So, I'm never really one for reviewing things, especially films (despite studying film,) but I have just stumbled out of the cinema after the three hour long adventure that is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. (And it's Spoiler free!) I am still in the process of sorting and formulating my own thoughts on this, so apologies for the jumble.
To start with, this is a film that has been facing potential
scrutiny and criticism since day one - it's got Jackson's previous Lord Of The Rings trilogy to measure up to (including
the Oscar winning Return Of The King),
whilst the intense fandom hype that has been surrounding the film since it's
initial announcement almost seems to be calling for a severe backlash. It's
also been shot in 3D, at 48 FPS, allowing for "better colour vibrancy and
realism etcetera etcetera," and features a whole range of actors from
those noted and loved (such as McKellen,) and newcomers into Middle-Earth lore
with big, big boots to fill. (Freeman as Bilbo, for one.)
There is good news: it is not a bad film. (In my opinion, anyway.)
In order to make this easier for myself - and perhaps for you,
reader, - I am now going to break this down into several seemingly random
categories and discuss them in relation to expectations, execution, and any
other notes. And although this is a film adaptation of a (very well loved, I
might add,) novel, I am going to vaguely attempt to treat it as a film for
film's sake. I cannot fully discount or be un-bias to the existence of its
source material, but that's why I cleverly stated 'vaguely attempt.'
Firstly, narrative. The film starts by pulling you in like a novel
(how very fitting,) and allows even the audience member with no prior Lord Of The Rings knowledge to
understand and delve into the lore of Middle Earth. For the avid fan, however,
the film plays much homage to its filmic predecessors; watching The Hobbit will make you feel like you
are returning home.
From the minute Shore’s gorgeous score really kicks in, we return
right back to … the beginning of where we left off from at The Return Of The King. The beautiful, vast, landscapes are back –
and Jackson sure does make use of them, with panoramic shots tracing the
action, helping us suspend disbelief in this amazing diegetic world both he and
Tolkien created. Little sequences serve as nods to the first trilogy, reminding
us that this is a standalone film that isn’t actually standalone, allowing us
to immerse ourselves fully in the world of Middle Earth.
Those concerned with pacing may complain about the slowness of the
film – and it is undeniable that some parts drag out. However, it also cannot
be denied that the action scenes are, on the whole, brilliantly executed, and
that the second half of the film really picks up. Without giving too much away,
(or any, if I can help it,) the special effects really go to an impressive
level with some of the beasts. More impressive still though, is the scope and
scale of some of the gorgeous sets, and the attention paid to detail in order
to create as rich a diegetic world as possible, in which they definitely
succeed. (Those first establishing shots of the dwarven kingdom, anyone?)
The film is one out of three, and roughly 140 pages of The Hobbit.
My sister, sitting beside me, worried for a minute about a cliffhanger ending –
after all, the next film isn’t out for another year. Luckily, Jackson followed
his old tact with the Lord Of The Rings
trilogy and leaves us on a good leaving note – partially resolved, but ready
for more.
Secondly, we cannot discuss the film without discussing the
characters. A diverse and colourful range of dwarves of all different types,
(apart from gender, we may note, but this is adapted from Tolkien's work so hey
ho,) everyone's favourite wizard, and a familiar-in-a-way hobbit all team up to
embark on an adventure – a quest! With an adventure party totaling 15, not
including minor characters, appearances from elves, antagonists and beasts, it
was always going to be a challenge to balance screen time, characterisation and
narrative development.
Jackson has here, I believe, set the base for characterisation. We know the
dwarves, but not well enough. Whilst lack of full character development is
always an important critical factor, we must bear in mind that despite the
almost-three-hour time stamp, there are still FIFTEEN CHARACTERS we have to
deal with, not including narrative and action. Luckily, Jackson's decision to
turn the novel into a trilogy allows him the ability to further develop these
characters in the next two installments. Whilst I believe that the
'more-minor' dwarf characters have had a relatively good establishing character
base set, it was not really into the later parts of the film that we
really began to see character development from the titular character, Bilbo.
Despite this drawback, character dynamics were handled well, and
audiences saw a new hero of Middle Earth arise in the character of King Thorin,
who seemed like the real protagonist of the film – for the first half or so, at
least. In addition, Jackson does well in characterizing the overall lifestyle
of the dwarves, establishing quickly their natures and different personalities
in a fun sequence early on, creating distinctions from the elves of Rivendell,
and of course, the hobbits of the shire. It does help that those familiar with
the original trilogy (so basically everyone,) will know all these species back
to front – and this is again, what helps to make this film so delightfully
familiar in its settings.
As with the original trilogy, Jackson delicately balances
humour and light-heartedness with both gritting action scenes. In addition, a
certain exchange between Thorin and Bilbo starts the tapping into emotions and
begins to delve into more complex character relationships; this is not
completely a film about action and adventure - but about dwarves and a hobbit.
Andy Serkis’s portrayal of Gollum highlights this perfectly, with a both
endearingly humourous yet tragic performance.
Returning to aesthetics, it would be silly not to mention
the technical aspects of The Hobbit.
Whilst the 48fps did give it an overall smoothness – and gorgeous, vibrant
colour, especially with some of the landscape shots – combined with 3D (there
was no 2D option to watch it any of the closest cinemas,) it gave some of the
characters a very glossed-over feel; I initially almost felt like I was
watching a CGI film. Luckily, either my eyes adjusted or the effects did, but
by the time we were being introduced to our dwarven company, it looked much
more real – and a good thing too, as
the dwarves are all brilliantly adorned, with defining physical appearances.
Thirteen, newly introduced characters are, after all, going to be hard for
non-readers (and perhaps for readers to distinguish on screen,) to remember,
but as mentioned before, Jackson has set the base – some are more characterized
than others, allowing for further development in the next two films. (No doubt
they’ll be just as long.)
This is, without a doubt, an exciting film. Sure, the pace
is a tad unnecessarily slow at the beginning, but it makes up for it by
throwing you head first into the middle of the action with our large group of
protagonists. It’s not a perfect film, but it definitely starts us off on the
journey. Fans of the previous trilogy will find solace in the familiar feel of
the film, and new viewers will find themselves drawn into a brand new
adventure. It is a great introductory film for setting the pace, and tone, and
for introducing a brand new range of not-yet-heroes for Middle Earth – as Bilbo
says, “I’m not a hero… or a warrior… or even a burgular.” We will, however,
come next year, see the next installment of The
Hobbit, and see what adventures lie in store for our characters next, as
they grow and develop into the heroes we know them to be in The Lord Of The Rings.
No comments:
Post a Comment