Did Peter Jackson ruin The Hobbit?

SPOILER ALERT

If you've never read The Hobbit, you probably won't want to read this blog post. I try avoiding SPOILERS, but the nature of my little rant calls for it! Sorry.



Since the opening of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, book and movie fans have been split into two camps: The Hobbit is a brilliant piece of movie art, or Peter Jackson destroyed Tolkien's masterwork of "children's literature." 

For the record, I really liked The Hobbit the first time I saw it, and loved it the second time. And yes, I intend to see it at least one more time. Now, I haven't double dipped on a movie in more than a decade, but The Hobbit will be a triple dip for me. So I admit, I liked it. 

Of course, like all book fans, upon my first viewing, I couldn't help but make comparisons to the book. Some of the comparisons were good (Riddles in the Dark) and some of them (the Pale Orc) were not. However, I knew going in that, just like the film versions of The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit was an adaptation of Tolkien's work and not Tolkien's work itself. Of course, I just so happen to think that The Hobbit (part 1) is an excellent adaptation of the first third of the book, but I admit that it does have its flaws. However, one flaw that The Hobbit movie does not have -- which every critic seems to think it has -- is that a "lighthearted, whimsical children's story" has been destroyed by Peter Jackson.

The problem with this criticism is not that Peter Jackson did, or did not, ruin The Hobbit. The problem is that The Hobbit is not simply a lighthearted children's story. And if you think that is, you need to go back and re-read The Hobbit the way Tolkien intended -- thoughtfully.

Yes, The Hobbit does have a more whimsical feel to it than The Lord of the Rings. I do not deny that. That is part of its charm. And I can see why some people miss that aspect of the story. But is it as "lighthearted" as people remember? 

The truth is there are some pretty dark moments in The Hobbit, which are mitigated due to the book's frame narrative. (Professor Tolkien is re-telling a tale that he translated from Bilbo's story taken from the Red Book of West March). For much of the book, this is done in such a way that makes the story feel "lighthearted" and whimsical -- even when The Company is being chased by wargs, orcs, trolls, goblins, and are on the cusp of death in the pine forest, the narrator's voice intrudes to take the edge off of things, because after all, he is telling the story to children.

But does the actual story sound lighthearted to you? 

Well, to some people it does, and much of The Hobbit movie is anything but "lighthearted", but it's important to remember that the movie only encompasses the first third of the book. If Peter Jackson had remained completely faithful to the book what would he do with the final third of the story which takes several dramatic and unexpectedly dark turns that make The Hobbit unlike any other modern day children's tale? 

Do I have to mention the scarier parts of The Hobbit? The Spiders of Mirkwood, entering Smaug's lair, Smaug burning Lake Town to the ashes? Are these lighthearted and whimsical events? Perhaps, but the real twist takes place after Smaug is defeated and we think the story is about to end -- but it doesn't. We get another third of the book in which good guys become bad guys, heroes become villains and main characters die in an epic Battle of the Five Armies. Yes, in the book, Bilbo is knocked out just as the battle gets underway -- does anyone think that that would make for a good film? Unlikely. 

The truth is, the final third of the story is when the shit hits the fan and it becomes epic. Peter Jackson had few options when adapting the story to film. He could have been "faithful" to the book and made the first 2/3rds of the story a "lighthearted" tale (complete with a dragon burning people's homes to the ground), but that would  leave movie goers utterly shocked and horrified at the sudden dark twist at the end when Thorin and the Dwarves retake the Lonely Mountain, the men of Lake Town march on them for battle, and Thorin calls Bilbo  a "descendant of rats." 

The problem with such a "twist ending" is that it lacks foreshadowing and would never work in the context of a film. It doesn't even work in most books, but it works in The Hobbit because of the frame narrative. We are given clues by the narrator (Professor Tolkien) that "something" happens at the end of the story that we're not expecting. At one point the narrator even says something about the Battle of Five Armies, but then says, "but that doesn't come into the tale at the moment." When we first meet Thorin (in the book) the narrator says something like, "and here is Thorin Oakenshield of whom I'm sure you've heard many tales!" The idea is that we already know all about this history but that Tolkien (the narrator) is putting his own spin on things. Um, you can't do that in film or modern literature because it sounds ridiculous -- unless it's coming from Professor Tolkien himself. Which is the conceit of the frame narrative of The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson was left with no option but to foreshadow the epic feel of the last third of the story so viewers wouldn't feel like they were being baited and switched at the end. What other options are there? Have a lighthearted tale which turns horrific and terrifying at the end? In my estimation this is the brilliance of Jackson's adaptation. By foreshadowing things to come, he has made Thorin's eventual downfall all the more tragic. As someone else on another blog  recently said, Jackson has set up one of the biggest tear jerker moments in film history -- when Thorin betrays Bilbo -- and again when he eventually delivers his last line as they reconcile, people are going to weep -- and I will probably be one of them.

With that said, The Hobbit isn't a perfect movie. It's not (so far) as good as Jackson's LOTR Trilogy -- not by a long shot, but realistically I'm not sure it could have been done any other way. It has its flaws. Many of which I could go on about. However, I won't do that at the moment. I enjoyed the movie. Was it a masterpiece? No. Was it great? I'd say yes. Especially upon a second showing. 

However, for those who do want to nitpick the movie -- and I will eventually, I'm sure -- take a look at Tolkien scholar Michael Drout's thoughts on The Hobbit movie. 

For me, I'm just going to enjoy it for what it is, despite it's flaws. I cannot wait for part two, and The Desolation of Smaug! Hint, Hint. An evil dragon has destroyed men's lives and burns a city to ashes -- NOT a lighthearted children's tale!