One of the seminal events of my life was when a friend
loaned me his paperback copy of The Hobbit in Junior High. While I had read Fantasy novels before, J. R.
R. Tolkien’s story was wholly different from anything I had encountered
before. One of the first things I did,
after I finished the book and gave it back to him, was buy my own copy. Then I read it again.
Perhaps because the story remains so precious to me, I felt somewhat reluctant to see "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" in the cinema. This is nothing against Peter Jackson: I had,
for the most part, enjoyed his adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. Of all the filmmakers out there, he was the
one I most trusted to bring Tolkien’s story to the big screen. Yet I told myself not to expect too much from
the adaptation, and put off seeing it.
Sitting in the cinema, there were aspects of the movie I
loved, such as the look of Bilbo’s house and Hobbiton. I loved the way Jackson brought the dwarves
to life, giving them each their own personalities. I loved the way he way he captured the
silliness of the dwarves’ song as they hurled Bilbo’s precious plates and
saucers while they clean up after themselves.
I loved the visual scope of Bilbo, Gandalf, and the dwarves journey across
the incredible landscape of Middle Earth (which some insist is really New Zealand).
Yet, there were also aspects that kept me at a distance from
the movie as I watched it. By adding so
much to the story, it seemed as if Jackson slowed the pace to a crawl. Perhaps because I saw it in 2D, or because it
had been filmed at 48 frames per second, I felt like I was seeing too much:
every scene looked like it was taking place on a set, and refused to blend into
the background. He added extra
characters and situations that I didn’t remember, that made the movie darker,
and more in keeping with the tone of The Lord of the Rings.
But most of all, I kept on expecting certain scenes to play out a given
way, only for the characters to surprise me, and resolve the momentary conflict
in a different fashion. I couldn’t
believe my memory of those scenes was faulty: clearly Jackson was tinkering
with Tolkien’s story, changing those precious moments in a way he felt superior
for moviegoers.
How dare he tamper with Tolkienian perfection!
Although I wasn’t anxious to see it again, my wife asked for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" for her birthday. As we don’t have a 3D TV or Blu-ray player,
we watched the 2D version of the film.
With this second viewing, I found that everything I loved about the
movie remained the same, yet those aspects I had disliked faded away. The pace seemed well adjusted to the story,
and the additional scenes and characters, no doubt drawn from sources such as
The Silmarillion, blended better into the overall story. Likewise, the foregrounds and backgrounds
blended together on my smaller screen, so I no longer felt as if I were
watching actors on a physical set. Most
important, this time I found myself more accepting of the different way certain
key scenes played out (at least from the way I remember them).
I don’t know why, but sometimes aspects of a movie I
disliked at first fade away with a repeated viewing. If you love the novel, but experienced a similar reaction to "The
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" in the cinema, I suggest that you try a second viewing. Perhaps, like me, you’ll
find you enjoy it more the second time around. As for me, watching the movie again made me
want to read The Hobbit again. I don’t
think I will, because I don’t want to be comparing the novel with the second
and third films while in the cinema, but now I feel drawn to make that second attempt
at (and actually read all the way through) The Silmarillion. I also want to read
Terry Brooks’ High Fantasy novels again, like The Sword of Shannara. Ooh, and I’d also like to reread Jim C. Hines' humorous Goblin trilogy, and…
Dragon Dave
No comments:
Post a Comment