****
Peter Jackson knows his Tolkien. In interviews, his
enthusiasm for the texts is unerring and this passion was translated
brilliantly onto screen in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy. Now, after years of
monetary issues and decisions as to who would helm the movie, we return to
Middle Earth in the first instalment of ‘The Hobbit’.
I’ll admit, I am a fan of Tolkien’s work and therefore
probably have more patience with this overly-long first chapter of the
narrative than others may do. However, I think that even if you are critical of
the film, there are definitely still things of merit to be found there. For a
start, the casting of Martin Freeman as the eponymous hobbit is a stroke of
genius – he encapsulates the very British desire to stay at home and to not
partake in any adventures. He is the perfect vantage point in which to observe
Middle Earth – his terror is our terror, but his desire to explore more of his
world is that of the cinema-goer as well. The infamous ‘Riddles in the Dark’
sequence perfectly demonstrates Freeman’s abilities as an actor, his face portraying
every fear that the audience may have. Indeed, this sequence is one of the
highlights of the movie – Andy Serkis’ return as Gollum is a real treat, and
the script is almost word-for-word when compared with the novel.
Perhaps one of the most pressing issues with the film is not
a fault of Jackson’s direction, but rather Tolkien’s novel. In having thirteen
dwarves, some of the characters will undoubtedly remain anonymous. Jackson and
his crew have done an excellent job in making each dwarf look unique, but
perhaps some audience members would not know which dwarf was which without
having seen the trailer where each one is identified. Richard Armitage is
brilliant as the troubled, stubborn and driven Thorin Oakenshield, but many of
the others go completely un-noticed. In terms of the novel, some critics snub
Tolkien’s fantasy for having too many main characters that cannot properly be
developed in the narrative, but Jackson may choose to focus on different
dwarves in the company in the next two films.
Despite this, however, I could not help but feel for these
homeless characters, and in a flash of genius from the script-writers, Bilbo
states that he has stayed with the company because he wants to help them return
to their home. I felt that the prologue sequence which describes the loss of
their home, Erebor, to the dragon, Smaug, was a good idea and prevented any
forced exposition when the dwarves come to Bag End. The prologue also helps to
cement the idea that Middle Earth has a history and that the characters in the
novel have pasts just like the readers do.
One criticism I have of the film is the references to modern
day science. When Bilbo sets out on the journey, he claims that he is having a ‘reaction’
to his pony, and in the sequence with the trolls he says that the dwarves have ‘parasites
in their tubes’. This annoyed me, and I cannot remember such references in the
book. Tolkien’s world is completely magical and separate from the advances in
the modern world, and the inclusion of these phrases felt jarring and out of
place.
Upon leaving the cinema, I overheard a child ask his parent
why the film had not finished like the book. When the child heard that the book
was to be made into three films, he replied ‘But, we’re half way through the
book now!’, and this is a worry. The appendices of The Return of the King are not particularly long, and one can only
speculate as to how Jackson will fill the remaining two movies, presumably both
of a similar length to the first three-hour instalment. It is unlikely that
this trilogy will win any awards for editing, but this only a side note when
compared to the overall mastery of this film. Jackson promised that we would ‘see
more of Middle Earth’ in this series, and he was right – the sweeping camera
shots and infinite detail put into the sets mean that the viewer is completely
immersed in the fantasy.
Comments
Post a Comment