The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

For some J.R.R. Tolkien readers, this first installment of director Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy may hold an unexpected journey—perhaps even a conflicting one. It is clearly Tolkien, but not always The Hobbit as he wrote it.
The divisive issue is not omissions, as is often the case with adaptations; in fact, all major events of the book's first six chapters are fairly depicted. The issue here is that Jackson has made wholesale additions that make it all feel less like the book and more like the darker cinematic journey Jackson took us on not long ago with his Lord of the Rings trilogy. And that seems to be exactly Jackson's goal.
In notes and appendices to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote entire histories of battles, characters, and places. Much of this supplemental material helps bridge the two works. While the published work of The Hobbit shared characters and settings but stood independently from the later The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson chose to adapt not just the original work but Tolkien's expanded universe. And so, The Hobbit becomes a sort of Lord of the Rings: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace.
Jackson chose to break The Hobbit—which is not that dense or long of a book—into three movies (the first checking in at an often stretched-feeling 166 minutes) specifically to include more of Tolkien's complex world previously only published in the books' appendices and in collections of unfinished writings edited posthumously by his son.
Cutting The Hobbit into thirds has two major effects on the story. First, we obviously see only the tip of the full story here—and only the seeds of the rich, biblical themes sown into the saga by Tolkien, a devout Catholic. The movie is chiefly introduction and exposition (with lots of walking and fighting a laFellowship of the Ring). Still, several ideas do begin to surface: the corruption of greed; the need for home but also the need to leave one's comfort zone; the dangers of power, racism, and prejudice; and the virtue of ordinary acts by ordinary men. Also notable: The consistent metaphor of light vs. darkness. As in Scripture, light in this film is repeatedly shown to reveal, expose, illuminate, and defeat darkness.
Secondly, the division of the story lends this film an odd familiarity. The plot is this: The wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) recruits a hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), for a dangerous mission among a large fellowship (including a displaced king), they get chased, they regroup in Rivendell, they get chased, the hobbit finds an odd ring, eagles save the day, and there's a final standoff with a Jackson-embellished Big Bad Guy.
Yeah, it's an awful lot like Fellowship of the Ring.
In fact, the movie begins on the same day as did The Fellowship of the Ring. As he prepares for his 111th birthday party, an older Bilbo (again played by Ian Holm) writes a letter to his nephew Frodo about his first adventure outside the Shire. After Bilbo—in voiceover—explains how a powerful dwarf kingdom was overcome by the vicious dragon Smaug, the film settles into a narrative 60 years in the past.

Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness

Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013

It's the Thoughts That Count

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).











Comments
Rick Dalbey
I first read the Hobbit in 1967 when it was an obscure book. My girlfriend, who also became a Christian was mesmerized by it and had taken the time to learn the elvish alphabet. The selflessness and ideal that Bilbo and ultimately Frodo represented were one of the elements that formed my worldview as a teenager and ultimately led me to Christ 3 years later. I read the 4 volumes to all three of my children as they were growing up. I also read them and their little friends the complete Narnia Chronicles one long summer in Oregon.
Steve Skeete
Thanks for the review. I don't know who said that 'a picture is worth a thousand word'. Someone who was not very fond of reading, perhaps?. The unabridged copy of Tolkien's Lord of The Rings, all 1137 pages complete with indices and maps is not only a classic but a masterpiece. Tolkien's imagination is unmatched, and in his ability to describe a scenery, or an individual, he has no equal. His fantasies are not only majestic but, well, fantastic. I have no doubt that the Hobbit trilogy, like the Lord of The Rings will miss some of the grandeur that the book exudes, but, films on great books usually do. I will watch the film if only to convince myself that no film can truly capture the magic and beauty that was Tolkien's fantasies. It is like trying to capture the 'freshness of a breeze in a bottle'. I would encourage anyone who truly wants to enjoy the essence of Tolkien to first read Tolkien. Believe me when I say that the pleasure will be all theirs.