Splitting
Tolkien's book up into a trilogy of films like this, some have
suggested a commercial motive. To which insiders have responded
that those are people who “don't know Peter.” And they're right.
For example, I have never met director Peter Jackson and I am
suggesting that.
It's
not just that Tolkien's first book was roughly a third of the length
of 'Lord of the Rings'. That in itself is just an
indicator of the way 'The Hobbit' was written in a
very different tone. In a perhaps unusual move, Tolkien started off
with a children's book then added a sequel for adults. I tend to
think of it through Tove Jannson's
illustrations; moody and myserious landscapes peopled by
strange but cheery cartoon figures, at once otherly and homely.
Worse,
take away that tone and you're left with the book's formal elements –
which are uncannily similar to those of 'Lord of the
Rings'. An unlikely hero joins a motley fellowship on a
quest. It's quite often even the very same stops. If it's Thursday, this must be Rivendell. Oh, except instead of
getting lost underground to orcs, this time it's goblins.
Plus
of course it's all happening in the wrong order. I read... you
read... everybody read 'The Hobbit' then
progressed onto 'Lord of the Rings'. (I can
distinctly remember seeing the fat one-volume edition in bookshops,
thinking “one day I will be grown-up enough to read that.”) We
read them in the order they were written.
Jackson's
solution to that one is foreboding. (Tolkien buffs say a lot of this
is stuff folded back from still-later works such as 'The
Silmarillion.') Things in Middle Earth are taking a darker
turn. Sinister figures loiter, Orcs are abroad, strange shadows fall.
Pretty soon you won't be able to leave your windows open.
Particularly
in the scene where Saruman shows up, it's hard not to be reminded of
'The Phantom Menace.' But then again, with all the
problems that film filled itself, it's prequel ordering wasn't one of
them. Plus Tolkien's compatriot CS Lewis wrote his Narnia chronicles
out of chronology, starting off at quite possibly the darkest moment.
The foreshadowing is probably quite a good idea. The problem is that
this never seems a more innocent land, for the shadows to show up
more starkly against. The Shire seems as provincially calm as ever.
But that's precisely the way it was in 'Lord of the
Rings'.
As
you'd probably expect, things lurch from set-piece to set-piece like
a video game. (Level 5 - Underground against Goblins. Level 6 – on
a clifftop against Orcs.) Scenes can seem so overlong I'd claim the
expanded director's cut has been released early, except that will
tempt fate for the still-more-expanded director's cut that's
doubtless to come. The warring rock giants epitomise one pole of the
film. They look spectacular but add precisely nothing to the plot.
They're not even overcome, really, they just do
their thing and go away to leave us ready for the
next thing.
But
there is another pole of the film, in scenes which do seem more
reminiscent of the book. (Or at least work the book into a
contemporary film in a manageable way.) The Trolls are not CGI hordes
but finite in number, and are (sort of) characterised. There's peril,
but served with black humour. You're not quite sure whether to feel
charmed or chilled. The scene where Bilbo first encounters Gollum is
also effective. Notably both feature wordplay above swordplay, Bilbo
battling Gollum by riddling.
But
let's face it, we fans are probably making a category error to begin
with. These films aren't made to be thought about. Whatever their
claims to 'authenticity', they're there to go “oooh” to. A fan of
the original trilogy will come away happy. The things you'd expect to
happen happen. Except for the things you'd expect to happen in the
two sequels. There's just enough Tolkien left in there to act as a
kind of through line, to stop it becoming entirely lurching
set-pieces like every other Jackson film.
It's
like when Wily Coyote steps off the cliff edge, but doesn't fall so
long as he keeps running. Things kind of get by on kinetic energy
alone. Whether things will start to fall further in the two
sequels... that remains to be seen.
Interesting. Sorry to have only now read this.
ReplyDeleteI'll comment over on Andrew's blog, where the discussion is more current, rather than here. See you there, in the morning!
No worries. The problem with the internet is that it keeps changing. Things just don't stay where you put them. I get that all the time.
ReplyDelete(Incidentally, in the unlikely event anyone comes across this and wonders, Mike is talking about Andrew's blog. It's a friendly sort of place, but he does expect you to wear a tie.)