My fiance and I went and saw the Hobbit last night, and I can honestly say...
I really did enjoy it. Yes, it was a bit long. Yes, the action was a bit cheesy. Yes, there was lots of talking (which wasn't an issue for me). But what Peter Jackson does so well (and I have hated him at times for it, because he took a lot of creative liberties with LOTR) is capture the essence of Tolkien. .
I will always be prejudiced when it comes to film adaptations of books. I am that guy that drives his not-so-scholarly friends nuts with comments like, "Weeeellllll, it wasn't as good as the book," complete with nasally voice, upturned nose, and stuck-up, nerdy airs. I love books. Writing and especially written fiction are arguably the greatest and most expressive art forms we currently have. I can spend hours upon hours reading and mulling over in my mind the weight of Hemingway. I can simultaneously laugh and despair over Orwell. Tolkien takes me on faraway adventures where mighty heroes rise and evil is defeated by the smallest, most everyday people.
However, the statement, "It wasn't as good as the book," means very little. Of course the film wasn't as good as the book. It's not a book. It is incapable of being a book. That's like saying Kevin Durant is somehow less of an athlete because he cannot throw touchdown passes like Tom Brady. Of course he can't. He's a basketball player, not a football player.
In the same way, a film is no less of an effective creative medium than a book. (I admit this objectively, because my personal opinion is that books ARE generally a more effective creative medium. In other words, I like books better. Books speak more to me. I could live without movies if I had books.) That is not to say there are not bad movies. There are, just like there are bad books. There are several very, VERY bad book to film adaptations. But the book to film adaptation is not automatically bad just because the film does not capture every little detail from the book.
I think that movies can extremely enjoyable as original stories. That is to say, I generally enjoy movies more when they are NOT based on a book. "The Departed" is a Scorsese film that rocks my socks off. It has everything that a good movie needs. I can watch it over and over again and still love every minute of it. Why? Because it is a good story. It has consistent, thought provoking themes, vibrant characters, and an exciting and moving plot.
"The Hobbit", being a book to film adaptation, has a special obligation that "The Departed" does not have. To me, and loyal Tolkien readers worldwide, "The Hobbit" has an obligation to give us that good story, thought provoking themes, vibrant characters, and exciting plot. However, those story elements are not original. They are Tolkien's. To be a good book to film adaptation, the director must capture the essence of Tolkien. He must capture the Tolkien story elements.
No, the movie will never be as good as the book. My inner writer/literature-lover is wounded a little bit every time this truth is realized. However, the objective side of me is willing to offer more compromise and concession. All I ask is that the director capture the important moments, and the essence of the story. I ask that the scene of "Riddles in the Dark" give me the same chills viewing it in a theater that it does when I read it. I ask that Thorin Oakenshield be depicted as the brooding, yet sometimes gentle warrior that he is in the books. I ask that Bilbo Baggins be the hero with a heart much bigger than his stature. I ask that the essence of Tolkien would be captured. I think Jackson delivered.
Final rating: 9/10
No comments:
Post a Comment