Peter Jackson’s Violent Betrayal of Tolkien
From The Atlantic:
The Hobbit’s gory battles don’t just pad out its run-time. They contradict the story’s message about mercy.
. . . .
“True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one,” Gandalf tells Bilbo in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.*
Gandalf’s homily doesn’t appear in Tokien’s original novel The Hobbit. Still, the sentiment has some textual support. Specifically, in the book, Bilbo, having discovered the magical ring of invisibility, has a chance to kill the sneaking, loathsome creature Gollum—but instead spares him.
Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the foul thing, put its eyes out, kill it. it meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo’s heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled.
Bilbo then (in both film and book) leaps over Gollum’s head, leaving the creature despairing but unharmed. Later, in The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf suggests that Bilbo’s pity for Gollum “may rule the fate of many.” At the end of Rings, it is ultimately Gollum who, inadvertently, destroys the ring and saves Middle Earth. Mercy is ultimately salvation, and Bilbo’s decision not to use violence is at the heart of the quasi-Christian moral order of Tolkien’s world.
If Jackson meant for Gandalf’s comment to highlight Tolkien’s nonviolent ethic, though, the rest of his film undercuts it—and, indeed, almost parodies it. The scene where Bilbo spares Gollum in the movie comes immediately after an extended, jovially bloody battle between dwarves and goblins, larded with visual jokes involving decapitation, disembowelment, and baddies crushed by rolling rocks. The sequence is more like a body-count video game than like anything in the sedate novel, where battles are confused and brief and frightening, rather than exuberant eye-candy ballet.
Link to the rest at The Atlantic
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases.
While not violent, LOTR had plenty of mild violence, so I don’t see the write’s point here.
What I’d really like to know is if it is true that Jackson fought and broke the union in New Zealand to use more CG than living background performers. If so, this is a level of greed and apathy that is the cause of so manh problems in the world now. Movie budgets plan for background performers, and this extra half a percent saved that was already in the budget to begin with aould have been a great boon to so many performers.
I haven’t seen The Hobbit yet, but I can’t help thinking of some of the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings, where there were thousands of CG extras. Just the cost of staging those scenes under union rules (using even 50% live actors) would have broken the budget of any feature film — and some of those shots would have been technically impossible with live actors.
If the only alternatives available are (a) break the union rules or (b) don’t make the film at all, I have no problem with a filmmaker who chooses (a).
I’m a strong union member, but, uh, the difference between CGI and animation is pretty much nil these days.
This is not about cheating the little people out of their jobs. It isn’t about bringing in low-paid scabs to do the jobs of union folk. This is about choosing one form of artwork over another.
The cost of filming a crowd scene isn’t primarily the actors, it’s in the costuming and the set design and the wrangling and communication. And wrangling crowds seldom goes the way it is supposed to and is prohibitively expensive to reshoot.
To say that a filmmaker should hire real people for the background is like insisting that he have a real building as a backdrop. The filmmaker might want real people, for the look he’s going for, and then, yes indeed, those people should get union wages. (And if he goes for CGI, the CGI workers should get union wages.)
I agree.
Yeah I’m a union member myself, and having (briefly) done background before, it’s often not fun. My issue, though, is whether or not he muscled the union against their terms. Every location has terms set in place for its performers, and it would be messed up if he basically said, “I’m doing it this way or I go someplace else. What are you going to do?”
Now I’m not saying he did this, because as far as I’m concerned it’s heresay since I haven’t looked it up for myself yet.
I do get your point though, Camille.
“I’m doing it this way or I go someplace else. What are you going to do?”
So what if he DID say this? Do you not do the same thing when shopping for items or services for your own personal use? Why should Jackson not have done the same for the motion picture company he represented?
God forbid we tell people or businesses they are not allowed to do business wherever they are able to get the best deal.
Yes but in context with tbe situation, he already worked witb the union there for LOTR and all was fine. This time he (if he did) sought to ccircumvent the union’s requirements which screws the locals. This happens all the time and will continue until the unions worldwide unite. Im not just saying this from a shopping around perspective. Oftentimes filmmakers really screw their locations over.
I’m not saying he had no right to sbop around, but they always play the unions against each other when they already get big tax breaks and other insentives to film there.
What ends up happening is them finding ways to game the system and the terms of the respective unions. All I’m saying is that they k ow the terms going in, and they still play one against the other and it screws the local workers
The Hobbit’s gory battles don’t just pad out its run-time. They contradict the story’s message about mercy.
I don’t think so. The battlefield and its killing, while reprehensible to a pacifist, remain wholly different from the murder of an unarmed and helpless individual. The Hobbit has battles. The trolls plan to eat Bilbo and the dwarves. The goblin-town goblins plan to torture and kill them. The goblin armies intend to slaughter their enemies. Are Bilbo and the dwarves supposed sit still and be eaten, tortured, killed?
This article’s judgment is silly.
Are Bilbo and the dwarves supposed sit still and be eaten, tortured, killed?
Maybe the trolls and goblins are supposed to hand out pretty flowers and eat tofu.
Wait until he gets to the next film, which will have Beorn and his violent hatred of goblins and wolves, as well as his threats to those who harm his animal friends. Tolkien was quite clear about that aspect of the big guy.
Pacifist? I think not.
Then there’s the reason the battles were all “brief and confused”. It’s a children’s book. Look at the detail Tolkien went into writing battles in LOTR, especially when writing about the joy of battle that struck the Rohirrim, who “sang as they slew”.
Pacifist.
[snicker]
And the sad thing is, Jackson spent half the screen time in LOTR trying to make Tolkien look like a pacifist. Every time there was a battle, most of the so-called heroes had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the fight — in the movies.
Yeah, that’s the thing I hated most about what he did to Aragorn. “Gee, I don’t think I want to be king, so I’ll just meander around looking puzzled and hot and thinking about my Elf chick.”
That’s number two for me. Number one was the scruffiness. Aragorn is a hard man, but he’s not. SCRUFFY.
“a shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey, and in a pale stern face a pair of keen grey eyes.”
Sounds scruffy to me. He also spent his time in the woods.
Yeah, but the scruffiness was just frosting on the hottie cake for us women.
Gee, and to think I saw this movie without once worrying about New Zealand actors unions and how Jackson may or may not have betrayed Tolkien’s ethics.
I don’t know about any of you guys, but I enjoyed the hell out of this film.
Great article until the last couple of paragraphs when he totally misunderstands Tolkien’s philosophy. But that’s hardly unexpected.
I truly hate seeing Tolkien’s masterpieces turned into mindless action flicks.
“The goblin armies intend to slaughter their enemies.”
In turn a full 75% of the goblins of the North were slain. “Non-violent” indeed. Tolkien’s battle scenes were informed by his participation in the Battle of the Somme, but even that horror didn’t approach 75% KIA.
While checking this point using Amazon’s “Search inside the book” feature I was dismayed to learn that “they were his sister-sons” has been replaced with “He was their mother’s elder brother”.
That line was a nod to Tolkien’s Norse sources; in Norse culture (and some others) maternal uncle is a closer relationship than paternal uncle, and the Norse language had distinctive words for those relationships (some modern Scandinavian languages still do).
If you’re wondering why this would be, consider that dubious paternity does not affect the maternal line. You *know* your sister’s children are genetically related to you, while your brother’s children may not be.
I’ll bet that change was made after Prof. T’s death. That’s another reason to hang on to my ancient paper copy, I suppose.
I was dismayed to learn that “they were his sister-sons” has been replaced with “He was their mother’s elder brother.”
Now that does horrify me. In the print copy? Really? How could they?!
No! No! No!
:: tantrum ::
Back to the point of the essay….
I admit, it has been a LOOOONNNGGG time since I read The Hobbit, so I really can’t comment on whether Jackson was or was not true to the premise or if this guy’s full of hot air.
But I can say this: the ultimate message of a story is in its ending, not in events that happen in the middle. (The middle, frankly, is supposed to challenge the premise.)
So whether this telling is true to Tolkien’s message, frankly, has to wait until we see the end of however many flicks Jackson is making out of it.
BTW: One of the best analytical tools on story theme I ever learned was from a studio exec. He would listen to the pitch, and ask questions and be enthusiastic, and then he’d end the session by asking one question: what is the very last thing that happens in the script? Not the last thing of consequence, not the way the character triumphs. What is the very last thing the main character does — the last moment of the last scene? Maybe even the last shot.
That tells you what the movie is about, really. That’s the confirmation moment.
So this first section ends with Bilbo being accepted into the group as an equal, and them all looking off to the Lonely Mountain so far in the distance. He is now worthy of that journey.
THAT puts a more mature light on the message about mercy. It comes before courage and strength. Bilbo first proves his cleverness, then his kindness and then his courage. And then he’s a man.
Is courage more important than the other two? No, it’s founded on the other two.
What is the very last thing the main character does — the last moment of the last scene? Maybe even the last shot.
That tells you what the movie is about, really. That’s the confirmation moment.
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing that analytical tool.
Yes, thank you!
I have but two things to contribute.
#1: http://sarahreesbrennan.com/2012/12/thorin-dreamboatshield-an-unexpected-hotness-of-dwarves/
#2: I don’t think I’ll ever be able to see this movie. I imprinted on the animation version at a very young age (I recall hiding behind the couch from the spiders!), and only the actual text can compete with that in my mind. (There was some pretty awesome music in that animated version!)
ROFLOL! ABeth, your first contribution is the best! Thanks for sharing the link.
You made my day with that first link. I’m laughing so hard I’m crying — and at work, too!
It’s really hard to comment without seeing the movie, but I suspect this article is on point. I agree very much with his analysis of Tolkein’s struggle with violence vs. non-violence, evil and good. Violence for the sake of enteratinment goes completely against Tolkein’s message.
As for my take- turning the Hobbit into a blood and guts action movie just makes my blood run cold.
The Hobbit is an utterly charming character tale about a protag who finds inner courage and strength when thrust into the unknown. He leaves his comfortable life behind, and learns to trust himself, as others learn they can rely on him as well. In getting to know his limits, he finds his moral center.
Violence, for the most part, is at a distance in the Hobbit, except for the Big Battle at the end. Even the Big Battle isn’t more than a few paragraphs, and none of it is is remotely graphic – it’s a children’s book, and a very sweet one.
I suspect Jackson sold out. It’s such a shame. There is no reason he couldn’t have stayed true to the story and written a movie as delightful as the book.
I don’t think Jackson “sold out” simply because I don’t think he ever really cared about Tolkien’s story. I think he really just saw it as a good opportunity to cash in on Tolkien’s fanbase.
In Return of the King, Peter Jackson missed Tolkien’s most important point when he changed the volcano scene to have Frodo and Sam push Gollum into the Crack of Doom. In the book he is so elated by having retaken the Ring by biting it off Frodo’s finger, that he slips and falls. In the end, evil defeats itself.
Plus, by eliminating the Scouring of the Shire, he gave the impression you CAN go home again. Tolkien was not so childish. He knew he couldn’t rock Middle Earth to its foundations without affecting the Shire as well. Plus, it gives the 4 hobbits the opportunity to demonstrate how much stronger and more confident and more mature they are. It brings the story full circle.
I want flapjacks!
Is it too early for flapjacks?
The problem is that Jackson, for some reason, thinks Tolkien writes a mixture of horror and panto.
The Hobbit has a lot of humorous scenes in it, and funny lines. But there’s no panto.
And yes, the goblins have a sick sense of humor; but they fight hard and seriously in the dark (to survive their own people and escape cannibalism, also), which is why they have such a sick twisted sense of humor and such a nasty society. (Tolkien says that they invented lots of torture devices.) There’s no sign that they fight humorously, like the Uruk-Hai. They take danger seriously and want to make it very dead.
I agree with the article. “The Hobbit” was never a book about fighting orcs. So why did that seem to be the focus of the movie? Lame. I liked everything else about it–so much was well done–but the addition of the orc-fighting scenes and the recasting of the dwarves (and even, to a limited extent, Bilbo) as orc-fighting warriors left a bad taste in my mouth.
Yikes! I’ve been feeling a rant coming on! Now that I see a few here . . . I’m going to let ‘er rip.
I enjoyed Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies. I adored the director’s cut of The Two Towers on DVD.
BUT.
But, but, but.
In the book, Gandalf’s struggle with Saruman takes place “off stage” and is conveyed in dialog after Gandalf returns to Rivendell. We don’t really know exactly what happened, but these were two of the Istari, immortal spirits chosen by Eru and kin to the semi-divine Maiar, who chose to come to Middle-earth to help the Free Peoples against Sauron. When they fought, did they really just bash one another with telekinetic magic? Really? Surely the more important conflict was mind to mind, spirit to spirit. I wish Jackson has used imagery similar in essence to that accompanying Gandalf’s transformation from The Grey into The White – a sequence implying and conveying metaphysical combat.
Second dissatisfaction: Frodo’s heroin-withdrawal hissy fit in which he sends Sam packing (Return of the King). Oh, please! Yes, I agree the One Ring was addictive and slowly warps its bearer, but this scene came off as simply silly. Intended to ratchet up the tension level, it just broke me out of the story. Too over-drawn.
And that is the flaw in the movies. (For me.)
I loved the visuals. I loved the characterization. I particularly loved Samwise – a favorite of mine – who has unfortunately been played for laughs in the past. I was happy Jackson chose a more nuanced rendition of Samwise. I even liked some of the compromises chosen in translating book to screen: eliminating Bombadil, substituting Arwen for Glorfindel, etc.
But, in general, especially regarding plot and action, Jackson does not include subtlety in his repertoire or even appear to know how to do it.
(Galadriels’ “Black Queen” moment is a case in point where he makes it work. Faramir’s integrity in the face of the One Ring’s temptation is a subtlety he jettisons less happily.)
Jackson does blatant and over-the-top well – so well he makes it work much of the time. But the times when blatant-and-over-the-top is simply the wrong choice, he is not able to choose differently. Too bad! There are so many marvelous facets to his work, but his Lord of the Rings suffers from this one strong flaw. And I expect his The Hobbit suffers from the same.
(No, I haven’t yet seen it. I hope my comments above didn’t imply that I had. I will see it. I even expect to enjoy it. But!)
Tolkien was never a pacifist. As others have pointed out, The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings both have substantial amounts of violence. However, Tolkien is always clear about what motivates violence. Is it done in the service of protecting others from evil, or for selfish reasons? (In my mind, that’s the central metaphor of the One Ring, as well. Selfishness/possession versus goodwill/sacrifice.)
Bilbo kills a bunch of spiders in Mirkwood, but it’s condoned because he’s protecting his friends, and the spiders are clearly labeled as evil and selfish creatures. The battle of five armies demonstrates this theme as well, where it’s Thorin’s pride and greed that nearly lead to murder and death between otherwise good folks, contrasted with Bilbo’s willingness to share the treasure. Only in banding together against the evil goblins (and slaughtering them wholesale) does good prevail.
The question in Tolkien’s work isn’t so much whether violence is good in itself but whether it’s for a right cause. The Hobbit certainly has less up-front violence and gore than the Lord of the Rings, but it’s also clearly for a younger audience. Jackson might commit the error of making the violence more in-your-face, but it’s also obvious that he’s following the Lord of the Rings films by aiming his Hobbit film at a more mature audience than the book was intended for. In the 10 years that lapsed between the publication of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien made the opposite shift from a children’s story to a more adult story, and I think the level of violence in the stories reflects that shift. I don’t blame Jackson for aiming at a different audience than the book, and I think that’s the cause of many of the changes he makes to the story, including how he’s making the White Council’s fight against the Necromancer more prominent.
My main problem with the movie was the attempt to turn Thorin into a mini Aragorn. He was almost messianic and nothing like his character in the book. That part where they were telling the story of how he got his name, and then they show him in a golden-hued light, with his hair blowing in the wind and the other dwarves all looking on in wonder. Ewww.
*pats Cheryl on the head and smiles patronizingly*
Dear Cheryl,
What you have just described is a phenomenon called ‘the hollywood moment’. Most movies feature these little moments where the protagonist does something that puts them way over the top and in a glowing light (usually someone with blonde hair and blue eyes) This can happen in the form of one person taking down many enemies and being barely out of breath. Another could be someone proposing marriage during a major battle, someone being tackled by a tumbling horse and then gets up, or ‘the speech’ at the end of the movie.
These moments are where most of us, the viewers, roll our eyes in disgust and groan. But you must understand that we have no idea what makes a good picture…only Hollywood knows that.
So the next time you see a hollywood moment in a movie and feel like puking, it’s because you don’t know what makes a proper good movie, and neither do the rest of us peasants. We just don’t know what we want. But by golly, hollywood does.