thoughts on the two hobbits (part 1)

There is a big difference between a movie being “based on real events” and being “inspired by real events.” If a movie is based on real events, it tries it’s best to stay faithful to the original story and plot, without changing characters and  being very limited in its use of creative license. A movie inspired by true events will take a story and add new plot details and characters around it to make it more box office friendly.

The same could be said about movie adaptations of books and comics. Fans of the original works are always quick to point out the inconsistencies between the print on the page and the images on the screen.

Peter Jackson’s latest Hobbit adventure is inspired by the book. Somehow through two movies, almost six hours of film has not been enough to accurately tell Tolkien’s shortest book of the saga. However, I’m not here to dwell on the differences between the book and film. The question I would like to address is this: would a more accurate and faithful depiction of the book make for a good movie? Was that even the goal, and is it feasible?

Books and movies both are mediums to express a story. However they accomplish this in different ways. Reading a book is a very subjective experience. As great as an author may be at describing scenery and setting, much of the visual interpretation is still up to the reader. A book like The Hobbit  is told through the use of a third person limited point of view (Thanks 8^th grade honors English!), meaning that the reader will experience the inner monologues of the main character, but from a safe distance. The use of this mechanism allows the reader to feel like he is walking alongside Bilbo in his adventure and can hear his thoughts, but has some advantages (or disadvantages) of not seeing things directly through his eyes. The reader is free to speculate and other matters that Bilbo is oblivious to. Despite book clubs or discussion groups, reading is a very personal experience. The author is writing for one person, and is having a conversation with the reader.

A movie on the other hand is more of an objective experience (although clearly there is room for subjective interpretation). The movie maker gives his audience non-negotiable visuals and they are at the mercy of his interpretation. Most movies are told from the third person omniscient point of view, being able to see the entire universe of the film, not limited to just the protagonists. The inner dialogue of characters is very hard to capture. 1^st person monologues are rare, and so directors rely on the skill of their cast, the chemistry of the actors, to portray the desired feelings. If a book is more of a conversation between the author and a reader, a movie is like a lecture between the director and a theater full of people.

When I first read The Hobbit I was in the sixth grade, around the same time that Peter Jackson released the first of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I did not know much about Tolkien and the world of Middle-earth. Yet I was enthralled by this adventure that Bilbo embarked on. Like Bilbo, I was oblivious to much of the world outside my 6^th grade social circle as he was very content to sit in his hole in the ground in the shire and smoke a pipe and drink some tea. The unassuming Hobbit however is thrown into a world much bigger than his own. The world that he only knew through the stuff of legends, he was about to experience.

I did not know how expansive the realm of Middle-earth was. I did not know the worlds, the histories, and the backstories that Tolkien has created in his mind where he set his epic adventure. But the conversation that was taking place between a young reader and a professor of Oxford College did not need to delve into that information. Every normal conversation we have with another human being does not involve learning everything about that person at the first meeting. The longer time is spent, the more conversations, the more that is revealed. Despite not knowing anything about Middle-earth, by the end of the book, enough is known for that story, that chapter of time in the saga to be complete.

With the latest Hobbit trilogy as a prequel to a story where audiences already know the ending, it is impossible to capture the same feeling of wonder, of being thrust into a new uncharted world. Even for those who have never read the books, they have seen the movies, and had conversations with their more nerdy friends about the dealings of Middle-earth. This latest lecture from Peter Jackson is not an introductory class. The audiences want to see how this “new” material relates back to the LOTR trilogy. And while some fanboys would rather him not give into these demands, one must remember, that this is still a business. The massive global audience must be satisfied in one sweeping take. That means transplanted characters (or created) will appear in Jackson’s interpretation. Would three hours of Bilbo’s thought process and inner wonderings be very exciting to watch unfold onscreen? When Gandalf leaves the party of dwarfs to attend to other matters, why wouldn’t the movie makers take that opportunity to show what that might have looked like? The book has zero female characters in it and in this day of political correctness and necessary love interests, a female lead is needed to satisfy a movie goer. The lecture must meet the desires of the entire classroom, not just the select few who sit in the front rows. Of course in doing so, no one will be completely satisfied, but satisfaction is not the goal as much as getting people in the seats to be entertained is.

I have much more to say on this subject, but this post is getting too long. Like Peter Jackson, it looks like I will have to stretch out this line of thought into multiple parts.