Hmmm. Tolkien's book can be seen as fiction for young people... but this film seems like a travesty. It doesn't work to evacuate all intellect and artistry for juvenile accessibility. It's not that kind of fiction for young people. Yet I can imagine loving this movie, in a past or future life. It's interesting how people come to love things. I'd need to generate all the nostalgia I missed never seeing this before age 25... unlikely. Maybe I'll never see it again. I still think I far prefer everything about The Lord of the Rings to The Hobbit, but the latter I love nonetheless, and this movie was truer to it in some ways than Peter Jackson's -- and falser in some. Probably much falser in spirit, indeed maybe a bastardization, lacking true veneration, yet trumping Jackson in many faithful moments. Maybe it was my coincident growth with Tolkien and Jackson, but the spirit of his movies seems true despite gross aberrations. This movie didn't feel true despite sections of formal adherence. Of course, of the three, Tolkien's own is the worthiest work. This movie drew directly from Tolkien yet felt not to come from him at all. There was little of the spirit here. Oh well.
Maybe I can't imagine loving this movie, in any life. It doesn't seem to love Tolkien. I was optimistic and intrigued going in, and can conceive an old animated adaptation that feels true and worthy; but this isn't it. I thought I was in for a real OG Tolkien adaptation; what I found was a real No-G Tolkien adaptation.
Now reading the Wikipedia article...
"...some Tolkien fans questioned the appropriateness of repackaging the material as a family film for a very young audience."
Wikipedia also calls the novel "children's fantasy", which is interesting, but regardless doesn't point to such an adaptation as this. Tolkien wrote for bright children or to make children brighter; this movie panders lame toddlers.
No comments:
Post a Comment