The Hobbit (1 of 3): Movie Notes





I actually saw The Hobbit (part 1) while it was still on its first run (thanks, friend Linda). The defining word for the film? Action. All over, all the time. I got a bit worn out with some of the hyper-extended chases, escapes, and battles. The scene of escape from the caves had at least six times when you thought Gandalf and the dwarfs were out, only to have some additional peril appear.

Then there were the thirteen dwarfs. Yes, the make-up geniuses Jackson works with did make each one look distinctly different from the others. But why? They functioned as a sort of belching and farting Greek chorus, almost always acting together as a clump. A running (and telling) gag was Gandalf counting the dwarfs after each battle “ten…eleven…twelve…” He didn’t call them by name. Who could? (OK, Jake Shapiro probably could.) I hope that over the course of parts 2 and 3, the dwarfs will differentiate in a meaningful (not just cosmetic) way.

That’s about it for criticism, though.

The movie had several saving graces. The primary one was the spectacular film-making--whether it was soaring and majestic aerial shots or painstakingly real filming of miniatures. The movie is gorgeous, wonderfully lit and put together, seamless. Seamlessness is important because I know (from watching hours of extras on the extended version DVDs) that Jackson’s movies are a collage of live action filming, miniatures, computer-generated effects, maquettes, puppets, and motion-capture. The blend is superb. Even my awareness of Jackson’s techniques did not detract. The Hobbit is, indeed, a coherent visual and textural world.

An equally primary saving grace is Martin Freeman as Bilbo--an inspired choice. Freeman underacts Bilbo, making him a foil for the gauchery of the dwarfs. He plays us, places us in the action. His hesitancy is our hesitancy, which makes his bravery also our bravery. Freeman is not derivative of any previous Hobbit character, but plays Bilbo fresh and strong. I can’t wait to see him in the next two parts of the story.

A third grace is the development (backwards!) and presentation of Gollum. He is the other side of Bilbo--the other character that we relate to. Bilbo is that part of ourselves we are proud of; Gollum is who we all worry that we might be. The fact that there’s a strong measure of Gollum in all of us makes this character powerful and compelling. And the combination of puppetry, cgi, motion capture and actual acting (thank you, Mr. Sirkis) is amazing--and invisible. Gollum is authentic as a living being.

Gandalf was a bit muggy, repeating almost exactly certain facial expressions used in the LOTR movies. He is used a bit much in this film I seem to recall from the book that he was somewhat absent. I compared him to Aslan, who is more present as an idea in the Chronicles of Narnia than as an actual character.

And Galadriel makes an appearance. Nicely done. I believed in her, added a scene with her into my memories of the book.

So, this was a great movie. My only problem was with the relentless pace of the action. I needed a few more platforms to rest upon. When (not if) I see The Hobbit again, I’ll see how it feels. I’ll be able to relax a bit more and trust my filmmaker. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for another beautiful film.
　

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, by J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the third book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the fourth of the books set in Middle Earth.

Once again, I was drawn into Middle Earth as if it were a real place, one that is now part of my personal and historical past. It is as compelling as Camelot or Shangri-la, and other "lost time" fantasies. And much more.

There is such a gritty reality to the Rings trilogy. Nothing is clean in this book--all are tainted by the bitter fumes of the dark lord. Light is fading in almost every regard: the sky is darkening; people move through foul caves and tunnels; people subsume their identities in disguises; in this book, all are moving toward the final war against the Eye. Frodo can no longer see the Shire, can no longer remember the taste of bread or the smell of new-mown grass in the fields.

The lost city of Shangri-la

Frodo and Sam face gruesome, soul-wrenching ordeals as they stagger toward Mordor bearing the weight of the ring--Shelob the spider, orcs, the creature Gollum, Nazgul, heat,  starvation, molten rock, and the utter hopelessness of their quest. Pippen waits with Gandalf at the doomed city of Gondor, watching insanity spread as the enemy gathers its forces. Merry rides with the Rohirrim, but disguised and in secret with Eowyn, riding toward war and certain doom. All of his friends are fighting. He must fight for them. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas take the pathways of the dead…Aragorn’s faith in himself is tested; he is royal or he is dead. And, if the dead do not follow him, the war against evil is lost.

The most moving part of the book, to me, comes after the battle of Peleanor, when it is clear that the titanic battle that was a grueling victory for the West was a mere skirmish for the Eye. His forces are vast and he will defeat the good, if battle is the method of attack. The forces gather in council. Should they strengthen defenses and die in a few months, or ride out to the attack now and die quickly, Aragorn asks. In this state of hopelessness, the council decides to have faith in Frodo and Sam. If men will be wiped out, they will be wiped out creating a distraction that takes the Eye away from Frodo and the ring, which are secretly in Sauron's very stronghold. Aragorn's men agree to sacrifice their own lives for the future of all. This is a decision of great beauty.

An image of Camelot

This book was full of fear and battle, wounding and battle. The way Tolkien sets up the victory at Pelannor and then snatches it away made the doom so much more real. I felt a glissando of sheer terror at that moment, horror and loss. And I felt all the more resolute when Aragorn led his army into action and into certain death. I was right with them.

Yes, the Rings books are more in the endless procession of guy-bonding books that so fill the fantasy and science fiction genre. In this book, Eowyn is the only woman who has any role whatsoever--but her character is fully developed--more so even than in the movie. She channels her heartbreak over Aragorn’s dismissal of her love into valor. And her role is essential to the victory—her killing of King Angmar of the Dark Riders is marvelous symbolism and drama. And then she gets a wonderful gentle romance with Faramir in the Houses of Healing. I loved that. She must come into her true power before love can enter her life.

Middle Earth

But the Halflings are the true heroes of the story. Their courage, loyalty, wit, and charm are terrific. They are more fully developed for me now that I have such a familiarity with both the movies and books. They show that danger, fear, hunger (and the unknown in general) only strengthen the pure in heart. In fact, that is the hero journey for most of the principal characters--good and bad. How will you respond when the rug is jerked out from under your life, when the feces hits the fan, when you are truly and utterly lost? What will guide you through the dark? What is your light of Elendial? The characters of these books will show you many different strategies for coping. And they demonstrate courage over and over.

I had to include at least one photo of Viggo Mortensen as
Aragorn, the returned king of the title.

I highly recommend Tolkien for junior high school age and up. They are truly beautiful and rich. However, not everyone can read fantasy, so you don't "have" to read them and you don't "have" to see the movies. But, please, at least once, give them a try.

As soon as I finished reading the Tolkien titles on my list, I started reading books by Mark Twain. Switching over to Tom Sawyer has given me mental whiplash. I switched from the sound of ancient sagas being told by candlelight to Twain’s tall-tale-teller voice. I can almost hear him chuckling at his own wry jokes. Still, Tom Sawyer is also a quest story, and holds up well in that genre in its own way. Frodo bearing the ring and Tom bearing the pansy…hmmm.


There's some weird stuff out there. For sermons and essays on LOTR, try:
www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/the-lord-of-the-rings-sermon-series...

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring/study-guide/

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, by J.R.R. Tolkien

The Lord of the Rings series takes place in
fivedimensions--length, width,
depth, time, and emotion

Before I write about The Two Towers, I need to go back to Fellowship of the Ring. I note that the last actions of the book are the ones I discuss in my blog. And this brings up the issue of time. The early parts of Fellowship, Bilbo’s birthday, the transfer of the ring, Bree, and even Rivendell seemed like actions from a distant world by the time I got Frodo and Sam to Emyn Muil. I did not address Hobbiton, or even Moria. I’ve read many books where I experienced a sense of travel and of alternate reality, but with no others do I sense the passage of eons of time. This 4-D experience is part of the magic of the whole series. And at the middle of Fellowship, I feel sad to think of the beginning of the book and at the end I feel sad about the middle and feel like the beginning was a beautiful dream. And that is the fifth dimension—the journey of heart and feelings.

In The Two Towers, we go through the search for Merry and Pippin and their perilous journey. This is a story arc from grim to grimmer to victory, concluding with the victory at Helm’s Deep and the influveance (made up that word) of Isengard. The tree people play a stronger role in the book than in the movie. They are much more developed as a culture and as personalities. Merry and Pippin spent the early part of the journey relatively untouched by the strangeness they saw around them and by the seriousness of the quest. But with Treebeard et al., they start to learn and discover perspective. They even grow physically (quite symbolic!). They grow into their roles in the fellowship. They engage in battle at Isengard. Go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0QSg5f1Kk for a deleted scene between Treebeard and Merry and Pippin.

The Edoras/Helm’s Deep sequence is very much a battle story, as it should be. Slim chance of victory. Nick of time rescue. The Elves do not show up in the book (although they were a masterful stroke in the movie), but the woodlands of middle earth, mustered by Tom Bombidil, play a key role. In the background is the knowledge that Sam and Frodo are out there somewhere…and the second half of the book takes us on their journey. We wonder if Aragorn will ever step forward and claim the authority that is his birthright.

Frodo and Sam are struggling through Emyn Muil, up and down spiked hills, rappelling off of cliffs, and joining forces with Gollum. Gollum is not preposterous. And I do pity him, as Frodo was advised to do by Bilbo and Gandalf. He has lost a dream and there is nothing sadder than that, even if the dream had no chance of fruition. As I noted above, I felt very much that I was moving through space and time. The journey would sound boring if I stated it step-by-step here, but it wasn’t boring in the reading. Go to the website http://www.serkis.com/lord-of-the-rings-movie.htm for more information on Gollum's role in the story.

The book ends abruptly, highlighting the fact that the trilogy is not three books. It’s not even a trilogy, structurally. It’s one book in three volumes because it is too long to print and bind as one volume. Tolkien has total hold of me right now. I’m starting Return of the King in a few minutes. But, I’ll hate to say goodbye to these books.