Welcome back to my channel. As you know, this channel is usually about music, but occasionally I post other topics, and today I want to talk about film, and I want to talk in particular about the Hobbit series. And I want to preface it by saying that I'm a big fan of fantasy.
If you've read my blogs and posts on my blog site, shanghaisojourns.net, you would know that by now. I love reading fantasy novels when I get the chance, and of course Tolkien is up there with the best of them. So I want to talk about the making of the Hobbit series, the film series by Peter Jackson.
And this is a topic that I've blogged about before. A few years ago, 2020, I wrote a blog that was kind of part nostalgic about my experience as a child reading the Hobbit for the first time, and why children might latch on to this story about a very small creature that gets caught up in a very big drama with a lot of forces, powerful forces outside of his control, and yet manages to get through the adventure and learn a lot from it. And that's basically the story of the Hobbit.
And of course, that story continues with the Lord of the Rings, which was, by the way, also meant to be considered just one novel, although a much bigger one, of course, than the Hobbit. The Hobbit is rather slim. It might take you just a few days to read the original novel.
I hope that all fans of the movie do try to read the novel. I do think it's important, if you really like that story, to go back to the original. And one thing that you'll learn if you read the original story is that the story pretty much all takes place from the vantage point or the point of view of the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins.
And so for purists who didn't like the film, that would be one point of contention, that the film involves a lot of other characters' points of views, develops a lot of other characters, and includes a lot of characters that aren't in the original story. I suppose that was my critique as well, one of my critiques, which, you know, not entirely original, of course, and I'm sure that a lot of fans of the original story of the Hobbit would make a similar critique. Why did he put so many other characters who weren't originally in the novel? Why did he develop all these side stories that weren't originally part of the Hobbit? But now I want to kind of offer a counterpoint.
Actually, the point of this video is to say that I've revised my interpretation of this film [series] over the years. I really do appreciate it a lot more, and that doesn't mean that I appreciate everything about this series of three films, but I think I understand it better, and I feel that the director did make some important choices as to, you know, how to make this a cinematic experience. Of course, whenever any director is adapting a novel into a film, there are going to be some changes, and some might be big enough to, maybe the central core of the story stays the same, but there are often some important changes in the cinematic depiction of the story, which are inevitable, because cinema is a different language to literature.
If you read The Hobbit, one of the reasons you read it is because you love good literature. It really is a fantastic novel in terms of the quality of the literature, and I'm going back a few years now. It's been a while since I read it.
I last read it to my daughter. We kind of read it together a few years ago. One thing that really stands out in my memory is the quality of the writing, and the quality of the descriptions of the different scenes, the different scenarios, the different experiences that the lead character, Bilbo Baggins, was having along the journey.
I think that one thing that you really feel in this story... Of course, we think about all the big episodes where conflict takes place, where monsters emerge, and the Hobbit and the dwarves are fighting various evil creatures. Those stand out in our minds, but if you read the novel, a lot of the description is just the journey itself, and the deprivation that they experience, the hunger, the thirst, sleeping in hard cold places at night, always in fear of what lies out there. Also, maybe the boredom of a long journey for somebody who's used to having his creature comforts.
Of course, some of that comes out in the film as well. There's a continual kind of dialogue between the Hobbit and the dwarves as to whether he's really up for the task, whether he's really fit for this journey, or should he be going back home to the safety and comfort and security of his shire and of his Hobbit hole. I think it's a mark of genius on the part of the author Tolkien that he starts the whole adventure, starts the whole journey in the Hobbit hole itself, that you see Bilbo in all his comfort, surrounded by his belongings, he's got plenty of food in his larder.
He's described as kind of like a fat rabbit in his hole. Then the dwarves come in and of course they have a dinner together, an unplanned dinner. I think that's a spectacular scene in the movie.
It's a great way to start off the film because it gives you a sense of the creature comforts that he is giving up in order to go on this adventure. So you kind of have that in your mind throughout the whole adventure, throughout the whole journey, that he has left his home, which represents everything safe and warm and comfortable to him. I think that's a universal feeling that we all can share, that we have the comfortable home that we grow up in.
Not all of us have that, of course, but if you're lucky, you grow up in a comfortable home surrounded by loved ones and then you go out into the world and you experience the world and you have travels and adventures. Again, if you're lucky, not everybody does. Certainly, I've had my share, living here in China and living in the Asia-Pacific region for most of my adult life.
But there's this sense of home and warmth and comfort in this feeling that in order to have a full life, you have to leave that and explore the world that lies out there, even if it's a scary world, even if it's a challenging world. And then anybody who's gone on a hike or some kind of journey or adventure by foot or by bicycle or whatever, by train, boat, bus, barge, might also be able to relate to this feeling of being on the road, experiencing deprivation, getting into situations that are out of your control. So I think there's a universal quality to the story that everybody can relate to, which makes it a universal story.
You could say it's a hero's adventure, but is Bilbo really a hero? And then that's another point of contention, I think, between the novel and the film. Now, of course, in the novel itself, Bilbo does emerge as a kind of heroic figure. He eventually acquires his dagger, Sting, and he confronts many monsters along the way, including, of course, Gollum, one of the most famous scenes in all of the story of The Hobbit is his confrontation with Gollum and the riddles that they share. Definitely one of the most memorable scenes in all of modern literature, I would say. And maybe one of the most profound stories because of the way that he relates to Gollum as somebody who was once human, but who got warped and twisted by the power of the ring.
We don't really know the background to that story yet. It's not until we read The Lord of the Rings that we can understand the true power of the ring. So it remains a mystery in the novel.
So what is it that I like about the film? This is what I want to talk about. There's something that draws me to this film series that Peter Jackson created, and that draws me back again and again. And that's why I wanted to revise my interpretation of this film, because I think if you've seen it once or twice, you might have some strong opinions about it, one way or the other, especially if you're a fan of the books, a fan of Tolkien's original works, and you feel that he's strayed too far from the core of Tolkien's works.
But I think at this point, I've watched the film series multiple times, both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. In fact, it's become kind of an annual pleasure to watch both series, usually in the wintertime. Somehow I associate it with the wintertime, and I think the movies came out in the wintertime.
I seem to remember the first one came out around Christmas time. It was one of those kind of Christmas films. That was certainly true of The Lord of the Rings.
So there's a sense of, you know, you're in the middle of the winter, maybe on holiday, and you're enjoying this series with your family. I like to watch it with my daughter, maybe sometimes with friends. But why would I want to take this journey again and again if I'm so critical of it? And it got me to thinking, what is it that I really enjoy about the film that maybe is lacking in the book? The book tells the story from The Hobbit's perspective, which I think was a wise choice on Tolkien's part. It really enables you to embrace this character, to kind of be this character, and go on his journey. Whereas the film has a lot of side stories and side plots with other characters, including, as I said, characters who don't originally appear in the book, but are definitely connected to the larger mythology that Tolkien created, like Legolas, the elf. And of course, Sauron himself appears as the necromancer in the film series, whereas he's... I don't believe he's even mentioned as a force, as a malevolent force in The Hobbit.
I don't even know if Tolkien had envisioned the full story of The Lord of the Rings. I think The Hobbit was kind of... If you learn about how Tolkien wrote these books, it sounds almost as if the stories came out of him. Rather than him sitting there and crafting all the architecture of this world, it was almost as if a voice was speaking through him and kind of narrating these characters.
And sometimes he didn't know who they really were, what their significance was, until much later. So there was something very mysterious about the way he wrote these novels. Let's return to what I hope is the main thread of this talk.
I tend to talk a lot. I'm a professor. I'm paid to talk.
So what is it that pulls me back again and again to the films? And why do I feel that it's worth coming back again to the story? I mean, for one thing, the entire architecture of the original story is there in the films. The three films that make up The Hobbit cinematic series by Peter Jackson. The arc of the original story is there.
It's just surrounded by a richness of other stories. Let's just take one subplot that comes to mind that was obviously critiqued by a lot of purists was the female elf [Tauriel], the captain who follows the dwarf party after they escape from the Woodland Elves and tracks them along with Legolas. And they seem to have a fondness for each other.
But Legolas being the son of the king of the Woodland Elves [Thranduil], the king is kind of discouraging Legolas from pursuing her because she's not up to his status and so on. And that's made clear. And then she slowly falls for one of the dwarves, Kili, who is the handsome dwarf.
Obviously, they chose the actor well to play that role. And I think if you're a purist, you might say, what's this romance, this weird elf-dwarf romance doing in the Tolkien universe? Why have that story? Obviously, it was important for the film series to have at least one strong female character. The Lord of the Rings film series had two strong female characters, at least two that I can think of [three actually: Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowyn].
And so I think that, you know, the filmmakers were making an important decision that we need women in this film in powerful roles. They can't just be background figures. And we need some sort of a romance.
And I can see what was going on in the filmmakers' minds. Let's have a very awkward, yet very interesting, kind of compelling romance between an elf and a dwarf, the two creatures from very different backgrounds who don't like each other to begin with. The elves and the dwarves never really got along so well.
So whenever an elf befriended a dwarf, that was always a very special circumstance, like with Legolas and Gimli in The Lord of the Rings. So the dwarves to the elves are crude and uncultured. And the elves are too, I don't know, ethereal for the dwarves.
The dwarves are creatures of the mountain and of the earth, and the elves are creatures of the forest. And so obviously this is a kind of star-crossed romance in the middle, embedded in the middle of this film series. But somehow it works, I think partly because the actors are just so good at their roles.
But there's something that, you know, it's a side story that you feel is compelling somehow. And it feels, it has an air of authenticity. Yes, it gets a bit schmaltzy, especially towards the end, and has been roundly criticized.
But the more I watch the series, the more I just, I think if you just let loose your inhibition and throw yourself into the story, it's a fun part of the story. And the scene where she saves him from the poison, I think, is a really magical scene. So there are a lot of scenes like that where, yeah, I can understand why they wanted to fill the story with some more richness, with a more diverse set of characters, with different circumstances.
Then there's the whole lake town with Bard, who's kind of, of course he's an important character at the end of the story, because he's the one who kills the dragon. Spoiler alert, in case you haven't watched this film, there's going to be a lot of spoiler alerts. But he's an important character, but still kind of a minor character in the story.
But he becomes bigger. He takes on a lot more personality in the film. And I think I can understand why they wanted to make that choice, why they wanted to focus on Bard, who's kind of the good man in town, the man of integrity, the ultimate hero in that part of the story, who dares face down the dragon Smaug.
Which, you know, you can draw in contrast to the dwarves, who were just happy to get Smaug out of their mountain stronghold so that they could take back the gold. Especially Thorin, of course, who is the tragic figure in the story, who succumbs to the madness of dragon-infested gold. And that's faithful to the original story.
I really enjoyed the episodes with Bard. The actor who plays him does a wonderful job. And the fact that he has a family of children to support. And there's a lot of humor and a lot of comedy in there with the Stephen Fry town master character, who, again, is not... I don't recall any of this being part of the original story. But I can see why they wanted to weave a fun, yet more complex, intricate story about Lake Town into the story of The Hobbit. Now, were they doing this just to fill a trilogy? I suppose so.
But, you know, then we have to think about why did they decide to go with a trilogy of films instead of just one film, maybe one epic three and a half hour movie that would tell the whole story from beginning to end of The Hobbit's journey. I think one thing that the film trilogy does is that it really it spaces out the journey so that you really get a feeling of the amount of time that passed during this journey. It really feels like a grand adventure, especially since originally the films would come out year after year.
So you'd have to wait a while before continuing on the journey. And I think it produced kind of an effect similar to The Lord of the Rings, that it's a much longer journey, a much more arduous journey. And even though, you know, if you compare The Lord of the Rings, the three books that are supposed to be one novel, right, with The Hobbit, much larger story, much grander story, much more befitting of a trilogy of films, one film for each of the each of the books in the novel.
Why did they do the same thing for The Hobbit? Why did they spread it out? I think that's one of the, you know, you can either embrace that or you can reject it and say, hey, I just like one concise Hobbit adventure story. I think it can all be done in one film. So why did they decide on three films? Why did they make it this nine-hour extravaganza? So again, I think giving a sense of the vastness of this journey, allowing the other characters to [join the] plot and plots and stories that connect to The Lord of the Rings series, I think that was a wise move on the part of the director to kind of keep this universe connected.
Because otherwise, if you followed the original Hobbit kind of to the letter, it really doesn't connect in as meaningful a way to The Lord of the Rings series as the movie does. And I know I could get some pushback for that, for saying that. But again, when he wrote The Hobbit, I don't think he had envisioned the entire cosmos of The Lord of the Rings or even the fundamental story.
I'm not even sure he knew what the ring that Bilbo discovered was for. I'd have to look that up. Tolkien scholars would know the answer to that question.
How much of The Lord of the Rings did he envision while he was writing The Hobbit? Or did that come later, kind of as a result of thinking, oh, what was this ring really about? What was this mysterious ring? Was it just a ring of invisibility or did it have higher powers? Is it connected to a bigger story? Because in The Hobbit, the ring is not really a central feature of the story. It's there. It aids Bilbo on his journey, but it doesn't have, in the original novel, it doesn't have that kind of malevolent power that it accrues later on when we learn of the full story of the ring and its connection to Sauron.
You know, for Peter Jackson, he's trying to make connections with the other films as popular as they were. I mean, when you think of the power of cinema, the ability to sit down and just kind of experience this story through this grand epic cinematic adventure with all of these actors and all of the CGI, and then you compare that to the discipline and rigor of reading through what is a rather complicated set of novels with a lot of esoteric references and new languages that he invented. You really have to be, A, a high fantasy fan, B, a fan of literature, C, a fan of languages and lore and mythology and so on to really get into the Tolkien novels.
So in a way, Peter Jackson was taking the beauty and the mystery and the grand epics of these stories and converting them to a cinematic language to reach a much wider audience and a global audience. So I think he has to be credited for that.
I'm running out of time. I want to keep this under 30 minutes. I know I always go very long in these videos.
I want to end by saying, now I think we think of the Peter Jackson film series, the Tolkien stories, Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, as the definitive cinematic representation of that world.
And we've come to associate all of these actors and the characters they play with the original characters in the novel, which I think is a dangerous thing to do. I think there's so many ways that this tale could be told. Of course, the same fundamental tale, but it could be told differently with different imagery, with different actors, with different costumes for the characters, different ways of representing the dwarves and the elves and the halflings and the dragon himself and all of the various malevolent and good roles.
I mean, there's so many different ways of expressing these characters and their stories visually that I think that we will see sometime in the future. I don't know if it'll be my lifetime, but we will see an even more astounding cinematic vision of this world. I would love to see that.
I would love to see The Hobbit story tightened and maybe turned into one movie. I even sometimes wonder if The Lord of the Rings, if they could do the same with The Lord of the Rings. Not getting into every adventure and every subplot, but just really focusing tightly on the core story of Frodo's journey.
So if you could have a two-part series, but we tighten it and really focus on those two characters. What makes them so special and so significant in the history of modern world literature, high fantasy? Why do we come to feel this kind of universal sense of identity with the hobbits as opposed to the other heroic figures, the elves, the dwarves, the humans, the malevolent figures and so forth? I think that's something that a future filmmaker could really explore. So that's my final word on this subject for now.
Hope you enjoyed the video. Welcome your comments. I welcome your feedback. I welcome any critiques you have of my thoughts here. These are all off the cuff, not scripted. Just some of my thoughts about the film and about its connection to the book and the wonderful mythology that Tolkien weaves in his series.
Thank you.