Skip to main content

A Long Overdue Journey

I had the distinct pleasure of watching Peter Jackson's newest film "The Hobbit" in the company of friends on Saturday. It was a pleasure distinct because it is a pleasure I never thought that I would have. It was a film that at many moments seemed doomed never to reach the theaters, with the squabble over the film rights to The Hobbit (previously held by that easily-forgotten company which produced a cartoon version of the story several decades ago), the bickering between New Line Cinema and Jackson over money from The Two Towers film, the departure of Guillermo del Toro as director, and a few other bumps in the road. Especially in the early stages, I did not think that I would see the day when "The Hobbit" was a high-quality film. Combine that with the fact that the story is one of my favorite books, one that I re-read at least once a year (and I rarely re-read any book once I'm done with it, no matter how good it was), and it did not surprise me at all to find myself wiping away tears as the movie opened.
 
The thirteen dwarves of The Hobbit

 
Given this history, did the film meet my high hopes? It not only met them, it far exceeded even my expectations, expectations that only grew as time between the release of the trailer and the release of the film marched on. The wait was worth it, no matter how long it seemed at times. Jackson, a great fan of Tolkien who had wanted to turn The Lord of the Rings into movies long before it seemed technologically possible, is one of the few directors who can be counted on to get it right. And get it right he did, skillfully weaving in material related to the storyline of The Hobbit from other writings by Tolkien, including appendices at the end of The Return of the King and Unfinished Tales. In point of fact, these additions were some of the most exciting parts of the film, such as the portrayal of the Battle of Azanulbizar in the war between the dwarves and orcs for control of Moria, along with the depiction of the White Council. Seeing the initial attack on the village of Dale and the dwarf kingdom of Erebor by Smaug at the start of the film is one of the most exciting scenes that I've witnessed on film thus far, the skill and quality rivaling even the battle scenes from The Return of the King.
 
Some of the most enjoyable parts of the film for me included seeing Christopher Lee reprise his role of Saruman, and finally seeing Radagast the Brown on film (the character was mentioned in the Lord of the Rings novels, but did not make it into the films). The actor's performance as the absent-minded wizard, played by Sylvester McCoy of Doctor Who fame, is truly a high point, and it is nice to see the character get a bit of screen time, buzzing about distracting evil Wargs on a sled pulled by incredibly adorable rabbits!
 
While I was distracted at a few points when Jackson took some liberties with the storyline (Azog the Goblin is set up as a major antagonist in the film, when in fact he had been killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar during the aforementioned war between dwarves and goblins, slain by Thorin Oakenshield's cousin Dain, and Bilbo doesn't kill anything until Mirkwood in the book, while he manages to slay an attacking Warg in the film), these are minor points when compared with the majesty of this film. Those who have read Tolkien's works will see references made to them, and in many small ways Jackson helps to set up the next two movies, including by introducing the giant spiders of Mirkwood and showing the thrush who will play a pivotal role later in the story. Given the scale of this film, and the wonder of Jackson's portrayal of Middle Earth, I find it hard to protest that he didn't stick religiously to the text--movies made from books rarely do, and this is in and of itself hardly a tragedy. This is Tolkien's work, but it is Jackson's as well, and it can hardly have been easy to have brought together so much disparate material into a single, coherent whole. And for that, for doing what I did not think could be done, I applaud him.
 
After seeing this film, it is going to be a long year until part two.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...