The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

cinema, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) film

I remember going to see 'The Fellowship of The Ring' and coming out irritated at many of the changes, but I still enjoyed it as a really good film, and wanted to see it again. I, as someone that has never been a regular cinema-goer did return for another screening in which I was able to sit back and allow all the problems I had with it wash over me, and enjoy it as a film. My experience with 'The Hobbit' was similar, but also very, very different. There will be no second viewing for me to come to a detente with the wrongheaded alterations because I have no desire to see it again, and that is because, aside from the points I don't see eye to eye with Peter Jackson about, I didn't enjoy it on the most basic level: as a film. It's the opposite of my experience with 'Star Trek XI,' in which I cared so much about the characters and universe that I was so annoyed with the utter divergence from what had gone before, yet I still came out of it enjoying the experience, wanting to see it again (I also saw that twice at the cinema and bought the DVD) - it was a good (if flawed), film.

It's not like I can even cite the reason for disliking 'The Hobbit' so strongly as tearing up my childhood or some other such sentimental, hotheaded phrase, because as much as I love the book, and I always have, I didn't go into the cinema worrying about the details, whether I'd accept this or that, or if it could live up to the grand 'The Lord of The Rings.' That was always high above its precursor so I expected this to be a different proposition, a more child-friendly, simpler story, but I at least expected it to be inventive from a directorial standpoint. Having seen Jackson's other fare since 'LOTR,' I shouldn't have even had that minor anticipation - 'King Kong' was long and boring, and 'The Lovely Bones' was average to okay, a reasonable watch. Has Jackson not become a better filmmaker since overseeing the biggest film trilogy ever attempted? From the evidence I would say not, and even returning to Middle-Earth has not rejuvenated his powers, which makes me wonder if 'LOTR' was a fluke, massive, on a vast scale. If there hadn't been so many familiar names in the credits, I would have suspected the fault, or some of it, might lie with new people, unfamiliar with the world, but there was a goodly number of production staff that went on that first adventure, so they were experienced.

I ought to say something positive, and while I did have a growing negativity as the film went on, coming out with a feeling of hatred at some of it, there were parts I liked. It opened reasonably well (except I was thinking 'my, that Arkenstone looks puny!'), and it made sense to recapture some feeling of the Prologue of 'LOTR,' to get a sense of history. It's somewhat strange to get right to the location of the end of the adventure immediately, but this is a film, not a book, so it suits the format. What made me think I was going to go along with the film was seeing Ian Holm back as the old Bilbo, wonderfully set just before the party to celebrate his eleventy-first birthday. He's writing down his tale and Frodo's there - he even puts up the 'No Admittance - Except on Party Business' sign on the gate and skips off to meet Gandalf. Brilliant prequel stuff and Elijah Wood doesn't look a day older than when he last played Frodo Baggins! Amazingly, neither does Holm (and I'm not even saying that in an ironic way, considering the last time we see Bilbo in 'LOTR' he's extremely aged!), but could have stepped right off the set of 'Fellowship'!

Sadly, while you can disguise people's looks, you can't completely hide their age, and ten years can make a lot of changes to a person. The de-ageing was incredible, but I felt so sad for Holm as I heard his thick, quavery voice, struggling to talk like Bilbo used to, but sounding so very old and tired. I would be surprised to hear he wasn't all for the project, but his lines came out as if he didn't want to be there. I'm not pointing the finger at him, people do age, and I wouldn't have had it any other way than to get Holm back for Bilbo, but it was just so sad when the voice and mannerisms couldn't match what he achieved before. The same could be said for Christopher Lee as Saruman: though they did an amazing job on him (as well as Galadriel and Elrond, a real plus point for me), you couldn't hide the fact that he could barely move and his voice had little of the timbre and dignity he portrayed so wonderfully in 'Fellowship' (I always felt he wasn't as strong in the other two films). Again, it's so wonderful to have him involved, even for just the one scene, and I'm glad he's lived to be part of it. This was the real reason I was interested in seeing the film: how were they going to incorporate the 'LOTR' appendices and the wealth of information held therein.

Though Radagast the Brown was straying into Narnian territory, I rather enjoyed Sylvester McCoy's slightly potty performance - he would have made a good older Bilbo if Holm wasn't available, I think. Radagast was mentioned in the book, and came briefly into 'LOTR,' though was absent from the films, so it was about time he got some screen time, even if Gandalf is rather bemused or derogatory towards him (I was always interested in the Istari, the five wizards sent to Middle-Earth, and so I enjoyed Gandalf's reference to the two blue wizards that he couldn't remember the name of - I don't think Tolkien ever revealed the names!). Mind you, I was as bemused as Gandalf by his sleigh rides through the woods and hills, drawn by rabbits or hares. That was where I began to feel as if this was not for me, but I went with it because who's to say the wizard didn't have such a contraption and it had obviously been put in for the children, to make the 3D experience worthwhile. I should say I saw this in 2D, having no interest in 3D films, because it should be the story and character that appeals, not the quality of the fairground ride. Radagast even got his own brief mission to Dol Guldur where he has a half-hearted sword fight with the ghost of the Witch-King of Angmar for some reason (oh yes, I remember, it was so Gandalf could give the sword as proof - why not simply have Radagast find it at the fortress?).

Sad to say it, it was as early as the Trolls scene that the film began to lose me. The point of that in the book was that Bilbo was sent into a dangerous situation by the dwarves, his first moment of forced courage. He's partly to blame and partly the hero for his fellow travellers ending up in sacks, but, I suppose because they'd built up Thorin and his kin as more noble, these versions wouldn't have sent Bilbo off alone, he's barely referred to as a burglar, and the central idea that Bilbo is there to make up the fourteenth member, because the Dwarves are suspicious and don't want to go on an adventure with thirteen isn't, mentioned once! Fair enough, I can understand the desire to try and bring the story up to the grand and sweeping style of 'LOTR' from what is a children's story, so they have him end up in the troll camp in a different way. Fine. What I objected to was Gandalf, though he rescues them by splitting a rock apart and letting the dawn shine through, never showed his cunning (it's back to the bumbling, harumphing portrayal Ian McKellen so favoured from 'LOTR,' instead of the shrewd, sharp-tongued old man of the books), in recreating the trolls' voices and getting them to argue with each other until light breaks through. So that takes away the cleverness of the scene, but most importantly it was a loss for Bilbo to be so in control (they didn't even do the burra-hobbit line justice - now he's a burglar-hobbit!).

What irritated me was that though throughout the film the makers evoked 'LOTR,' specifically 'Fellowship,' they messed up simple things that had been set down in that film: in the Special Extended version of 'Fellowship' they locate the trolls and mention Bilbo's adventure, and we see the trolls twisted into forms that look caught in argument with one troll pointing down at something as if it's a dwarf, or Bilbo, but for some reason they went out of their way to alter what you'd expect, so that the trolls are seizing up and that's how they end up in those positions, thus meaning that the book version of the trolls being caught out is taken out and this version where a rock is snapped open, prevails. So they were undoing some of the good of the earlier films' attempt to put back some of the book narrative.

The attempt to sit the film with 'LOTR' had to be done in some way, as it's what's expected and it's part of the same world, but it means the film doesn't have its own voice enough - there wasn't the inventiveness of shots, such as the slide down Orthanc in 'Fellowship' - we have some similar shots following the dwarves as they fall through the crack to the goblin kingdom, but it has none of the panache and so many times it felt like mere padding, these mindless action moments, with orcs or goblins versus dwarves. Examples of visual or thematic ties are: the dwarves running from orcs, a shot meant to tribute Arwen's escape of the Black Riders across the plain, in what was an invented, yet superb visualisation of that scene in 'Fellowship,' but this has none of that power and makes you think of better things; there's also Thorin ridiculously rushing back to attack Azog when caught on the treetops - aside from his foolishness he's thrown around and the Gandalf falling to his doom evocation is strong and un-called for; there's an enemy to be avoided and fought, just like the film-created character of Lurtz, with a final showdown at the end, which isn't resolved so, ooh, look forward to the rematch next time (not). They don't even bother to work in the story point of the goblins gathering to make war on the woodmen, which seems like an obvious film story way to go - maybe it will be addressed in the sequel, but it should have come here.

One of my biggest problems was an actual disappointment. As I said, I didn't really have any expectations, but when I learned Howard Shore had either patched up his differences with Jackson, or they'd found a way to get round it, I was thrilled to think of a whole new soundtrack in the 'LOTR' style. Such a wonder team couldn't go wrong, could they? Films are fitted with a temp track during editing to get an idea of the mood needed for the music and pacing of it all. I felt like they'd just used the themes from 'LOTR' and then decided to leave them there for the completed film, because the only new one that stood out to me was the main dwarvish trumpet theme, heroic and most satisfactory, well suited to them. All the rest seemed so unoriginal, and it's something sequels have had to contend with forever: how do you make the same, but different. You'd think 'LOTR' having come out a decade ago, and the sequels having introduced striking new themes each time, that this wouldn't have been a problem and Shore would have done something different, though in the same world of music.

I will concede that the dwarf singing was one of the best and truest moments to the book and I was so pleased the washing up song or the dwarves singing about their gold, etc, was successfully brought in, even if the end credits song was a nothing and in no way came close to equalling 'May It Be' or 'Into The West.' But this story didn't have the same mythical impact as it's big brother. It's a simple adventure tale. So what I can't understand is how difficult they made it to be able to tell the story, how many needless changes they made that actually, really did make the story have less impact. Look at the famous riddle sequence. Yes, they had the riddles, they didn't skirt over it as they might have if they were only concerned with action, and for that I should be grateful, but how badly can you miss chances for dramatic tension and visual mood with a story so clear-cut and so well told? Instead of having his nightmare about the back of the cave wall opening up, we have Bilbo deciding to head back to Rivendell. For one thing the real Bilbo wouldn't have had the forethought to do something so bold (not at this stage in the story anyway), and they could have done something really creepy with a sequence that is suddenly revealed to be reality. Instead, the cave floor cracks open and the dwarves fall down, not into tunnels, but rope-bridge strung cavernous spaces.

The king of the goblins was awfully played, with another stereotypical posh English voice. The big event of his head being cut off never happened, with Gandalf tapping off some other minion's head with the merest touch of his sword. It was all to showcase another pointless action scene for 3D to 'wow' the audience as people slide or drop or jump from bridge to bridge. It bored me - action for action's sake, with none of the character of the dwarves pursued into the depths of the mountain and Bilbo finding the ring. Such an iconic moment! Messed up so entirely! They did it better in a Prologue scene in 'Fellowship' which was truer to the printed word than this achieved. And I know what some people will say: this is all Bilbo's explanation so he could have (and did, originally), embellish the details. We know that inconsistencies were explained away between the books of 'The Hobbit' and 'LOTR' by Tolkien saying that Bilbo didn't tell the whole truth initially, and that's a great explanation for things appearing differently in this, but it wouldn't endear me to the film at all, and by this point I was beginning to hate it.

I realised, perhaps for the first time, with a clear insight that I hate Andy Serkis' (or Jackson's, or the conglomeration of everyone making decisions in that area) version of Gollum. I wanted to laugh aloud ironically as I heard people around me chuckling at the sweet little Gollum and his 'antics'. I never liked what they did with Gollum in 'LOTR,' but there was so much talk about the technical triumph of the creation and the love between the cast, and the universal praise, that it's taken many years to come to this understanding. They thought they were doing something brilliantly creative by having him play two halves of a split personality, but it takes away the relationship with the ring. It wasn't himself, but the ring he always spoke to. As for those gorgeous blue eyes, it makes me want to retch (just as Gollum always does with coughing splutter of his name, instead of what should have been: a gulping sound), and it was never his cute looks that gave Bilbo pity on him, but his wretchedness. It takes these well-crafted passages and empties them of all tension in exchange for basic humour.

I have nothing against laughing, there were even some moments I snorted at in this film, but I am totally fed up with the loss of reverence or seriousness in the face of adversity, and so the loss of tension, in so many films of the modern era. It happened in 'Mission: Impossible 4,' 'Star Trek XI,' so many superhero films… Just be serious at a dangerous moment, please! Make your character look worried, don't be taking the mickey at every opportunity because it doesn't make for heroic moments! I've not mentioned the much talked of 48 frames per second thing yet, because, whether it was the inferior visual quality of my local Vue (most likely, as I believe you has to see it in IMAX for the effect to work), or the fact that adding extra pictures doesn't actually do anything for a film that you can notice, it didn't ever become apparent. Except perhaps Gollum's lair. I didn't like the set for a start, all cramped and looking like a set - again Gollum's presence is lost to cutesy wittle half-hobbitses, precious, and even his big emotional moment of crying out in pain and fear at the loss of his ring, done well in 'Fellowship,' was ruined. He doesn't go back to his island to find the ring, nor does he have the presence you'd expect from a pitiful, treacherous creature existing so long in darkness and pain. The Gollum from 'The Hobbit' is a different proposition than in 'LOTR' - he's less amenable, nastier, grimmer. But because people know and 'love' the cute version, that's all we see. Bilbo isn't even shown finding the ring as he is, correctly, in 'LOTR,' it just bounces out of Gollum's, um, rag, and Bilbo grabs it. No drama.

I didn't see why it was necessary to give the dwarves an ongoing adversary in the form of old foe Azog, except the need to drag the tale out. If you can get 'LOTR' into three films, losing so much, and changing things to fit, how can you use the same excuse to fill out a far tinier book into the same amount of space. This should have been no more than two films, and maybe even condensed into one, and this is coming from someone who was excited at the prospect of more than two. I was pleased and happy, I thought they were going to do it right, and even though I didn't have expectations to be met, I felt sure of a good ride even if I didn't agree with 'creative' decisions. In fact it was the film itself being either pointless or ridiculously lessened by choices that made no sense to me, and simply not being an enjoyable film to watch. It wasn't like it even dragged on, but I was finding myself hoping it would end soon because I was seeing only things that didn't make sense or had no meaning for me. It was all artificially building up to an ending because they'd foolishly split up the story into three parts and needed an arc to end. So it became about Bilbo proving himself to Thorin, but instead of using his Hobbit abilities of carefulness and his wise old head, he becomes Action Baggins, 'saving' Thorin from Azog and the Wargs. I always hated the hyena-like Wargs in 'LOTR,' and at least these were more wolflike, but by then I wasn't taking anything in a positive light, I just wanted to finish and not return.

So I will not be paying to see the next film, that's the conclusion. On aggregate I can't say I hated the film, because there were things to like, but the storm of a failed narrative that made me feel dead inside was the overriding impression from the experience and made me even less interested in going to the cinema (and paying the exorbitant prices) in future.

A few last minute thoughts to round off this missive of woe: why was Gandalf's fire not blue as it was supposed to be? Why not even the slightest mention of the dwarves' superstitiousness? How is it that Gandalf can send a moth and it will fly at supersonic speeds in time to bring the eagles rushing every time, like an ancient 999 call? At least the orcs and goblins were differentiated, as that was a point I was wondering about. Why create an inflated action sequence with the company leaping from stone giant to stone giant in the storm? Not longer are the giants out to have fun, they're belting each other into tiny pieces, more like a wrestling match than the oblivious play of a huge race! Why? For action's sake I spit my last dwarf at you! And it said at the end that no animals were harmed in the making of this film, but what about snails? Only joking, but even that last shot with the sound of the thrush knocking a snail against the mountainside and the sound penetrating right into the deep, was silly. Surprisingly I didn't mind the dwarves too much, which was something I was suspecting I might find irritating, so a plus point there, but no compromising, this was a painfully average film, only fit for those that don't care about the book or those that can still be impressed by simpleton action scenes: should have been called 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Travesty.'

**