Peter Jackson’s The
Lord of the Rings trilogy stands as the great cinematic epic of the past
decade. J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth setting received the cinematic equivalent
it deserved. These films were simultaneously popcorn entertainment and emotionally
fulfilling, while pushing cinema forward technologically. It was the Better-Avatar, with characters and story arcs
that would have even stood on their own without the special effects. With his
latest film, Middle-Earth prequel The
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, also based on Tokien’s works, Academy Award
winning Peter Jackson has big shoes to fill—his own. Off the bat, Jackson’s
first Hobbit film (of three) has
weaknesses. It is too long, is too episodic, and doesn’t invest time in its
characters. In short, no pun intended, The
Hobbit lacks the magic of The Lord of the Rings. Yet somehow, through
its ambition to live up to The Lord of
the Rings, The Hobbit succeeds as
a thoroughly enjoyable film.
Middle-Earth is a rich world to return to for audiences, filled
with vast, cinematic landscapes, brutal battles, and loveable and magical
characters of a variety of races and even species. It is no lesser in The Hobbit as it was from The Lord of the Rings. This is
Middle-Earth. Jackson and his production design team transform New Zealand into
Middle-Earth once again, allowing the actors, led by solid performances by
Martin Freeman (who plays a young Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit) and Ian McKellen (who plays Gandalf in all of the
Middle-Earth films), to invest themselves into the world. Jackson juggles
reintroducing characters that audiences know from the other films and brings
new ones into the fold, with most of the existing characters shining more than
the new ones. This happened in George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels, to iffy effect. Jackson does, however, avoid
prequel pitfalls by adhering closely to the same outlines he did with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the
Ring, revisiting some of the same plot points, step-for-step, that he did
with the earlier film, and therefore not deviating too far away from a
successful formula[i].
One of the references to Fellowship,
however, borders on too-obvious: where both Frodo and Bilbo discover the powers
of the title-ring. In both films, the same camera angle and CGI ring is used.
The ring twirls a bit, and turns Bilbo and Frodo, depending on the film,
invisible as its rests on their fingers. These mirror scenes encapsulate the
complex feeling of acknowledging that this film is merely a retread into
familiar territories while loving the fact that we are returning to this
wonderful world. The simultaneous feeling of “Yes!” and “Really?” exist on
equal ground.
The book version of The
Hobbit, written for children, contains many touchstones of the fantasy
genre and memorable scenes—not limited to the magnificent “Riddles in the Dark”
chapter that ends with the accidental discovery of the ring and its powers by
Bilbo. This climax of the film, and its best scene, lives up to the legendary
duel of riddles between Gollum and Bilbo, giving Andy Serkis, as Gollum, a
chance to remind the world of his memorable portrayal of the monstrous creature.
In this scene, the film proves that it succeeds, shirking all fears that this
film would be anything less than an adventure worth taking. Unlike Lucas with
his Star Wars prequels, Peter Jackson
has not lost sight of what makes his Middle-Earth films great. The only aspect
of The Hobbit that keeps it from
being a great epic like its precursors is its relative lightness.
The light-heartedness of The Hobbit film goes right back to the light-heartedness of the
novel. Unlike The Lord of the Rings,
full of political allegory and complex plots meant for adults, The Hobbit is an episodic children’s
tale of adventure. Jackson has not
altered this from the original text. He has added characters and other ties to
the original trilogy—such as Radagast’s discovery of the other-worldly dagger
and the ghosts from Sauron’s time. These tie the films together in a way the appendices
did for Tolkien. But Jackson kept the existing plot intact, which includes
songs sung by some of the funniest dwarves you’ll see, goofy adventures with
ogres and goblins, Gandalf disappearing whenever he sees fit, and the
relatively innocence of Bilbo Baggins.
These fun adventures are similar to The Lord of the Rings in all but one way: they do not leave the magical,
emotional impact that those adventures did. When Gandalf sacrifices himself to
save the Fellowship against the Balrog, when Boromir is downed protecting Merry
and Pippin yet acknowledges Aragorn is his king before he dies[ii], when
Faramir is ready to be burned in a funeral pyre alive because his father is
hateful and insane, when Sam is powerless to help his best friend—these are the
moments that made The Lord of the Rings
the great epic of its time. The emotional resonance appeared even through mere archetypes
of heroes and Christ-like saviors, and Jackson managed that by utilizing great
actors and building up to his emotional climaxes. None of this appears in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but
none of it appeared in the book either. The
Hobbit doesn’t need humanity to be good, but the film falls short of being
great without it. Because isn’t it nice to revisit Middle-Earth?
I give
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a strong
7 to a lite 8 out of 10.
[i]
SPOILERS BE HERE.
Here are some commonalities in plot: The Fellowship
of the Ring and An Unexpected Journey
open with epic stories narrated in the past tense. After leaving the Shire, the
characters have adventures early in the plot that allow viewers know the
characters, all with some high stakes for so early in a three hour long film.
The Nazgul were after the hobbits, while Azog the Orc is after the dwarves. Then
at about the halfway point of both films, the characters rest at the same
location—Rivendale—where they gain a better understanding of what they are to
accomplish. The characters trek through mountains, faced with impassable
obstacles (Saruman or Stone Giants) and must resort to going underground, where
they would be bested by goblins and other nasties without the help of Gandalf.
Then the ends of both films are an ultimate melee between the heroes and physically
intimating, resulting in a pyrrhic victory for the heroes. The final shot of
both films are shots of the intimidating future obstacles—Mordor or Smaug
himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment