The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, 2012
Ok, I’ve seen the movie twice now so here is something really banal-sounding I wanted to share with no-one: I could just write: “Well, it’s a Lord of the Rings-film, what do you expect?”, but that would be too easy. And what’s more, I recently posted that under a comment by the brilliant Nora on Facebook, only to be corrected by someone, who argued: “everybody has to stop comparing this to Lord of the Rings. it’s a different story, lighthearted and funny. it’s not about the fate of the world […] but about dwarfs who want to return to their treasure and their village. pce out”. Pce out indeed, I can’t argue with the last part of that (because that’s the story) but I’ve got some problems with the first half. [I just noticed that this post is really starting to be bitchy and whiny… get to the point already!]
The film is oozing gravity. The simple plot of the return of the dwarfs to their old home is completely lost in heaps of pathos and hundreds of profound-looking faces. And it is actually about the fate of the world, if we believe Gandalf and creepy Galadriel. And the story is not lighthearted at all. The dwarfs are constantly running away from creatures that try to kill them and some scenes are really unpleasant, especially everything Gandalf does in the lair of the goblins. (What’s wrong with you, Gandalf? Slitting open bellies and very nonchalantly knocking off a goblin’s head you have just severed from its body? Tarantino would be proud!)
Still I enjoyed the film. [Probably the right time to say that.] Not so much because of the story, rather
in spite of it. All these pledges of allegiance to the Aragornesque dwarf king and bonding processes and acts of melodramatic heroism are not my cup of tea.
I enjoyed it because of Ian McKellen (just lovely), Andy Serkis (brilliant) and Martin Freeman who does his very best to draw our attention away from the fact that he has got no motivation whatsoever to go on that journey by being a bloody good actor. (No need to say that he is a hundred times better than Elijah Wood, is there? [Here I go again, comparing LotR and The Hobbit, I just can’t help it])
Maybe all the things I have criticised are not at all bad, and now that I’ve written them down my complaints seem rather petty and unimportant to me. There is something behind all of that, that I really hated: the camerawork. By that I don’t mean CGI, 3D and HFR (which my inner tech-nerd is really excited about. It actually makes a huge difference!). I mean the images themselves, the mise en scène, if you pardon the poncy expression. Why is there always someone in the frame whose face tells us how we have to understand the scene? Oh, Gandalf looks concerned, oh that dwarf’s expression tells me that this anecdote is going to be really important for the rest of the film. And why the swooping shots at the beginning? Of course it looks nice but you don’t have to shove our faces into it! And all the heroic moments and reconciliations would be a lot less cheesy if they were not always taking place at dusk or dawn, dramatic lighting included.
Well, this has been therapeutic! It feels bad ending this entry like that, so let me just say that I am looking forward to the next two films and repeat that I also enjoyed this one. That bit at the end was just a little bit of unfiltered rage. It’s late, you know.
P.S.: Am I the only one who felt that the bromance between Fili and Kili is a bit … weird? Yes? Ok, I’ll shut up then.
barbarisk 