I WENT to the cinema to see 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' on Boxing Day and am saddened to relate that I came away profoundly disappointed by the experience. Having previously followed the film blog and viewed numerous stills and trailers my hopes weren't especially high for a sober and respectful translation of the source material, but even so I was shocked by the direction the film took.
However, the thing isn't all bad, so let me begin with the positives. The early scenes recounting the waste of Erebor by the great worm Smaug are conservative enough (even if the interior of the Lonely Mountain does look a little 'sci-fi' for my tastes) and whetted the appetite for what lay ahead. The appearance of Gandalf and his portrayal by Sir Ian McKellen is faultless, as it was in the LotR trilogy, and special mention should also be made of Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins, whose innate 'middle Englishness' he captures extraordinarily well. The 'Riddles in the Dark' sequence between Bilbo and Gollum under the Misty Mountains is wonderfully realised and communicated the thrilling atmosphere from the novel accurately. This is without doubt one of the most successful and faithful scenes from the film.
The early portions in and around Bag End are also in keeping with the feel of the novel, that is until the arrival of the thirteen dwarves. And herein lies one of my major bugbears: the appearance of the dwarves. In fact, my issues with 'The Hobbit' can be reduced to two main themes: 1. The dwarves and 2. The ridiculous nature of the action sequences. I shall deal with each of these problems - as I view them - in turn:
The Dwarves
Having seen promotional shots of the dwarves back in the summer my expectations for the forthcoming film were drastically reduced and on viewing I found that my misgivings were not unfounded. A handful of the dwarf actors are not wearing prosthetic noses etcetera - Thorin, Fili and Kili - but the majority are heavily made-up and look farcical in the extreme. Comical to the point that I cannot take them seriously and they are actually impairing my enjoyment of the film. Not only this, they deviate drastically from the description given in the novel.
![]()
Reactions to my strong opinions on this issue from both acquaintances and various forum-users have generally been that of incredulity and I feel I must defend my position. If you've come to fantasy though vacuous modernist interpretations such as World of Warcraft - a game that I've seen played countless times, but never actually played - and have never read 'The Hobbit' then I can appreciate how the film adaptation might appeal to your sensibilities. However, my hostility is born from a dear personal love of the source material and a recognition of the inspiration for Tolkien's fantasy world; that is the the mythology and folklore of North-West Europe.
When Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit' he was of course drawing on the rich surviving traditions of early Germanic mythology and literature for inspiration. In literal interpretations of these myths dwarves - Norse dvergr - are a subterranean race renowned for their skills as smiths. So great was their craft that the goddess Freyja slept with four dwarves in exchange for a golden necklace they had created and two dwarf brothers - Brokkr and Eitri - forged Odin's magical ring Draupnir. Therefore they have generally been depicted as smiths and craftsmen. These are the dwarves Tolkien had in mind when he set about writing 'The Hobbit', just as (for instance) his Trolls were appropriated directly from Scandinavian folklore (and again utterly misinterpreted by Jackson in the LotR film trilogy and, to a lesser extent, in 'The Hobbit').
The role of this people - if, indeed, they were not originally a metaphor - in Germanic mythology is ambiguous to say the least and the dwarves of Arda are equally fickle, being characterised as proud and greedy, but also brave and honourable. Not wishing this to become a lecture in how little I know, much additional detail on this race is given in the essay 'Of Dwarves and Men', which is featured in '
The People of Middle-earth'.
The first description of a dwarf - Dwalin - in 'The Hobbit' runs as follows: '...blue beard tucked into a golden belt, very bright eyes under his dark-green hood.' In fact all the dwarves in 'The Hobbit' wear hoods of varying hues (to aid identification, one imagines), head-wear of this kind evidently being a staple of dwarvish apparel throughout fairy tales, which are usually heavily informed by ancient myth (so-called 'folk memories') and also provided Tolkien with an additional source of inspiration.
Over the years since 'The Hobbit' was published innumerable artists have attempted to faithfully render the dwarves as envisioned and described by Tolkien. My personal favourite interpretations are by Michael Hague and Alan Lee respectively:
One imagines that Tolkien wouldn't have been able to pick many faults with these works insofar as they attempt to genuinely capture scenes from his work. Compare these images with that of the film dwarves above and note the dissimilarity: it is virtually absolute. No effort was made to make the film dwarves adhere to the clear descriptions provided in the book. And these are main players, not minor characters. If these more authentic portrayals don't seem 'violent' enough for you then you're clearly missing the point of the novel. Here is an Alan Lee drawing of Thorin and Biblo and even here, in arms and armour, Thorin is surely depicted in a far more sober and 'realistic' fashion than in the film.
The Action Sequences
Okay, I've dwelt far too long on the look of the dwarves so will breeze over this final point, as I know that here at least many agree with me! The ceaseless over-egging of the action scenes and heavy reliance on cgi denuded these segments of much of the thrill that they should have elicited. Somebody on LAF made a comparison with Tom & Jerry cartoons and they aren't far wrong.
As just one example of this aforementioned excessiveness it seems that the scene from the book - 'Out of the Frying-pan into the Fire' - where the party are trapped in the tree-tops by the Goblins and Wargs (minus the He-Man baddie Azog, which I won't even go into here!) after fleeing Goblin-town obviously wasn't nail-biting enough for Jackson and company, so to up-the-ante they located the grove on the edge of a clifftop and have the last tree hanging over the edge with the party clinging on, Indiana Jone-style. Seriously, Michael Bay is a master of tasteful understatement compared to Jackson. The plausibility of the film - a central ingredient to ensure immersion and enjoyment - is seriously undermined by this consistently over-the-top approach to the fight/action sequences.
In conclusion this is a rather loose - disrespectful, even - interpretation of a much-loved and classic novel. I've repeatedly been told to 'enjoy it for what it is' and if it were the latest 'Pirates of the Caribbean' installment perhaps I could simply just switch my brain off and be swept along on a tide of Hollywood bullshit, but given the importance of this book to the entire fantasy genre - dwarves, elves, dragons, orcs, goblins, tunnels, treasure, magic, wizards etcetera - it is, in my opinion, a gross defilement. Right, now that's out of my system I'm off to take an aspirin and have a lie down...
