[Bêthberry]

I've avoided this the way undergraduates avoid essays they don't want to write. But I might as well get it over with before I forget any more of what I didn't like about it.

I saw TH the same weekend Alatar did, and with similar company, my family, whose treat it was to take me to the movie and a second breakfast (High Tea). Like Estelyn, I needed time to consider exactly what to say about it.

Let me begin by saying that I can appreciate action/adventures flicks. ET is high up there as one of my favs, as are the first three (original) Star Wars epics. I had fun watching Transformers. I thoroughly enjoyed Joss Whedon's The Avengers and thought the earlier movies in that series were a fun watch. I'm a sucker for an Indiana Jones movie. I adored Labyrinth. But I don't seem able to enjoy Peter Jackson's stuff.

I grant that every artist has the right to his or her own interpretation of a work. Usually, that means an interpretation that opens up new avenues for appreciating or understanding the original work, or seeing it in a new context which liberates thought. Jackson doesn't do that. He simply misappropriates Tolkien in a mishmash of styles and genres. And doesn't even produce a movie that is consistent. It's nothing more than a constant hit of visual images that are supposed to have an impact but which don't add up to a whole vision.

First off, TH doesn't know if it is a prequel or a sequel or a standalone. Viewers who don't know the book won't really appreciate how Bilbo grows. Yes, they will get that he must undergo change, but there's not really much to justify or explain why or what he leaves behind. Partly this is because the opening scenes are dedicated to dwarven history. I have always liked Tolkien's dwarves, whether in The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings or elsewhere, partly I think because I have a soft spot for the forsaken and the downtrodden and partly because they are simply interesting. The dwarven history is of course how Jackson attempts to link his TH with his movie trilogy and the unmentionable Legendarium. Yet it comes at the expense of explicating Bilbo's life and hobbit values. Freeman does a credible job with Bilbo but I don't think his Arthur Dent housecoat really does much to characterise him, except to link the actor with a previous role, which is a sleazy marketing ploy rather than an enlightening allusion. This really has become not The Hobbit but The Thirteen Dwarves and How They Grew Wealthy.

And it's not really the dwarves I know and love. Guinevere on Facebook pointed out that Tolkien's dwarves are tinkers and tailers, craftsmen who take up warfare only to recover their homeland. Their approach to Bilbo's home and entry is civil and their love of music is part of their craftsmanship. Jackson's dwarves are uncooth goons who run roughshod over Bilbo, almost bullies, a stereotype male adolescence. (The fact that they leave Bag End tidy is extraneous, an awkward filler inconsistent with their first presentation.) Jackson does not really understand Faramir's line about loving the bright sword not for itself but for what it defends and so all his battle scenes and action bits are little more than spectacle and gore fest. And like the final scene where the goblins--excuse me, orcs--attack the group before the eagles save them, they go on too long. Or contain such silly exaggerations that they ruin narrative coherence. So my complaint is not simply that this is hardly faithful to The Hobbit, but also it is hardly a unified, coherent story on its own.

The tone and tenor violate Tolkien. I'm not interested in watching The Hobbit turned into a computer game. But obviously I'm not in the target audience.

Like Estelyn, I was disappointed with the music, so much rewarmed. I tired very quickly of all the scenes that were supposed to allude to the movie trilogy. Again, sequel or prequel? Why not simply tell this story?

Radagast left me cold and I had wanted to like him. Again, so much of his depiction is devoted simply to cheap action shots. I'm reminded of a comment Mr. Underhill once made to me, that Whedon always starts with character and the action develops from that. Jackson starts with action and rarely gets around to character. And yet it is character that provides so much of the significance in story and narrative.

I couldn't shake my sense that Azog--who? what? where? why?--was the Michelin Man. And if I heard "Fili, Kili" one more time, I was ready to stand up and yell," okay, I get it, we are supposed to know that something is in store for them."

One person I attended with, who has not read The Hobbit, asked about 3/4 of the way through how far along in the book we were. When you start wondering how much longer you have to sit through the movie, it's too long.

Will I see the remaining two movies? I'm not sure. I certainly don't feel like giving Jackson/NewLine/whoever any more money because that simply perpetuates their ability to produce dross.