The Hobbitt

I realize that The Hobbit came out way back in 2012 and so to speak on it in an era of Twitter, etc. is to risk irrelevance right off the bat.( An observation, which has become a weird cliche of contemporary writing that is also simultaneously true. The late David Foster Wallace observed that cliches often carry within them rather salient bits of truth). I might as well be writing about whether the purchase of the Louisiana Territory was a good idea. I think we can give an unqualified yes on that one.

The additional problem with writing about a movie that you've already read numerous reviews of is that you've broken the proverbial double bind. I knew before I watched the movie that the packing scene was probably a bit long. (I should offer here that I didn't watch it with the new frame rate and don't have strong thoughts on that particular choice. A choice that seemed to fascinate and irritate most reviewers who wound up spending nearly half of their time talking about frame rates). Therefore, I couldn't be sure if my feeling that the scene was going on a bit long was my thought or one that had already been impressed upon me. (Most of our lives are lived under the edifices of such large structures, which are both omnipresent and easy to ignore). I recently read read a scientific essay that indicated patients are routinely breaking the double bind and making results virtually useless by studying the side effects ahead of time and realizing whether they are taking the placebo or the drug pretty quickly. Anyhow, the margin of error is so slight that the breaking of the double bind is essentially resulting in useless results. This does not have much to do with dragon hoards.

I'm surprised after having watched the movie just how many of the reviews were negative. It's hard not to think that people were hung up on just how good the first three movies from Peter Jackson about the Lord of  the Rings were, and then trying to extrapolate that into The Hobbit, which is different material, and also a work of art that should stand alone. I'll start out by saying the movie had three issues that certainly prevented it from being great. Firstly, the beginning scene is definitely too long. I enjoy the Master of the House sequence from Les Miserables, but I'm not sure I need to see it performed by dwarves. Is it amusing? Somewhat? Is it a useful sequence for establishing character in the movie? Not really. It just shows that Bilbo is a bit of a homeoby, which has already been established by that point. However, you wouldn't cut the whole scene altogether. It is a nice jumping off point for a journey. So, yeah, the scene was a bit long.

Second, the fellowship in this case, because it's comprised of dwarves becomes relatively indistinguishable. The only character who stands out is Thorin Oakshield. And, we have a rather painfully cinematic introduction to his story. The flashback takes place in the form of a story being told to Thorin's companions while he gazes manfully into the distance with his cloak whipping in the wind. I'm not certain why it couldn't have been told around the campfire. He would have still seemed like a hero. I didn't need the cloak whipping and brooding over a vista to ram it home. Anyhow, the biggest problem is not Jackson's but the source material. It turns out that dwarves on screen, with many of their lines cut out, wind up seeming to be roughly the same. Although, I do credit them with being more distinguishable than orcs.

The third problem with the movie was how once it escaped from the doldrums of the Shire, the company kept running into battle after battle. It prevented the audience from taking a breath, or just enjoying the landscape of New Zealand. I was fine with the creation, or reexhumation or whatever of the giant orc that is hunting for Thorin Oakshield. (Though I was a bit troubled by how often he spoke. He was constantly saying things like, "Find those dwarves, and kill them all. Drink their blood. etc." And you felt like a simple gesture to his orcs/wolf slaying machine type things would have probably gotten the point across. Like, I'm pretty sure wolf slaying machines probably could have figured out the blood thing. He turned out to be a bit of a micromanger is what I'm saying. Rewatch the movie and you'll notice it to). The problem arises when his inclusion causes other portions of the journey to become like Mr. Toad's wild Ride, which I presume is wild. For instance, the scene where the giant monoliths of stone attempt to crush one another actually turns out to look campy. It probably should have been cut. It's one of those instances where something that appeared as awesome in the book just doesn't translate. I think Jackson missed on a few moments like this. (This comment could probably have been made anyway, but with the constant narrow escapes it certainly makes you wonder why Gandalf couldn't have just called for some eagles a little earlier).

However, to harp on these minor instances is to miss the forest for the trees. New Zealand is still beautiful, and I think it's fair to say that none of us really want to see Middle Earth presented to us visually by anyone but Peter Jackson. Yes, some scenes could have been cut. The movie could probably have been whittled down to two reasonable hours. However, I wouldn't want to see the entire thing in one go.

Of course, the movie really begins to hit home when Bilbo and Gollum begin the game of riddling for survival. It is in this micro relationship between characters that an audience can feel most at home. We like our grand scenes interspersed with these smaller ones that remind us that not everything in the world is stone throwing giants. The character of Gollum is still acted and voiced incredibly well. In fact, he's probably the best actor in the movie and his inner monologue earned genuine laughs from us because he sounds almost exactly like a toddler. I think that Jackson has nailed the relationship between Gollum and the ring damn near perfectly, and that's why I'm glad the movie is in his very capable hands.

It seems almost hard to believe that so many reviewers failed to see the beauty of middle earth as Galladriel stood talking with Gandalf in the valley of falls, or the heart pounding as the orcs chases the company across the open plains, or the intensely wonderful characterization of Gollum, as fine a recurrent character as we've got going in America cinema, our less handsome James Bond, and yet they did. Yes, these movies fall short of the first three movies, but this isn't George Lucas adding Jar Jar Binks to Star Wars. It's just a movie that isn't great, but merely good.