Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Two years ago (yikes, was it really that long ago?) I sat down to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. This was my review, which I've decided to repost here in anticipation of seeing the last in the Hobbit trilogy tonight (I'll post The Desolation of Smaug tomorrow, and The Battle of the Five Armies on the weekend).

***

But before I discuss The Hobbit, I would also like to draw your attention toward this brilliant interview/article about Fran Walsh – Peter Jackson’s partner in both work and life, who for reasons pertaining to their children made a conscious decision long ago to keep away from the spotlight. But she is clearly a key player in bringing The Lord of the Rings franchise to life – along with her collaborator and friend Philippa Boyens. Among the many insights the article has to offer is their take on the women of The Lord of the Rings...



In Tolkien’s largely female-free “Hobbit,” Ms. Boyens said, “The lack of feminine energy becomes very evident.”

“And oppressive,” Ms. Walsh added.

This mentality seems to be what led to Galadriel's inclusion in the White Council scene in The Hobbit, and the creation of Tauriel as a completely original female character.

 As it happens, I’m not one to demand a female character in absolutely everything. One of my favourite television dramas has not a single significant female character in the main cast (it’s Whitechapel, BTW) and I’d rather have no female representation at all than the presence of a girl or woman who is there simply to be the badly written Strong Female Character™. Nolan’s Batman trilogy for example, would have arguably worked just as well without the character of Rachel Dawes – in Batman Begins she’s just kinda there, and in The Dark Knight she only exists for the inevitable fridging. But that’s another debate altogether.

My point is this: for the most part I believe in quality over quantity, and this is precisely what we get in The Lord of the Rings. There are only three major female characters in the trilogy, only one of which had any character growth or story arc, and despite the inevitable grumbling from purists when word got out that their roles (particularly Arwen’s) were being expanded, I don’t blame Boyens or Walsh in the slightest for trying to beef up the roles of Galadriel (by making her a quasi-omnipotent narrator), Arwen (by transposing her life-story from the appendixes into the meat of the trilogy) and Eowyn (by...okay, they actually had enough material from the books in her case).

And I love the fact that Walsh and Boyens are unapologetic about adding a feminine presence to what is otherwise a complete sausage fest. I thought it was a perfectly sound decision to replace Glorfindel with Arwen as the elf who rushes the injured Frodo to Rivendell (let’s face it, Glorfindel didn’t really participate in the rest of the story and Arwen was an obvious substitute) and her flight to the ford was one of the most exhilarating action-sequences of the first film.

On the other hand, it was a wise choice to forego taking Arwen to Helm’s Deep (though I admit, I’m still curious about the footage that was shot) in favour of highlighting her love for Aragorn. After five seasons of Merlin, I’ve become sick to death of people dissing female characters as “just love interests”, as though love and romance is something to be mocked and ridiculed (especially when it gets in the way of another ship) instead of something worthy and important. Arwen’s choice in giving up her immorality for love requires just as much strength and conviction as the physical bravery and stamina of the Fellowship members, and her scenes throughout The Two Towers in which she glimpses her future are some of the most powerful of the entire trilogy.

Obviously there’s certainly nothing wrong with Action Girls either (it’s all about balance, people!) but whilst Eowyn takes on the more masculine traits of combat and force, complete with a story-arc that involves unrequited love, disguising herself as a man, a misinterpreted prophecy regarding gender, and a decision to reject warfare in favour of healing, it’s Galadriel who bridges the gap between the two extremes in the portrayal of women. Galadriel’s authority is not rooted in either feminine traits or masculine ones, in fact she almost seems to transcend both, and is one of the most indisputably powerful figures in Middle Earth – all without raising a finger.

And so it’s very rewarding to see Galadriel make an appearance in The Hobbit, and for her potent blend of elegance, wisdom, beauty and formidability to be on display as a small but key figure in this story.

Finally, there’s one last comment from the article that deserves to be quoted:

“They are all so involved together in every layer and detail of their productions that sometimes it’s hard to distinguish whose voice you’re hearing in a particular scene or moment,” said Ken Kamins, a Hollywood manager who has represented Mr. Jackson and Ms. Walsh for two decades and who also works with Ms. Boyens. “They are perfectly blended.”

To boil it down: Ms. Walsh has a knack for conveying emotion, Ms. Boyens excels at structure (and line readings), and Mr. Jackson is the visual genius.

It’s pretty clear that although Peter gets the focus when it comes to publicity and fame, it’s very much a collaborative effort between him, Boyens and Walsh in crafting these films. Though I understand why necessity or personal choice makes the women slightly more withdrawn regarding the spotlight, I’m happy whenever they get some measure of credit for all their hard work, and I hope in time there’ll come an opportunity to learn more about the project from their point of view (not counting the DVD commentaries). Some of their insights into Tolkien’s work and adapting it into feature-length films must be fascinating.

***

Plot

The Hobbit is based on a very simple premise: a group of refugees journey back to their homeland in order to liberate it from their enemies. Of course, with all the Tolkien trappings it becomes something much more: a series of adventures through Scandinavian/Old English folklore, as experienced through the eyes of a homely protagonist who eventually awakens to the thrill and excitement of adventure. It’s also a very straightforward story, easily described as a series of mini-encounters with various creatures (both dangerous and benign) before it reaches the climactic conclusion: gold, dragons and battle.

Like a lot of people, I eye-rolled on hearing the news that The Hobbit would be split into three films. It seemed totally unnecessary given the source material, and as a consequence felt both self-indulgent and a tad greedy. Had The Lord of the Rings been given the same treatment it would have ended up being nine movies long. Taking bits and pieces from the appendixes, the original trilogy, and the film-makers' own imaginations, we end up with a storyline that is a bit cluttered and jumpy.

There are four narrative “stepping stones” present in the film that are strictly Tolkien: 1. An Unexpected Party (the dwarfs arrive), 2. Roast Mutton (the trolls), 3. Riddles in the Dark (Gollum), and 4. Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire (rescue by the eagles). That’s only six chapters of nineteen, and the rest is given over to action sequences, traveling montages, flashbacks, quiet scenes of characterization and nods to the first trilogy through a variety of cameos. It’s almost like there are two films at work: an adaptation of Tolkien’s original story, and Peter Jackson’s prequel to The Lord of the Rings.

Characters

I’ll admit I blanched a bit when I heard that Martin Freeman would play role of Bilbo. Continuity issues aside, it seemed a rather odd choice, yet despite a few Freeman-isms (the sardonically bamboozled look was present a couple of times) his presence wasn’t as incongruous as I thought it would be.

I think I’ve said in the past that I have trouble with role association, and he’ll always be Tim from The Office to me, but here I felt that he was channelling a young Ian Holm pretty well: introverted but curious, comfort-loving but adventurous, simple but intelligent. His attempt to bond with the dwarfs is handled well: at first he’s an outsider, but he gradually gets the chance to strike up a rapport with each of them and seizes opportunities as they come. The rapport with Thorin is especially good: he’s clearly intimidated by him at first, but – after winning the others over – more determined to prove himself.

Richard Armitage was a shoe-in for the role of Thorin. Ah, remember the days of Robin Hood, when he was simply required to stomp around and smoulder at everyone? Yeah, that’s pretty much what’s going on here. The deep gravelly voice, the piercing blue eyes – heck, even when he’s playing a dwarf he still manages to tower over everyone else by dint of his presence alone. At times the whole thing threatened to go a little overboard (c’mon, who wasn’t thinking that he was a bit of a drama-queen at times?) but when the other dwarfs comment on his leadership abilities and the respect they have for him, you believe every word.

The other dwarfs were slightly interchangeable, though I give the design team credit for attempting to make a distinction between them all. Consider this: Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs managed to make seven distinguishing personalities for their seven dwarfs. Mirror Mirror managed two. Once Upon a Time has one. Snow White and the Huntsman had zero. For The Hobbit team to be given a whopping thirteen dwarfs, all with similar-sounding names, and make at least seven individuals out of them – well, that’s quite a feat!

I’ve no doubt that fandom is all over Thorin and the two young hot ones, but I really enjoyed Graham McTavish as Dwalin and James Nesbitt as Bofur. Yes, I had to look those names up, and I’m still not entirely sure I’ve got the right ones, but I enjoyed Dwalin as the hardened warrior type (he was the bald one that turned up at Bilbo’s door first, right?), and Bofur as the slightly quirky but mostly friendly one with the silly hat.

There seems little to say about Ian McKellen as Gandalf: in an interview I saw with him years ago, he mentioned that he enjoyed played Gandalf the Grey far more than Gandalf the White, and so I’m sure he was glad to be back in the grey robes and wizard hat. At this point he embodies the iconic role so completely that it’s difficult to say anything insightful about his performance. He IS Gandalf. That’s all.

As for the other characters, it's a lot of fun to see Frodo, Gollum, Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman again, even if they were just in extended cameos. A particular shout-out to Cate Blanchett, the only woman in the entire film, for I liked the way the White Council was staged: Gandalf and Saruman seated, while Galadriel (and Elrond to a lesser extent) slowly drifted around the outskirts, Galadriel telepathically speaking with Gandalf all the while.

It didn’t strike me until much later that this is the first time Galadriel and Gandalf have interacted on-screen. This realization caught me by surprise considering they were both such powerful figures in the first trilogy (though weren’t there rumours of a deleted scene in which Galadriel gives Gandalf his white robes after he returns from the depths of Moria?) and her parting words to him suggest that she’ll be back in a larger capacity in the next two films (hopefully).

Have I mentioned that Galadriel is my favourite character? Because I’ve just realized that she is.

From what (little) I’ve seen on fan reaction to the film, feelings are mixed on Radagast, with many deeming his role as one of stupid comic relief. Well, I’m not too sure about that. The only thing I recall him doing that was meant to be overtly funny was crossing his eyes when he’s given some pipe-weed to calm him down – other than that, I never really got the sense that the script or the actor was trying to make me laugh at him.

I think the problem may lie with interpretation. Radagast can be seen as one of two archetypes: the eccentric, absent-minded old Wizard, or the Forest Guardian who is so deeply enmeshed in his duties to the wood and its animals that he’s aware of little else (perhaps there was a little Tom Bombadil in him?) Depending on which interpretation you chose to run with, the character is either a joke or a figure out of folklore, which in turn informs everything else that he does. If he’s the Wizard, then the scene in which a bird poops on his hair makes him a fool, but if he’s the Woodland Spirit, then hey – it’s just a part of nature, like rain or sunlight, and he doesn’t care whether it’s there or not. As the Wizard, the fact that he risks his life for a hedgehog and has a sleigh pulled by rabbits is silly – as the Forest Guardian, the fact that he risks his life for a hedgehog and has a sleigh pulled by rabbits is awesome.

This is a guy who lives in his own little world, completely absorbed in its minutia and without much regard for anything beyond that. I think a lot of people mistook that for comedy.

Then there was Thranduil, a.k.a. Legolas’s dad, a.k.a. Lee Pace, a.k.a. guy on moose. He was already an internet meme long before I (or anyone else) got around to seeing the movie in theatres, so unfortunately it was a bit hard to take him seriously. I mean, he rode a moose for goodness sake.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, and I almost forgot Andy Serkis's Gollum. Bilbo’s riddle game with Gollum is the definitive moment in the film – heck, perhaps the definitive moment of the entire body of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth-based material. On a Watsonian level, everything past and future hinges on this moment. Doylistically, it touches on all the major themes of Tolkien’s work: that evil can be innocuous and beautiful, that the hand of Providence is at work, and that an act of mercy is a pivotal choice which leads directly to the destruction of the Ring.

This scene in particular was perfectly staged – not only in the reprise of the Fellowship theme and the technical skills that went into rendering Gollum’s pitifulness, but also Martin Freeman’s performance. This was the moment he won me over as Bilbo, as you can see the decision playing out on his face. Mercifully the filmmakers trust the audience to understand what’s happening, its ramifications for the future, and the significance of the event without any need to spell it out.

Tone and Continuity

The thing about The Hobbit is that it’s a children’s book in the way that The Lord of the Rings certainly isn’t, and so it has a whimsical quality to it that sits a bit uneasily beside Jackson’s vision of the trilogy. At the same time a lot of continuity is established between past and future, there’s still quite a large tonal shift between trilogy and prequel – and even within the film itself. I’m not entirely sure that cute cuddly hedgehogs and sing-songs over washing dishes belong in the same movie as terrifying albino monsters.

Which is odd since the screenwriters otherwise go to a great deal of trouble to link this film with the original ones. The opening sequence with Bilbo and Frodo is clearly set mere minutes before Gandalf turns up in The Fellowship of the Ring, what with the “no admission” sign nailed on the gate and Frodo leaving to meet Gandalf with a book in hand. Bizarre then, that the film’s most crucial moment doesn’t correlate at all with the original: the scene in which Bilbo finds the Ring.

In the prologue to The Fellowship, Bilbo (as played by Ian Holm) lifts his head from the ground, examines the ring and mutters: “what’s this, a ring?” as Galadriel’s narrative indicates that the Ring has taken this opportunity to escape Gollum, only to accidentally find itself in Bilbo’s hands. Yet here, Bilbo is hiding behind a rock, watches Gollum leave, and then picks up the Ring that has fallen from his loincloth. He doesn’t mutter: “what’s this, a ring?” and what’s more, the implication is not that the Ring accidentally came to Bilbo, but purposefully left Gollum at that precise moment so as to be found by Bilbo. For a film that is otherwise so big on continuity, it created a strange dissonance.

And of course, Gandalf’s line to Bilbo in The Fellowship, “you haven’t aged a day,” now makes no sense whatsoever. I knew it wouldn’t the moment I heard Martin Freeman was cast.

But one thing that I loved without reservation was the musical cues. Howard Shore’s score is very close to my heart, and more than anything else it was the leitmotifs that foreshadowed future events that really made tears prick my eyes. When Saruman first appears, we hear the faraway beat of Isengard, and when the Ring makes its debut, there’s the eerie refrain of Mordor to accompany it. Finally – and most beautifully – The Fellowship theme when Bilbo decides to show mercy to Gollum. As I watched I held my breath, hearing the tune drawn out and anticipating the defining note that made it complete – and when it played out the way I expected, it was perfection.

And of course, the dwarfs get their own theme, and it’s as haunting and beautiful as you’d expect. If fact, I’m posting it right here. There were genuine shivers down my spine when Thorin begins intoning/chanting/singing (it was somehow all three at once) the song of the dwarfs, and it was possibly the standout scene of the entire film.

 Mmm, ear-gasm.

There are some clichés at work in the dialogue. When Thorin says that Azog died of his wounds long ago, you know that means he’s alive and well, and when Thorin starts ragging on Bilbo after their escape from the Wargs, you know it’s just a lead-in to him proclaiming how wrong he was. As always, the dialogue is at its best when it adheres as closely as possible to Tolkien. I mean, come on! The man knew what he was doing.

Miscellaneous Observations:

I saw The Hobbit in 3-D, not by choice but because it was the only showing available at the time I wanted to go. I don’t think it heightens or detracts from the viewing experience, though there was one scene near the beginning in which a dwarf is standing on a balcony overlooking the interior of Erebor and I was annoyed because I thought someone in the theatre had stood up and was blocking the screen.

I loved the kites and toys of the children in Dale – I can’t wait to get there, though I suspect it won’t turn up till the third film.

Keeping Smaug under-wraps was understandable, but a bit eye-roll worthy. There’s a dragon desolating a mountain kingdom and we don’t get to see any of it!

Hey, it’s Bret Mackenzie from Flight of the Conchords! Okay, I was only peripherally involved in the fandom back when the original trilogy came out, so I missed all the bru-hah-hah over “Figwit” (I had to look that name up as well), so I guess it was a shout-out to the old crowd that he was not only included, but given a fairly big entrance. Given all the pomp and circumstance over his introduction (shot from behind so we don’t see his face as he slowly descends a staircase), I thought it was Elrond at first.

Rivendell is as beautiful as ever, and Bilbo’s over-the-shoulder Longing Look was a nice tie-in to his enthusiasm over returning in The Fellowship.

 

I’m a stickler for continuity, and so although some discrepancies bugged me, I enjoyed seeing a replay of “hobbit falls backwards, Ring flies from hand, hobbit raises hand, Ring glides onto finger”, first done by Frodo in The Fellowship and recaptured here with Bilbo, as well as Gandalf once again using a moth to call for the eagles' help.

The dissonance between the grotesque, bloated, monstrous visage of the goblin and his clear, eloquent demeanour was a nice touch. Casting Barrie Humphries (a.k.a. Dame Edna) for this role may have looked on paper like one of the more bizarre casting choices, but hey – it works.

No one in this franchise has aged. The young people are still young and the old people have gotten no older. It’s...a bit terrifying.

Writing this has made me want to see it again. It’s great to be back in Middle Earth.