earth filled with idiot orcs?) (why do dragons need treasure?) And I found myself worrying about what the goblins and orcs ate if they had no agriculture and lived under a mountain. (I still don't know how Elrond and the elves feed themselves. They make bread but don't grow crops). 
...
However, when The Lord of the Rings movies came out I was teaching high school English in Colorado and I dragged along a class of students to The Fellowship of the Ring and very few of them complained. I thought Fellowship was a perfectly acceptable film and I really liked Peter Jackson's Two Towers. I only began to get bored and fed up during the interminable Return of the King (the worst of the 3 films and the one which predictably got all the Oscars under the Martin Scorsese rule). 
...
I finally saw The Hobbit this week and to be sure I got the complete experience I saw it twice, once in 2d projected at 24 fps and once in 3d Imax projected at 48 fps. The 3D Imax 48 fps (Peter Jackson's preferred format) was an unqualified disaster. It was absolutely horrible to look at and seemed like some kind of lost BBC adaptation from the 80's. 48 fps is not a format to watch movies in. Neither of course is 3D and watched together in both these formats the film looks tawdry, unpleasant and fake. Despite what some British and New Zealand critic/apologists have been saying you do not get used to viewing a film like this as you go along. The Hobbit at 48 fps looks really cheap and nasty which is ironic as it's one of the most expensive films ever made.
...
In 2D at 24 fps the film is much much better. The plot? Well the film faithfully follows the book through about chapter 7 with seemingly nothing at all left out and a lot of stuff thrown in from the Appendices of Lord of the Rings (they can't add stuff from the Silmarillion or Lost Tales because they don't own the rights to those books). Casual movie fans and many critics have complained that the first hour of The Hobbit is really boring and the comedian Doug Benson had a funny line "you know your movie is in trouble when the thing everyone is talking about is the game of riddles." I however wasn't bored by The Hobbit. I enjoyed the meandering plot and the attention to detail. If Guillermo del Toro hadn't been subtly edged out as director The Hobbit would have been more daring and interesting, but as it is Peter Jackson has made this film for the fans not for the casual cinema goer and to be honest that's just fine by me. Martin Freeman is a perfect Bilbo and I enjoyed the attempt to provide some visual contrast between the dwarves (it was smart too to give them different accents). Yes The Hobbit is slow but I didn't mind slow in a world where I spent several years of my childhood. Indeed if Peter Jackson hadn't made it in 3D or 48 fps I would have said that The Hobbit was at least as good as parts of The Lord of the Rings - better than Return of the King, not quite up there with Fellowship or the magnificent Two Towers. I'll definitely go along to films 2 and 3 of The Hobbit. If I want intelligent subversive high fantasy I'll keep watching Game of the Thrones but The Hobbit will continue to be a pleasant nostalgic trip for me especially next time if I avoid the 48fps and 3D versions...   

41 comments:

Cary Watson said...

I get a laugh out of film critics saying "you get used to it" about 48fps; it's like saying you get used to banging your head every time you leave a room with a low doorway. Yes, I'll take Tolkien over Lewis any day of the week, but wasn't Tolkien a staunch Catholic? I was thinking the other day that the way Hollywood operates now it's entirely possible that both LOTR and The Hobbit will be given a reboot in a decade or so...maybe at 96fps!

adrian mckinty said...

Cary

Tolkien was a weird sort of Catholic who half believed in the Norse gods and Celtic mythology...But whatever he was he kept his preachifying to himself.

I think there's been a little bit of a film critics conspiracy to keep from the public just how awful 48fps actually is. The thing a film critic fears most is to be behind a trend or old fashioned or out of date and therefore they're very eager to embrace the new. In this case however it just plain sucks.

Deb Klemperer said...

As you saw from my comment in '8 legs', below, I went to see The Hobbit in 2 D last night. Loved it, Martin F is very good as Bilbo. (James Nesbitt still manages to be handsome with a false nose(...I also liked the slow pace - not all of our party did!

Years ago I was also obsessed with LOTR. I too went to the Bird and Baby to soak up the atmosphere.

I was dismissive when I heard that the films were being made, was convinced they would be dreadful, you can't leave out Tom Bombadil,blah, blah - I was a complete Tolkien bore.. Then the films were great. C4 has just re-run them - I watched Two Towers night before last. The Battle of Helm's Deep is a wonderful sequence.

I agree with your comments on class etc. Then there is the lack of women (unless they are ethereally beautiful, unreachable and untouchable and wear dresses (and hair) that drag on the ground).

But I do like the fact that Peter Jackson tries to be faithful to the feel of the books..

I want to fly on the back of a large eagle! (But without being chased by wargs first).

adrian mckinty said...

Deb

I think they should have left out the eagles, it created a huge logic problem for me: at the council of Elrond why doesnt Gandalf suggest that he and Frodo fly on the back of an eagle to Mt Doom. They could drop the ring in the volcano from 10000 feet. Hey presto, Sauron dead, quest over, thousands of lives saved... Shorter book and film though.

Deb Klemperer said...

Ha Ha - but perhaps twud produce an Icarus effect... no melted wax though, just a swiftly cooked roast dinner sitting under you. And a very short story.

swooperman said...

Helms Deep, thought at the time it was the greatest battle scene on film & nothing I've seen since has changed my mind. Films 2 & 3 of the Hobbit? I'd heard it was 2, but....jeez

R.T. said...

Has there even been a film that either fulfills or surpasses the potential in the novel?

As for me, I am selfish enough to prefer my "vision" in books. I do not like substituting film-makers' "vision" for mine.

Silly, huh?

Deb Klemperer said...

No, not silly - I used to say the same thing - until the Jackson LOTR films.

R.T. said...

You say you are creeped out by Tolkien when he associates "blackness with evil." This archetype for symbols and tropes (black cats, black heart, black hat, black prince, and hundreds of other examples.) has been around for a long, long time (i.e., thousands of years), and we need now to be wary of becoming creeped out by contemporary white-man's guilt shadowing things black-and-white as symbols or metaphors. In other words, to read older texts (even early 20th century texts) through new post-colonial lenses is a subjective distortion of the original text.

adrian mckinty said...

RT

What I'm referring to specifically are the "dark races" in Lord of the Rings who all work for the evil one. There are very few black people in Tolkien but rather depressingly the black people that do exist are evil, demonic and corrupt. Its a very old fashioned heart of darkness view for someone who was writing in the 1950's.

adrian mckinty said...

Deb

Nah, they could have dropped the ring from a high altitude like a B29 or swept past MT Doom quickly as from a fighter (which Christopher Tolkien flew in the war). Been safe as houses, the book and the war ends early...

adrian mckinty said...

Swooper

Yeah Helms Deep was the highpoint of all 3 films I think. I still think the battle in Zulu is better though.

adrian mckinty said...

RT

Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans is better than the book. Hitchcock's The 39 Steps is much better than the book.

R.T. said...

I guess I don't see it that way you do. I see it within the archetype myth making, which is part of Tolkien's good v. evil masterplan.

Deb Klemperer said...

B29s?? and I thought there were only wild creatures that flew in LOTR. I look after a Spitfire so I know my ailerons from my oleo assembly.

Hitchcock's Rebecca - excellent, may be better than the book.

adrian mckinty said...

RT

I dont get that. There's nothing about black skin which equates with evil in the myths that Tolkien was reading. This is not an archetype that I'm aware of in Celtic, Norse, Icelandic or Anglo Saxon mythology.

Tolkien had a choice to make the black skinned men in LOTR good or evil and he chose savage and evil because that was a hangover from Victorian Heart of Darkness fiction.

adrian mckinty said...

Deb

Yeah Rebecca's another one. The book is ok but the film is better. The 39 Steps is my favourite example because the book is pretty dreary, whereas the film is a masterpiece.

R.T. said...

Here is one example:

Why do the bad guys in westerns wear black hats?

This has it roots in ---- well, I'll let you sort that one out on your own.

Also, think about this: Why do some many old tales involve not-so-pleasant experiences in the darkness of the night?

The trope of darkness is not so charged with post-colonial guilt as you are suggesting.

That kind of guilt-based reading has more to do with the reader than the text.

adrian mckinty said...

RT

We're talking at cross purposes here. Of course black has always been the colour of evil, associated as it is with evil. I'm talking about Tolkien's choice to make the dark skinned races of men in LOTR savage, evil, barbarians from the South. There was no need to do that and it makes me queasy because that trope was lame and out of date even in the Allan Quartermain books where there is a long diatribe against the N word for example. Its nothing to do with post colonial guilt, its just lazy writing from Tolkien, a writer who wasnt lazy.


(And actually the thing about westerns is a myth. In very few classic westerns do the villains wear black hats).

R.T. said...

FYI

http://mythsdreamssymbols.com/individuation.html

We may be talking about the same thing and different things at the same time. Given more time in a different forum, I rather suspect we are on the same page(s).

However, as for your indictment of Tolkien, I think that is unfair because of what he was attempting to do in terms of myth-making.

adrian mckinty said...

RT

I dont want to belabour that point though. NOTHING I've read has ever made me believe that Tolkien was a racist or an Enoch Powell follower. He was just an old fashioned One Nation Tory. I think he would be appalled by vulgarity of the current British National Party for example...

seana graham said...

I doubt I'll get around to seeing it, but I did enjoy Stephen Colbert's week of geeking out about it. He had Jackson and Freeman and the guy who 'plays' Gollum on. I don't know whether you or he would win in the trivia contest about it, but I think it would be close.

I do think I'll read it again, though. I indulged in buying this nice little Everyman style edition that Houghton Mifflin put out to celebrate the 75th anniverary. It was probably a mistake because I probably won't be able to read the print in five years time. But I guess I could always pass it on down to the younger generation.

Matt said...

I'm not going to debate Tolkien here, I do enough of that at the pub. But count me in the group that finds Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series quite overrated - I just don't find the prose that great and many of the characters are silly. If by some freak of cross-genre fate Michael Corleone found himself in Westeros, he'd be running the continent by the end of the week. Never mind that he'd be speaking English or Sicilian and they common or whatever.

I don't know if you ever read this letter, Adrian, but I think it does give some insight into Tolkien's beliefs.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-have-no-ancestors-of-that-gifted.html

adrian mckinty said...

Matt

Well I read the first GOT book 10 years ago and wasnt sufficiently convinced to continue...However I have very much enjoyed the tv series (season 1 in particular) and I did listen to the last book (book 5?) as an audiobook and very much enjoyed that, particularly so because so much of the plot was baroque to me and I had the pleasure of figuring things out as I went along. In fact I'd recommend that entire plan to anyone - first book, TV series and the last book as an audio. The narrator of the audio sounds like he's 107, he's fantastic.

I hadnt read that letter before, thanks for that...

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

I really enjoyed that Colbert week. Andy Serkis was the most entertaining I thought, followed by the always great Ian McKellan. Peter Jackson looked jetlagged and exhausted as you would expect.

I reckon I could give Colbert a run for his money on Tolkien trivia. Its interesting too that his favourite D&D module (this will mean nothing to you) is also my favourite: Expedition To The Barrier Peaks...

Cary Watson said...

Re: Zulu. Jackson has said that he studied that film to figure out how to choreograph the action in the Helm's Deep battle. I think he may also have borrowed Zulu's air of stiff upper lip heroism.

adrian mckinty said...

Cary

Oh really? Thats pretty interesting.

I suppose I prefer Zulu for 2 reasons:

1) you understood both sides of the conflict and their motivations. You got what the Welsh wanted and understood it and you got what the Zulus wanted. I never got what the orcs actually wanted - they kill the humans and eat them and then what? Why does Grima want to see all the humans dead? And what about these orc-human hybrids we heard about fleetingly? I think they would have an interesting perspective on the war but they never got mentioned again...

2) In Zulu the character I identified with most was Pvte Henry Hook - the malingerer, coward and wastrel who was completely cynical about the army but who somehow rose to the occasion and got a VC. What a wonderful and interesting human being - there was no one even remotely like that at Helms Deep.

Helms Deep was a great battle with great characters, great action and and was edited and choreographed beautifully but Zulu was emotionally richer...

seana graham said...

Yes, I really think it would be a close call in that trivia game.It would be a match you'd both been training for your whole life. In fact, maybe someone close to Peter Jackson would like to call him and see if he can set it up. Tons of fans could watch and you could even mention your books super casually. I mean, Colbert would certainly mention his.

Cary Watson said...

I'm a huge fan of Zulu, but I have to rate it as a slightly guilty pleasure. In some ways it's better than Lawrence of Arabia in the historical epic sweepstakes, but the spectacle of white men armed with rifles mowing down blacks armed with spears is a bit problematic, especially when you consider that the battle was one of the first steps on the road to apartheid. It's really a testament to how charismatic a film it is that I enjoy it despite it's dodgy politics. Just talking about it makes me want to see it again.

adrian mckinty said...

Cary

Yeah I know what you mean. And it was filmed in Apartheid South Africa!

On the other hand the Zulu Chief in the film is the great great grandson of the actual Zulu chief who massacred the British and it seems, at least to me, that the film makers treated the Zulu culture with a lot of respect.

I like the parody of Zulu in the ending of Carry On Up The Kyber - classic stuff...

R.T. said...

The comments on Zulu and Hobbit force me to rethink an issue: racial insensitivity in films and books. Adrian, while I challenged your POV regarding Tolkien, I acknowledge you are on to something. When, though, did people start becoming uncomfortable with unpleasant portrayals of the "other" in films and books? What are the real reasons for the discomfort? I think the acknowledged reasons are superficial. Moreover, the discomfort is far from universal. Does this mean it is geographically or cultural centered? Well, with the provocation, I retire to ponder the issue and my own questions.

swooperman said...

The battle scene in Zulu? Hmm, good call. I once lost a large bet in a pub on the hymn they sang in the charge. I swore it was Bread of Heaven....

R.T. said...

BTW, with respect to the "other" being portrayed negatively, I recommend Edward Said's _Orientalism_ and Gates' _Signifying Monkey_ as landmark studies related to the post-colonial treatment of "others."

Moreover, do you as a crime fiction writer find yourself editing yourself with respect to identities and backgrounds of "bad guys" in your fiction?

adrian mckinty said...

RT

I like Orientalism. Its a must read for every serious person, even if, like me, you think Said somewhat overplays his hand.

adrian mckinty said...

Swooper

Easy mistake to make, one Welsh rugby anthem sounds like another...

R.T. said...

Well, Said does have an axe to grind, so he loses objectivity, doesn't he? That is the problem often with literary theorists and cultural critics. For that matter, it is nearly impossible for anyone steer clear of subjectivity when making arguments.

Richard L. Pangburn said...

We saw the Hobbit in 3D. Nice into to the characters if you have read the book, but the book delivers so much more--the entire fascinating map and history of Middle Earth, the concepts of the relationships between races, the traits of the Hobbits themselves, all of that incomplete.

The dark riders weren't well represented in the movie and didn't look nearly evil enough, as we had imagined them--but maybe we're hardened by time.

Some of the action scenes were too long and too fakey and only served to remind us that this was, after all, a YA novel. That was my summation as we were leaving the theater.

To which my wife said, yeah, but the story is a bit of a slog until they get to Smog. And of course, that will be the next movie.

YA lit or not, we had to see it for ourselves.

Re: REBECCA - book vs. movie
The first part of the book is so superior to the movie that I can read it over and over and marvel at its lyrical coming-of-age narrative charm. That wasn't conveyed well in the movie at all.

The last part of the movie is better than the last part of the book, but the Academy Award must have been, in part, due to that marvelous opening section of the novel, then enormously popular.

adrian mckinty said...

Rich

We'll have to disagree on Rebecca. I so much prefer the movie. Yes a very famous opening line and a good opening chapter but the movie just zings along.

I do wonder if Olivier is miscast though or whether I just have trouble watching Olivier in anything...Everything about him seems mannered and fake which is fine I suppose when he's playing characters who are mannered and fake...

Deb Klemperer said...

http://thebritishhistorypodcast.com/?p=928 as I mentioned in another post - if you can bear hearing me yabber for half an hour .. and LOTR does get a mention.

Glenna said...

I just saw this the other day, inadvertently in 3D, and despite how it looked, I enjoyed it. I'm not a big fan of the series, I've not read the books and didn't enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies so I was surprised by The Hobbit movie. I didn't find the first, or any part of the movie boring or slow and actually did enjoy the story. It's made me want to read The Hobbit and the LOTR series.

adrian mckinty said...

Glenna

Yes I enjoyed it too.