The Hobbit

These movies are obviously near, dear siblings to the earlier trilogy, and I love them for that. What separates them besides a decade is the excessive Hollywood drama of the later. The novel is far lighter than The Lord of the Rings; but ten years and incalculable anticipation after the first three movies, I imagine it didn't make sense to consider a proportionately light film trilogy. Perhaps it's Jackson's fault for tackling The Lord of the Rings first -- by far the greater story. The Hobbit feels like a musical prelude that just teases the motifs of the piece before wandering toward its own end. While it makes little sense to inflate it crudely toward the other's proportions, I guess it was hard to justify a significantly lighter chronological sequel. Though I never knew it, the anticipation must have been incredible around 2012. Jackson had all pathways of epicness mapped already. Movies had blown up in scale. Fandom awaited. Signs pointed to an attempted match of the former. But that was toxic from the start. Serious Tolkien fans could probably hardly stomach the treatment, savory as it was to see everyone on screen again. The adaptation didn't make sense, fractured by intentions of purity and marketability. This is no auteur piece -- everyone knew the treasure and flocked like five armies to Erebor. There's no way to support that conflict, and The Hobbit is valiant if tragic. It does enough to satisfy all layers of Tolkien fan -- though I'd probably feel alienated if I wasn't one.

It's all absolutely excessive. It's as though the writers took sections from the book and, prompted by studio, discussed how to amplify them to 11. Alfrid is a ridiculous amplification of Grima, if you can imagine dramatizing Grima any further. The film's treatment of Alfrid is despicable. As I mentioned in my last post, we have all these people dangling from one arm, and even another in the last film! Are the filmmakers not embarrassed? Inviting Legolas can't have fooled anyone -- it's a cheap Hollywood trick. Tauriel and Kili are simple star-crossed lovers. It's all ridiculous and excessive. The Hobbit was never cut out for this. The novel is a fairytale or a prelude, depending on perspective. It's not an epic. It can't be reconciled into an epic -- it doesn't make sense. The attempt is slightly insulting, though obviously I feel the tug as anyone else. There's just enough purity that I have to love it. Tears must well up when Thorin charges out the gates, or Galadriel banishes the darkness. You can't bastardize the world into ambivalence -- the material is rich, so any good-hearted formulation is rich to the knowing eye. I am inevitably subject to this powerful matter however it manifests, and Jackson's work is not the least true.

But it is offensive. All kinds of subtle beauty lace The Hobbit. The adaptation feels at times like a rape -- not malevolent, but far from the elegance of love. If you love something, you let it be -- it's perfect as is. If it's worth loving, it's perfect, and no more can be asked. These movies pretend to enhance and therefore just corrupt The Hobbit. If you love it, enhancement is neither needed nor desired. Besides, Tolkien already had a hard enough time winning over the stoics. He won me over, but these movies sail far into the realm of sappy, overwrought fantasy. I never loved Tolkien for his fantasy; his work I find transcendently rich and beautiful. I'd have a hard time if these films were the first I saw. They're just absurd. Every trope is satisfied and amplified, for a story that never asked to be more than a hobbit's tale. The nature of hobbits is unassuming, and these movies assume the world.

I found it interesting that Ian McKellen is listed first in the credits. He's the great veteran -- but Bilbo may be Tolkien's first, last, and greatest character, not to mention the centerpiece of this film -- his film. And Martin Freeman doesn't underperform, though I could have used more attention to him. At times the film seemed to forget about him. I thought he was perfect, balancing mild manners and a simple heart with unexpected valor. Hobbits are truly remarkable, as was he. Ian McKellen is of course Gandalf entirely -- and Gandalf means him. Thorin seemed well-portrayed. I can't ask for less of what I got (dark and heavy things, Sauron, the Council, Azog, everything successfully injected for dramatic gravitas), but I can't help wanting more Bilbo. Bilbo seems to be the essence of it all. The earlier trilogy doesn't do his character justice at all, and this one overlooks him at times: he might be Tolkien's most perfect creation, a symbol of all things good in Middle-earth. Bilbo seems to be the real purpose. Martin Freeman, as far as I can tell, was as good as we can hope for. Same Ian McKellen. Frodo on the other hand was an interesting choice!

Of course I love it. It's probably the closest thing I'll ever get to the earlier trilogy. It wasn't actually an intense experience -- it all felt so comfortable, despite just seeing it once, six years ago. I knew the novel well, and I'm actively reading The Lord of the Rings, so nothing came out of nowhere. Nor did I ever cherish The Hobbit like The Lord of the Rings, in any manifestation. I fundamentally care less about dwarves than elves, hobbits, probably men, various maia, etc. Beorn, northern Mirkwood, Esgaroth Dale and Erebor... none of this is of much consequence to me. Especially the final quarter of the novel impacts me little, as it seemed to impact Tolkien little -- I think he rushed through it. I mean I get it and love it but nowhere near like other stuff. I never loved the materials of The Hobbit like The Lord of the Rings. That's why I see it as a fairytale and prelude, and its most exciting moments for me are its teases -- the Ring, Gandalf, the Necromancer, everything is surging albeit quietly now. I know what comes next: the dam breaks. Thorin's end is entirely peripheral. I like it no less than anything else in Middle-earth, but wouldn't give it a whole story, a trilogy of comparable length and grandeur to the other. Tolkien himself admits and everyone knows the events in The Hobbit are ultimately peripheral to the history. The connection is the finding of the Ring, and denying the Enemy a stronghold (Mirkwood nor Erebor). But that's minimal content of the book! It's a story by a storyteller itching to test himself. Maybe at one time he loved The Hobbit best. But it was eclipsed by the great history, culminating in The Lord of the Rings. People seem to consider The Hobbit a classic. I'm not sure I thought it was all that great, and Tolkien soon gets very obsessed with everything else. But The Hobbit is Bilbo's tale, and Bilbo means Tolkien. In all the noise of the book, and especially the movie, Bilbo shines through enough to treasure it.