{"id":67649,"date":"2012-12-27T06:09:50","date_gmt":"2012-12-27T11:09:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/?p=67649"},"modified":"2012-12-27T20:12:50","modified_gmt":"2012-12-28T01:12:50","slug":"thomas-monteath-critiques-an-unexpected-journey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/2012\/12\/27\/67649-thomas-monteath-critiques-an-unexpected-journey\/","title":{"rendered":"Thomas Monteath critiques An Unexpected Journey"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.<\/figcaption><\/figure> The Hobbit would be better subtitled ‘Great Expectations’ rather than ‘An Unexpected Journey’, given the spectacular triple-act it follows, and the accumulated anticipation in the near decade since the Oscar-sweeping The Return of the King<\/b>. This presents a problem for judging the film, for we are none of us objective. Comparisons with the original trilogy are inevitable, and thus before we even look at the intrinsic merits of the latest addition to Jackson’s Middle-earth adaptations, we need to be aware of how much we take for granted in coming to this new trilogy, and thus how our critical faculties are skewed. <\/p>\n

It’s easy to forget just what a feat it was to bring Tolkien to the screen at all, imbued not only with plausibility, but also mass appeal. We’ve become used to the idea that three foot six inch tall Hobbits can be relatable heroes, that four foot five inch Dwarves can be fearsome warriors, and wizards with pointy hats can have gravitas. This was not always so. I distinctly remember feeling a tension, as the lights dimmed in a Montreal movie theatre on 19 December 2001: as a Tolkien aficionado, I was terrified the first sighting of Frodo, or Gandalf, would elicit guffaws of derision from the uninitiated in the audience. Eleven years on, we tend to forget just how much of the Fellowship of the Ring\u2019s acclaim was for its ability to make fantasy work at all. The Hobbit is just as remarkable a feat, yet because we know it has been achieved before, it\u2019s inevitable it won\u2019t be given its due. Jackson is competing against himself, without the advantage of true originality that the original films had in spades by dint of coming first. <\/p>\n

The new film also suffers from d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu, and not simply in the return of a number of characters from the original trilogy. The journey taken largely matches that in Fellowship: it begins in Hobbiton, travels via the Trollshaws, stops in Rivendell for a Council, and then climbs up the Misty Mountains (in a storm, no less), before descending beneath them (where Goblins are encountered), only to climax in a battle in a forest with large orcs. The parallels are clear to anyone who has seen The Fellowship of the Ring<\/b>. This is a problem about which the filmmakers can do little, for it is what Tolkien wrote. <\/p>\n

What’s more, The Hobbit<\/B> is a book that is virtually unfilmable. This is largely because it was written in 1937, in an era when a writer would have been far less influenced (if influenced at all) by the tropes, structures and cliches of film, things that inform the very fabric of more modern works of fantasy, from Harry Potter to Game of Thrones, where the writers seem to be writing a story that they are watching on a big screen in their imaginations. Tolkien, by contrast, lingers on whimsy, riddles, idiosyncratic dialogues, and gives little focus to action and adventure. This approach represents a challenge to a film adaptation for three main reasons. <\/p>\n

A formidable challenge to adapt…<\/h3>\n

First, whereas The Lord of the Rings<\/b> had a central cast of nine, made up of multiple races, The Hobbit is lumbered with a core male cast of 15. Thirteen of these are of the same race, short, bearded, and — by human standards — ugly. Such a huge and undifferentiated group of protagonists was always going to present a problem for adaptation, and was the main reason why Jackson was so reluctant to take it on in the first place. Many reviews of the new film have noted how the Dwarves remain undeveloped and impossible to tell apart. Yet this is actually in keeping with the book, where few of them are given distinct personalities. There is no need to foreground them all in the story. They are, for the most part, Thorin’s retinue, and are treated as such.<\/p>\n

Second, the episodic nature of the story does not translate well to film, as it is, for the most part ‘one damn thing after another’, and lacks a clear antagonist throughout, let alone a deeper purpose, beyond reclaiming gold from a dragon. In light of this, it is entirely understandable that the filmmakers have taken liberties with the plot, creating a sub-plot involving Azog, who pursues the Company throughout the first film, and the broader context of the rise of the Necromancer. <\/p>\n

(As an aside, the combination of these three things — its episodic nature, the need for clear antagonists to facilitate more immediate drama, and the need for a deeper purpose to give it a broader dramatic context — is what accounts for a trilogy of films. If the adaptation had been a single film, whole iconic episodes would have had to be excised; if it were two films, perhaps all could have been included, but their treatment would have had to be perfunctory, and there would have been little room for character development. Thus three films is understandable, and particularly as it allows the layering in of crucial dramatic tension, and for connective tissue to be inserted to align it with the original trilogy.)<\/p>\n

Third, the book is full of what would appear, from a cinematic perspective, to be anti-climaxes. Gandalf\u2019s dispatching of the trolls and the Great Goblin appears to be deus ex machina<\/i>, as does the arrival of the eagles; Smaug is killed by Bard, a character who has not been previously introduced; the Battle of the Five Armies happens while Bilbo is unconscious. <\/p>\n

Bearing all this in mind — that Jackson is competing against himself and lacks the wild card of originality, in addition to dealing with a book that little lends itself to a screen adaptation — The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a triumph, albeit one that is bound to be perpetually under-appreciated. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A problematic structure…<\/h3>\n

All that being said, Jackson doesn’t do himself many favours, due to a number of problems with the story structure, particularly the invented or ‘appendices’ material, and special effects.<\/p>\n

First, with regard to the story structure, there is evidence throughout of poor judgement and lazy writing. The most obvious is the Radagast sub-plot, which feels last minute, half-hearted, and ill-conceived, being underdeveloped, somewhat incongruous and ultimately redundant. Those who know their Tolkien geography will scratch their heads at how Radagast evidently travelled from Mirkwood to the Trollshaws in seemingly no time. Even those unfamiliar with Tolkien will raise their eyebrows at how he simply chanced across Gandalf and the Company as he does. Furthermore, given this interaction was wholly invented by the filmmakers, it seems like a distinctly tortuous way of getting the Morgul-blade from Dol Guldur into Gandalf’s hands, and an unnecessary one, as there were clearly two alternatives that didn’t involve Radagast. <\/p>\n

One is immediately obvious. Given that Tolkien writes that Gandalf received the map and the key to Erebor from Thrain, Thorin’s father, in the pits of Dol Guldur, the filmmakers could well have shown this scene in flashback at Bag End — and then at the White Council in Rivendell, shown an extension of that flashback that Gandalf hadn’t revealed to the Dwarves, explaining how, during the same trip to Dol Guldur, Gandalf discovered the Morgul-blade, or at least a hint of a resident evil. <\/p>\n

The other alternative is one I\u2019d noted in previous features<\/a> here on TheOneRing.net — one that would have seen the Company detour through the Barrow-downs on the journey from Hobbiton to the Trollshaws, and then discover the Morgul-blade there. <\/p>\n

Combined with having perhaps noted some evil presence at Dol Guldur, this would constitute sufficient evidence to call the White Council to Rivendell. It would have avoided the geographically implausible and dead-weight of the Radagast sub-plot. It would also avoid the inconsistency with the original trilogy that the Radagast sub-plot required: to get the Morgul-blade, Radagast is attacked by a Ringwraith, who is inexplicably visible to him. In The Lord of the Rings, Ringwraiths are only visible to the ring-bearer. The entire Radagast sub-plot was stunningly poorly conceived, especially given the obvious, more plausible, and more dramatic alternatives. <\/p>\n

There were other poorly-judged bits of the story. Azog was a rather bland stock villain, and his final ‘showdown’ with Thorin was anti-climactic, as they did not in fact have a show-down. Thorin was savaged by Azog’s warg, and then another orc attempted to behead him. What would have worked better would have been for Thorin to have killed the White Warg, leading Azog to dismount, and fight Thorin hand to hand. Azog could then have cast Thorin from the rock outcrop, as the Dwarves watched helplessly from beyond the fire. But Thorin could then have been caught by an Eagle as he fell, thereby allowing him to escape Azog. In short, this ‘climax’ was poorly choreographed, and Azog, in failing to dismount and attack Thorin, came across as divorced from the action, and thus less fearsome. <\/p>\n

The Stone Giants sequence was quite overblown, and lacking in the Whimsy of the book, where they are viewed at a distance; the changes in the Great Goblin\u2019s death were unnecessary. Furthermore, some of the dialogue was also poorly conceived: Ori’s ‘jacksy’ comment was odd rather than funny. It would have been funnier if he had instead got as far as ‘we’ll stick ‘im right up his…’ only to be cut off by Dori. The burping scene, again involving Ori, was also unnecessary, particularly given the Dwarves were mostly 150 year olds, not teenagers. The Great Goblin’s one liner was far too close to jumping the shark. <\/p>\n

Great and not-so-great FX<\/h3>\n

Second, while the special effects were on the whole a wonder to behold, and among them some of the most convincing ever put on film, there were moments where some of the effects looked distinctly unfinished. <\/p>\n

The rendering of CGI fur remains a real weak point, although it is certainly the case that it looked much better in 48fps than 24fps. But in light of this, it was an odd decision to introduce CGI rabbits and hedgehogs, not to mention expanding the role of the wargs, which looked little better rendered than those in The Two Towers<\/b>. <\/p>\n

In keeping with Radagast being the weakest link in the film — perhaps the weakest in all four movies so far — the CGI scenes of his sled being pursued by wargs on the open moorland were so badly-done one wonders if they were ‘pre-vis’ animation. The sled was weightless when cornering, appearing to be moving without reference to the terrain, and as if it were in fast-forward. Laughable. Awful. <\/p>\n

There were some effects that were clearly missing. In 48fps, one could clearly make out that, when they are surrounded by horses in Rivendell, the Dwarves were the scale doubles. It’s surprising no face-replacement CGI was done here. But the worst omission was worthy of Michael Bay. On Gandalf’s appearance in Goblin Town, the Great Goblin cries out something like ‘He has the Goblin-Cleaver, as bright as day!’ Yet when the camera cuts to Gandalf, his sword is not glowing. Similarly, when the Company are attacked by the Wargs and Orcs in the pine forest at the film’s climax, Bilbo’s sword is also not glowing. This is a clear oversight, and perhaps speaks of how rushed the film’s final edit was. I don’t remember Thorin’s elvish sword glowing at any point in the film, either. <\/p>\n

Some other minor effects gripes: the Necromancer was poorly designed, with a face like a black version of the Scary Movie mask. Indeed his appearance was arguably unnecessary (again, this was part of the Radagast sub-plot), and at any rate, giving him a visualisation takes away much of the suspense and mystery. Finally, in 48fps, the rain in some scenes looked decidedly fake, as it was clearly not falling on the Company’s faces, particularly when they were travelling through the forest prior to the Trollshaws. <\/p>\n

The large set-piece action scenes occasionally felt derivative and rather lazily conceived, particularly at 24 fps. Jackson, and Weta-digital, could do with reining in their tendency to indulge in what I like to term ‘ham-CGI’ — computer-generated scenes involving overblown scale to the point where all emotional resonance is lost. Such scenes often involve unrealistic physics, and coincide with showing things that would probably be better left as mere suggestion. Such overblown scenes of course exist in the original Rings trilogy: think of The Watcher in the Water being given a body and face, rather than being simply tentacles, as in the book; the orcs down-climbing the columns in Moria without any handholds; or the ‘washing-up liquid’ army of the dead surging up the tiers of Minas Tirith. In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, such scenes include the entire sequence with the Stone Giants, the long ‘theme park’-style slide into Goblin Town from the cave, and the collapse of the platform following the death of the Great Goblin. Such scenes add nothing to the films, and are actually quite alienating. Just as Hollywood has embraced ‘realistic’ acting in the last few decades, following the hammy over-acting of the pre-Brando era, CGI is still awaiting its revolution from overstatement to understatement. The Hobbit shows it is possible, with Gollum, but Jackson still has one foot firmly in ham-CGI, where pigs still fly. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The 48fps vs 24fps debate<\/h3>\n

So having taken into account the film’s handicaps, and weighed in on its failings, it is time to address its successes. But to do this, one really must first talk about 24fps vs 48 fps. <\/p>\n

I first saw the film in 24fps. I thought the first half was fantastic, being mostly dialogue and character driven. The seams began to show, and suspension of disbelief began to sag, from the moment they left the trolls’ cave. This corresponded with the shift to a special effects-driven story. <\/p>\n

At 48fps, most of the non-action scenes in the first half, particularly the scenes in Bag End, were stripped of dramatic resonance. Interestingly, the humorous bits fell flat at 48fps, and just seemed goofy. There does not seem to be a clear rule regarding when 48fps works or not. Rather, it seems to be something that needs to be decided scene by scene. For instance, while the Dwarves’ dinner in Bag End didn’t work in 48fps, it did work in the opening scene with Old Bilbo and Frodo. Going outdoors, while 48fps didn’t work for the scene where Bilbo catches up with the Dwarves and the wagers are settled, it did work for the scene where Balin recounts to the Company Thorin’s heroics at the Battle of Azanulbizar. <\/p>\n

In light of this, my view is the 24fps vs 48fps debate is a false dichotomy, because they are not in fact mutually exclusive formats. In fact, they are not ‘formats’ at all, but rather tools, much as 3D is a tool. While the Hobbit is presented in 3D, not all of the film is actually 3D — the technology is used sparingly. Jackson should do the same with 48fps. According to one cinematographer, with digital filmmaking, it is possible to have some scenes in 24fps and others in 48fps, and should in fact be possible to have some parts of the screen itself in 48fps (say, the background), while the characters in close-up in the foreground are displayed at 24fps. Hopefully, Jackson will adopt this approach in the next films, and refit this first movie accordingly. For 48fps is fantastic for wide shots and battle scenes, and even some more intimate scenes, but it should not be seen or used as a be-all-and-end-all. It should be used like 3D — sparingly, and as appropriate to the scene. <\/p>\n

Overall, the directing of The Hobbit is inconsistent, with Jackson appearing to struggle to balance his own inner Smeagol and Gollum. Jackson is at his best directing character-driven scenes, especially the largely (at 24fps) outstanding opening scenes at Bag End. Along with the Riddles in the Dark sequence, these were the highlights of the film. He is also fantastic at the great epic scenes, such as in the prologue, and the battle in Goblin Town. His weakness lies in the middle ground and the transitional scenes that require a balancing of character and action. These were less of a problem in The Lord of the Rings, if a problem at all, which suggests he may simply be rusty. No doubt he’ll be back on his game for the second film, especially given he has far more time to edit it. An Unexpected Journey was perhaps always going to be the film that suffered from sub-par editing and unfinished effects, given that it was coming out within months of completing principal photography for the whole trilogy, and given the announcement of two films becoming three only months before the premiere. <\/p>\n

In light of this, the criticisms outlined above should certainly not be seen as condemnatory. If anything, they are an implicit testament to how high the Lord of the Rings trilogy set the bar. But we need to remember that The Fellowship of the Ring, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, are different animals, and should be judged as such. While the former is, to my mind, gripping in the way history can be, the latter is interesting in the way of art. Where The Fellowship of the Ring had emotional resonance and was a sturdy, weighty bit of fantasy filmmaking, this first Hobbit film leaves an impression on the imagination, and feels springy and light. Where Fellowship was a journey, An Unexpected Journey feels like a trip. Its flaws aside, it is worth the price of entry. Twice, at least, and preferably in both 24 and 48fps. And there was enough good work to suggest that the next two films should be even better. <\/p>\n

GRADE: B (As we all remember from school, that’s still a pass) <\/p>\n

About the author<\/b><\/p>\n

Thomas Monteath is a life-long Tolkien aficionado, who still believes \u2013- with apologies to the excellent Andy Serkis -\u2013 that the finest Gollum was Peter Woodthorpe in the BBC\u2019s 1981 Radio adaptation. In real life he is an academic in the UK, who can on occasion be found propping up the bar at the Eagle & Child.<\/p>\n

These opinions in this article are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of TheOneRing.net or its staff. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Hobbit would be better subtitled ‘Great Expectations’ rather than ‘An Unexpected Journey’, given the spectacular triple-act it…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":92,"featured_media":65130,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[499,7,4,74,148],"tags":[1788],"class_list":["post-67649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hobbit-movie-characters","category-hobbit-book","category-hobbit-movie","category-jackson","category-hobbit","tag-library"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/HobbitPosters.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1tLoH-hB7","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/92"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67649"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67649\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":67739,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67649\/revisions\/67739"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65130"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.theonering.net\/torwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}