Books to Movies: The Desolation of Smaug, Mirkwood, More on Pacing, What to Keep, What to Ignore

The Mirkwood scenes keep the fairy-tale dreamlike tone from the book while moving much more quickly. They also link the spiders more directly to Dol Gulder, underscoring Thandruil's failure to act. 

And they introduce the Tauriel/Kili romance. I have mentioned elsewhere why I'm a fan--though I wish the movie had paid the romance off better (not necessarily happier, just better). I will discuss the trilogy's ending more later. 

The Wood Elves are great characters in general: "less wise and more dangerous," as both Beorn (in the movie) and the narrator (in the text) state. The Elf King, Thranduil, played by Lee Pace, is a fantastic damaged leader. 

The conflict between him and Thorin is more direct in the movie than in the book but the dispute over gems is there plus the sense of long-held grievances and lifelong distrust: "Take him away...even if he waits a hundred years...I'm patient. I can wait."

In the book, Thorin and the other dwarfs are separated during their imprisonment. The others don't know what happened to Thorin, and Bilbo carries messages between him and the others. He also reconnoiters over several weeks and waits until the feast to free the dwarfs. 

The movie speeds everything up.

Frankly, the Mirkwood sequence is one of the best in all the films with excellent pacing. It also has one of my favorite "nope, Martin Freeman doesn't need a voice over" scenes when Bilbo realizes he failed to get a barrel for himself. 

Even the chase-chase-chase scene doesn't bother me. The dwarfs escape; the elves chase them; Azog and his people join in to get the dwarfs but end up inviting the elves' ire. The sequence is engaging, has a point, has mini-emotional arcs, and is actually fun to watch. It also brings several plots together, and there's no breakaway until the dwarfs get free. Then, the movie cuts to Gandalf.

Generally speaking, the action from Beorn through to the barrels is some of the best in the trilogy! The choices of what to keep and what to discard and what to speed up are very smart.

In sum, I think there are several reasons for the apparent seamlessness: 

1. What happens next is naturally what would happen next, including Tauriel and Kili's conversations. 

2. The characters' personalities--specifically Thranduil, Thorin, and Bilbo--are well-established enough to explain certain actions and reactions. Everyone behaves believably. 

3. The main characters remain the center without feeling "showcased," so Bilbo's reaction to the ring in Mirkwood--a scene where he is separated again from the others--feels in pace with the rest rather than a breakaway. 

4. The barrel-chase scene, again, highlights personality rather than being just a bunch of people getting felled by axes and falling into water. It even has some humor, as with Bombur's barrel act! 

Consequently, The Desolation of Smaug, extended version, is the one DVD set of Jackson's movies I purchased for myself. I consider the piece fairly high quality as an actual movie.

Books to Movies: The Desolation of Smaug, Sometimes the Movie Can Explain Things

Jane Espenson supplies a great piece of commentary during an Angel episode: she notes a continuity error and then says something to the effect of "oh, well, the fans will explain it away."

The beginning of The Desolation of Smaug explains a great deal. For one, it establishes a more political subtext for the dwarfs' return to Erebor than occurs in the book (though political subtexts are implied in the book)--as well as the need for the Arkenstone. And quite frankly, the movie additions make more sense than Tolkien's "uh, we're going to get some treasure" quest. A burglar was never going to steal 14-people's worth of stuff! But a burglar could retrieve a jewel representing kingship.

Arguably, Tolkien didn't need to explain the quest in the book. As Tanith Lee points out in The Dragon Hoard, going to face down a dragon and recover treasure is as much a given as looking for a pirate hoard. The book is about Bilbo going on an adventure in which expected (and well-crafted) fairy tale tropes appear. 

Regarding those fairy tale tropes, I get the impression that Tolkien enjoyed writing Beorn and his house and his folktale persona more than just about every other part of The Hobbit. He spends a fair amount of time on Beorn, just as he spends a fair amount of time on the folk/mythical character Tom Bombadil in Fellowship.

Jackson skips Bombadil. He keeps Beorn, for good reason. Great character! In addition, in the movie, this character furthers Jackson's plot points. Beorn helps the dwarfs. He also gives Gandalf information that increases Gandalf's worries about Azog and the Necromancer, who is directly linked to Azog. Gandalf's necessary departure from the dwarfs and Bilbo is established. 

A book can spend more time exploring the world rather than moving through it. A movie needs to quickly establish WHY the moving-through-it needs to occur.  

What are the stakes?

Books to Movies: Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire, or, The Non-Mary Sue Makes Choices

I consider the entire goblin-warg-trees sequence in The Hobbit somewhat random, both in the book and in the movie. However, if one is Jackson, one certainly wouldn't remove it! 

And I think Jackson uses it well to create character growth (as opposed to a bunch of action moments strung together). Specifically...

Thorin faces down Azog and fails. Kudos! Thorin is not a Mary Sue, and Azog needs to be worthy of all the hand-wringing. 

Literature Devil correctly presents the Mary Sue as a character that has no flaws and doesn't learn or grow or change. Everything is simply handed the Mary Sue. The universe bends to the Mary Sue's convenience.

My personal definition of a Mary Sue is that a Mary Sue resists taking risks that could result in unforeseen outcomes. That is, part of the allure of the Mary Sue--I'm guessing--is the non-risk, the desire for a character to have everything and to not have to live with decisions that will, in reality, cut off other avenues (if I live in Portland on the non-Old Port side, I'm not living on the waterfront or in the center of Boston--not with the kind of money I make in the profession I choose to pursue). 

From a narrative point of view, the Mary Sue is a waste of a viewer/reader's time. A character that doesn't choose, who simply goes along with the "correct way of thinking," who never has to back a position and maintain it without accolades...that character is boring and not truly a character. 

Jackson, a decent storyteller, gives Bilbo several defining moments, times when he chooses to act. The moments increase in difficulty, problem-solving, and consequences. Not killing Gollum and helping Thorin are good ones. They are also mostly emotional and instinctual. Later, Bilbo will make more thoughtful choices, leading eventually to the troubling ethical choice to take the Arkenstone. 

A well-crafted character makes choices and lives with them. 

Bilbo owns his decisions, so in LOTR, he apologizes to Frodo for choices he made over 50 years earlier. From an objective point of view, not only was Bilbo justified in his decisions regarding Gollum, Gandalf implies that Bilbo was "meant to find the ring." 

But the justifications and theological implications don't matter. (Nothing is gained by blaming God.) And that perspective comes from Tolkien (as well as Jackson). Tolkien continually underscores the lack of sure knowledge in his texts. Even people like Gandalf and Galadriel cannot see into the future. Belief does NOT equal instant answers and "I've got it all pegged" ideologies. Nothing is certain. Nothing is set. Nobody can guess the end. 

The most anyone can do is the best they can manage in the moment. The subsequent decisions might be right. They might be wrong. They might be best. They might be mistakes. The point is not that the decisions are PERFECT because the character is PERFECT. The point is, a well-crafted character takes responsibility (or learns to take responsibility) for those decisions. "These are mine."

Bilbo's decision in the goblin-warg-trees movie scene, right or wrong, resolves the Bilbo-Thorin conflict that underscores the first movie of The Hobbit trilogy. A resolution of some type must occur--not simply the end of the first leg of the journey--since the audience needs to be sent away feeling that the movie accomplished something. Bilbo and the dwarfs are now a united group, and the dwarfs have proven they are a fighting force (they seemed a bit rusty before). In addition, Thorin will now trust Bilbo's assessments--until the final movie.

Books to Movies: A Short Rest and a Great Setting

These posts examine the often necessary changes that occur between mediums: books to movies to radio drama. I am using Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to make my comparisons. 

"A Short Rest"

Three differences between the book and the movie:

1. The elves in the book and radio drama are mysterious, hidden, and whimsical, not noble irked warriors. Jackson took the elves from The Lord of the Rings as his baseline here, which I think was wise.

 

2. Galadriel, of course, does not show up at Rivendell in The Hobbit. But I appreciate her appearance in the movie. One of my favorite scenes is her interaction with Gandalf. As preparation for The Lord of the Rings, the various arguments made by all the parties--Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel--is quite illuminating.

 

The appearance of Galadriel is not as unbalanced as it sounds. In fact, the Rivendell sequence is one of the most seamless, possibly because the action is confined to a single location. It brings together at least two of Jackson's arcs without much fuss (discoveries related to Smaug plus the problem of the Necromancer). It also explains why the dwarfs and Gandalf are temporarily separated.

 

2. In the book, the dwarfs don't protest Gandalf's decision to take them to Rivendell. In the movie, Thorin would prefer to avoid it.

 

The tension between Thorin and Elrond exists in the book and is generally well-handled in the movie. I especially get a kick out of the "intellectual" elves and the frat-boy shenanigans of the dwarfs. Aiden Turner, who could easily have been cast into either group, has such a boisterous, rowdy time as a dwarf, the audience is convinced, "Yeah, these are the guys to root for."

 

A note about voice overs. 

 

I generally vote against them. I think a movie is supposed to be a visual achievement. 

 

So...in the Rivendell chapter, Tolkien gets meta for a moment and comments that good times "are soon told about and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome may make a good tale and take a deal of telling anyway."

 

Yet SHOWING those good times is necessary to establish what Bilbo misses and what the dwarfs are fighting for. And I will say--as comes up with Merry, Pippin, and Boromir--that Jackson exercises a skilled and light hand when it comes to "showing" good stuff. That is, he devises scenes that quickly convey that the dwarfs are a rowdy, happy group who stick together (preparing us for Thorin's later out-of-sync behavior) and that Bilbo likes Rivendell. Bilbo will naturally return there for his retirement.

 

The setting is really, honestly, something else. It achieves Miyazaki's "I want to live there" levels of enchantment, one of the best-conceived settings within both franchises. Kudos to the artists and designers!

 

But the action must continue--which involves the Misty Mountains and Bilbo's encounter with Gollum.

Books to Movies: Roast Mutton, Arcs, Cuts, and Pacing

The warg was named Daisy by Manu Bennett.

These posts examine the often necessary changes that occur between mediums: books to movies to radio drama. I am using Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to make my comparisons. 

"Roast Mutton" 

In the trilogy, the travel sequence from The Shire to Rivendell introduces Azog the Goblin, who is mentioned in the original text but does not make an appearance there. The idea is that the kingly hero--Thorin--needs a foe, so in the final movie, he isn't battling amorphous goblins but a clear antagonist. I don't consider Jackson's decision here wrong. For one, he relies on Tolkien's material, giving the dwarfs a history that stretches beyond this single adventure. (Moria will continue to haunt their story.) However, I never really got into the Azog arc. In terms of moving around events and providing background to the larger problem, I found the Necromancer plot far more engaging (more to follow).

The chapter, of course, focuses on the trolls who turn to stone, and the sequence is lovingly rendered in the movie. It is important for many reasons--for one, it has its own narrative arc. The radio drama also presents the troll arc with little extraneous narration/explanation. That is, the arc has the ability to stand alone. 

 

Jackson, as I've mentioned elsewhere, throws a lot of stuff into The Hobbit. He never forgets the most important Bilbo moments though in the text, Gandalf gets the trolls arguing rather than Bilbo. Still, the change from Gandalf to Bilbo makes for a nice character building moment.

The introduction of Radagast in this part of the movie I find somewhat distracting. However, the expulsion of the Necromancer does occur at this point in Middle Earth's timeline and accounts for Gandalf's behavior on several occasions. The importance of the twin events--expulsion of the Necromancer and confrontation of Smaug--is emphasized in The Lord of the Rings: Elrond and Gandalf and others saw Smaug and the Necromancer as two "fronts" that needed to be dealt with. Confining the Necromancer, Sauron, to Mordor was a stop-gap measure but a necessary one. 

 

It makes the entire trip far more political than the text initially argues--though the political element is there. 

 

But do the additional political elements make for a good movie? 

 

Flemish Giants

If one is going to create a trilogy, there have to be several threads going at once. Jackson has five: Smaug and the mountain, Thorin and Azog, the Necromancer (to which arc, Radagast belongs), Bilbo and the ring, Elvish dysfunctional family life. To his credit, he introduces all of these issues in the first movie although the Elves' dysfunction is mostly implied.

 

Generally, Jackson handles his multiple arcs better than Lucas though there is still some unevenness. I think one reason Jackson manages better than Lucas is that when particular characters are on-screen, he keeps his eyes on where their specific problem/arc will take them next. Lucas, aside from Star Wars IV, seems to get more easily sidetracked. (Film folks, generally speaking, are visually-minded. Lucas may be more abstract-painting-visually-minded while Jackson may be more Pre-Raphaelite-visually-minded: images for their startling effect versus images for the sake of story.)

 

Despite the need for multiple arcs, I'm not sure whether Radagast needed to be introduced so early. The dwarfs, Gandalf, and Bilbo manage to guide the entire first quarter of the movie without problems; their adventures establish that something has gone wrong in Middle Earth ("trolls coming down from the mountains").

The issue here is one of pacing. Tolkien, of course, handled his multiple arcs by telling a straightforward story and putting everything else into footnotes. But even when Tolkien delivers background information in dialog or with a quick paragraph, it is still less distracting than entirely switching scenes. I'm not sure film has a perfect solution here. 

 

Generally, Jackson relies on dialog--Gandalf mentions Radagast to Bilbo--to prepare for the cut. I'm not a huge fan of this approach, but I'm not sure exactly what else a director is supposed to do, other than throw in subtitles: Meanwhile, on the other side of Middle Earth...

Books to Movies: The Unexpected Party

These posts examine the often necessary changes that occur between mediums: book to movie to radio drama. I am using Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to make my comparisons.

"The Unexpected Party" 

 

All of the dwarfs in the movie are much more good-looking and heroic and rugged than in the book, where they are presented in serio-comedic ways. They are presented serio-comically in the Rankin animation, of which I am also a fan. They are also presented comically (they sound like Muppets)--at least initially--in the radio dramatization, with the exception of Thorin. 

I agree with the decision here to make the dwarfs heroes in their own right rather than clownish figures. Richard Armitage as Thorin glowers as much as book Thorin and has the same sense of his own dignity but more because he is a prince rather than a bombastic politician (princes are easier to like than politicians). As mentioned above, the radio dramatization also makes Thorin a kingly figure in his own right, being voiced by John Justin, a baritone with a commanding voice. 

 

To continue with the movie dwarfs, Kili is hot and Bofur is adorable. And Ken Stott as Balin is thoroughly impressive in his ability to look affable and then stern, rather like Mark Williams as Father Brown.

 

Again, I approve, in part because I like the idea of the dwarfs varying in terms of appearance and background. Just as humans vary considerably in appearance, so do all the other sentient species of Middle Earth. Tolkien wasn't one for pure essentialism (the elves, for instance, are quite distinct in their beliefs, appearance, art/architecture, attitudes, language, and politics). 

 

The dwarfs are also given distinct personalities which, in the book, they gain only incidentally, with Bombur being the most distinct followed by Balin (after Thorin, of course). The movie audience needs to engage with this group of 12+ characters immediately, and it is much easier to engage if they are not "ha-ha" characters--well, not all of them and not all the time. (Even the "ha-ha" characters are given distinct features: an axe in the head, excitable youthfulness, an ear trumpet.)

 

Martin Freeman as Bilbo is, of course, immediately engaging. I had a student who complained about him not being a stout, jolly figure (like Rankin's Bilbo), but other than de-aging Ian Holm, Martin Freeman as Everyman is about as spot-on a casting choice as one can get. (The radio drama engagingly presents Bilbo as a kind of Winnie-the-Pooh character who keeps interrupting the narrator.)

 

The opening scenes of the movie are close to the first chapter, even to the joke about Golf (which, yes, comes from the book). The humor is there as well as the haunting "siren-like" call to adventure. One of my favorite movie scenes is Bilbo leaning against his bedpost while he listens to the dwarfs' song. 

 

He does make the decision to go "on an adventure" himself--rather than being harried into the adventure by Gandalf. Without a voice over--which absence I also agree with--the viewer needs to see Bilbo make the decision, and with a slight turn of his head and curling of his hand, Freeman pulls this off. 

 

The radio drama, of course, relies far more on the voice-over, both by Bilbo and the narrator. However, even there, the voice-over and narrator are not too heavily applied. In fact, the radio drama brings home how "scene-ready" Tolkien's text is. It may not seem that way since it is fairly heavy on exposition. But story with problem starts the book. Story with problem continues it.  

In fact, Jackson COULD have started the trilogy with Freeman and Gandalf as many other versions do. But I appreciate the tribute to Ian Holm as Bilbo.

 

1931-2020

The Two Towers: Why The Ents Are Not as Annoying as the Ewoks

Essay Version:

Introduction (hook, context, thesis): What do Ewoks and Ents have in common? Ewoks are protagonists in The Return of the Jedi, one of the first Star Wars films. A fundamentally peaceful, woodland people, the Ewoks help the main protagonists outmaneuver and overcome the bad guys. The Ents, quite literally a woodland force (they resemble trees), supply equal help in defeating evil in J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy, The Lord of the Rings. In both cases, these unexpected helpers turn the tide. The Ewoks, however, are far less believable than the Ents.

Body Paragraph (topic sentence followed by specific evidence): The Ewoks are unbelievable. They are cute and play clever tricks on the antagonists. For example, they use slingshots and other such devices to trick and tie up the Empire's stormtroppers. The Empire created a moon-size device that blew up a planet. Nevertheless, the audience is supposed to believe that cute and clever tricks can overwhelm and "outgun" the adversary. The suspension of belief regarding the Ewoks is too difficult to muster.

Body Paragraph (topic sentence followed by specific evidence): The Ents, however, are far more believable. The Ents go up against a corrupt wizard, Saruman. A force of nature, they destroy his dam and flood his compound, Isengard. In fact, they are galvanized initially by Saruman's destruction of their forest. In the book, specifically, they confer and come to a thoughtful and organized resolution: Saruman must be stopped. The Ents' patience and deliberate action makes them a formidable force demanding respect. 

Conclusion (restatement of thesis and points followed by a call to action): Although both Ewoks and Ents play important roles in their respective franchises and are also both linked to nature, Ents are ultimately more believable. The fact is, the sheer force of nature, from blizzards to volcanoes to floods, has played a role in human endeavors. Both Napoleon's and Hitler's armies came up against Russian winter and found themselves in less than advantageous positions. Some military historians believe that the English army won at Agincourt mostly because of English superiority with the long-bow but also because of the incessant rains. The ground was so muddy and churned up, the French horses never got up enough speed. They were taken out before their superior speed could reach the English lines (and this despite the English being fatigued and ill from those same rains). Cleverness is cute but the sheer impact of a blizzard on supplies or a flood on a home or a volcano on an entire mountainside makes nature a far more powerful force. The Ents not only use this force, they are this force. To find out more about Ents, check out Peter Jackson's second movie in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers, and read the source of inspiration, the book with the same title. You can find the book at the Portland Public Library and online at Powell's Bookstore.

Blog Version:

In both cases, a small force of innocent non-war-like beings go up against a powerful military force. 

The Ewoks are wholly annoying. They are cute and play clever tricks on the bad guys. Somehow the audience is supposed to believe that these cute and clever tricks can outwit and outmaneuver and "outgun" people who blew up a planet. 

Yeah, right. 

The Ents go up against Saruman. A force of nature, they destroy his dam and flood his compound, Isengard. 

And it's believable. 

The fact is, the sheer force of nature, from blizzards to volcanoes, has played a role in human endeavors. Both Napoleon's and Hitler's armies came up against Russian winter and found themselves in a less than advantageous position. 

Some military historians believe that the English army won at Agincourt mostly because of English superiority with the long-bow but also because of the incessant rains. The ground was so muddy and churned up, the French horses never got up enough speed. They were taken out before their superior speed could reach the English lines (and this despite the English being fatigued and ill from those same rains). 

And don't get me started on the problem of feeding an army! If weather keeps the food away...

Forget toilet paper--when a blizzard clears the local grocery store of all perishables within 24 hours, the message is clear: 

Nature don't care what anybody thinks. Supplicate it all you want. When the volcano blows...

Mount St. Helens, 1980