Finally saw The Hobbit.
First thing I have to say about Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: I loved it. The rendition of the dwarven song. Thorin. The addition of how he came to have the name "Oakenshield." The rift to Rivendell. Seeing Elrond again. The younger Saruman.
But best of all is Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He gets Bilbo ... from his love of comfort, to his disarming frankness and sturdy practicality. And his kindness, oh, his kindness. There's no way to miss why he lowered his sword and jumped over Gollum. If Frodo is noble and compassionate, Bilbo is genuine and kind. And there is a distinction between the two of them. Bilbo is more down to earth.
I expected to like the movie regardless of any flaws, yet I'm surprised to find I actually enjoy Peter Jackson's "let's tell the back story to the Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit." It's fanfic, but it's well-researched fanfic when we get to see Saruman pooh-pooh any concern about the Necromancer of Dol Guldur. The setting of the meeting between Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel and Gandalf is spectacular, and that is one of those moments-in-passing that I always wanted to see. The sign of Goooood fanfic.
The second thing I have to say about The Hobbit: And Peter Jackson doesn't understand The Hobbit at all. Which doesn't surprise me, so I wasn't in the least bit disappointed.
Peter Jackson has never seemed to understand the strong current of pacifism that runs through the books. He gives us easily-resolved video game battles with baddies. He weakened the character of Frodo at the Fords of Bruinen in The Fellowship of the Ring, and never understood the aura of saintliness that Frodo carried through Mordor in The Return of the King. Jackson never could quite celebrate in Frodo the martyr-hero who gave his sword to Sam on the eve of his greatest fight, saying that, come what may, he would never carry a blade again.
In Bilbo, Peter Jackson once again misses the fundamental pastoral pacifism of hobbit nature. Here the pacifism is more subtle, so more forgivable. Bilbo's a foxhole soldier: of the type in WWI who went to war and yet never fired a single shot. Instead, his role might have been to patch up his comrades and keep spirits high, perhaps make a clever plan to move to another, less dangerous foxhole, or save a friend from the onset of gangrene. Oh, Bilbo could fight spiders and things you normally would step on in their smaller versions at Bag End. But he would never fight some big one-armed orc, heavens, no. It's just not in him. In the battle of five armies he doesn't strike a single blow, even though his friends are in danger. That wasn't just an accident. Tolkien had a point to make.
Also Bilbo wasn't accepted in the company due of his bravery, but (eventually) due to his cleverness. That says something about Bilbo, heroes, and dwarves that is lost in Jackson's more superficial boys' club rendering.
But in making a three-part movie, Jackson had created a plot problem: he needed a climax in a story that's episodic. He had to do something. He solved it in a most artificial way that wasn't true to Bilbo (and the white orc baddie is just silly). (He also tries to explain some of the stupid things that Bilbo does when that's not necessary. People do dumb things.)
Yet somehow, Martin Freeman manages to pull it off anyway, and he rescues the character of Bilbo Baggins from the meddling of the director. Freeman is a truly great actor. I'm in awe. I'm not even sure how he did it.
But all that aside: who cares? The beauty of Middle-earth as seen through the eyes of Peter Jackson cannot be compassed. The movie must be seen in the theatre to appreciate it.
The Hobbit, by which I mean the book and the movie, has something in the character Bilbo that The Lord of the Rings does not, which is a healthy sense of irony. Something Peter Jackson shares. So in the last line of the movie, Bilbo Baggins and Peter Jackson are a match made in ... well, perhaps the Havens?
P.S: In his next film, I look forward to his no longer ripping off his own films. No more tipping, falling stacks. He did that in Moria to great effect. Now leave off and do something new. The approach to Rivendell, that was new. I eagerly await the next part. Someone told me that it wasn't a cliffhanger because I knew the story. Oh, that's so not true!
But best of all is Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He gets Bilbo ... from his love of comfort, to his disarming frankness and sturdy practicality. And his kindness, oh, his kindness. There's no way to miss why he lowered his sword and jumped over Gollum. If Frodo is noble and compassionate, Bilbo is genuine and kind. And there is a distinction between the two of them. Bilbo is more down to earth.
I expected to like the movie regardless of any flaws, yet I'm surprised to find I actually enjoy Peter Jackson's "let's tell the back story to the Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit." It's fanfic, but it's well-researched fanfic when we get to see Saruman pooh-pooh any concern about the Necromancer of Dol Guldur. The setting of the meeting between Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel and Gandalf is spectacular, and that is one of those moments-in-passing that I always wanted to see. The sign of Goooood fanfic.
The second thing I have to say about The Hobbit: And Peter Jackson doesn't understand The Hobbit at all. Which doesn't surprise me, so I wasn't in the least bit disappointed.
Peter Jackson has never seemed to understand the strong current of pacifism that runs through the books. He gives us easily-resolved video game battles with baddies. He weakened the character of Frodo at the Fords of Bruinen in The Fellowship of the Ring, and never understood the aura of saintliness that Frodo carried through Mordor in The Return of the King. Jackson never could quite celebrate in Frodo the martyr-hero who gave his sword to Sam on the eve of his greatest fight, saying that, come what may, he would never carry a blade again.
In Bilbo, Peter Jackson once again misses the fundamental pastoral pacifism of hobbit nature. Here the pacifism is more subtle, so more forgivable. Bilbo's a foxhole soldier: of the type in WWI who went to war and yet never fired a single shot. Instead, his role might have been to patch up his comrades and keep spirits high, perhaps make a clever plan to move to another, less dangerous foxhole, or save a friend from the onset of gangrene. Oh, Bilbo could fight spiders and things you normally would step on in their smaller versions at Bag End. But he would never fight some big one-armed orc, heavens, no. It's just not in him. In the battle of five armies he doesn't strike a single blow, even though his friends are in danger. That wasn't just an accident. Tolkien had a point to make.
Also Bilbo wasn't accepted in the company due of his bravery, but (eventually) due to his cleverness. That says something about Bilbo, heroes, and dwarves that is lost in Jackson's more superficial boys' club rendering.
But in making a three-part movie, Jackson had created a plot problem: he needed a climax in a story that's episodic. He had to do something. He solved it in a most artificial way that wasn't true to Bilbo (and the white orc baddie is just silly). (He also tries to explain some of the stupid things that Bilbo does when that's not necessary. People do dumb things.)
Yet somehow, Martin Freeman manages to pull it off anyway, and he rescues the character of Bilbo Baggins from the meddling of the director. Freeman is a truly great actor. I'm in awe. I'm not even sure how he did it.
But all that aside: who cares? The beauty of Middle-earth as seen through the eyes of Peter Jackson cannot be compassed. The movie must be seen in the theatre to appreciate it.
The Hobbit, by which I mean the book and the movie, has something in the character Bilbo that The Lord of the Rings does not, which is a healthy sense of irony. Something Peter Jackson shares. So in the last line of the movie, Bilbo Baggins and Peter Jackson are a match made in ... well, perhaps the Havens?
P.S: In his next film, I look forward to his no longer ripping off his own films. No more tipping, falling stacks. He did that in Moria to great effect. Now leave off and do something new. The approach to Rivendell, that was new. I eagerly await the next part. Someone told me that it wasn't a cliffhanger because I knew the story. Oh, that's so not true!