Magic Marmalade 4th Oct 2017
| | ReviewIn case you were wondering...
...This is a very different experience than watching the recent Peter Jackson movie adaptions.
I first read this at school some years ago, and in the intervening years, I've read The Lord Of The Rings, and seen the very good movie adaptations of that trilogy of books... I was particularly struck by how faithfully rendered the movies were to the books – bar a couple of scenes which would have perhaps sat awkwardly in the context of a movie (Tom Bombadil) –
...So, like many, I was a little perplexed at how Peter Jackson managed to spin out three movies from this 270-odd page book, the same as he did with the three movies from the 1000 or so page Lord Of The Rings. I'd intended to get a copy when I next saw one anyway, so I could find out, and saw this on the shelf of a charity shop; recognising the cover art from school, I decided to get it.
What I have discovered, is that the basic reason the movies have been made the way they are is that this is very different in tone than even The Lord Of The Rings books, as it seems this, being Tolkien's opening venture into that world, is the initial idea, and the Lord Of The Rings, a much more developed examination of that world, with Elvish and other languages, mythologies, histories, and characters much more evolved and involved.
...As such, this reads more as a children's book comparable to any of the genre from around that time, and would sit more happily on the shelf next to the likes of Peter Pan, The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, than it does with the depth, and more adult “Rings”.
It's quite playful, and simply presented, and more easily read by a younger audience... a kind of “fireside tale”, or bed-time story – a situation it would which it would suit very well (although a few passages could frighten younger children, I think – Large Spiders etc.).
And The Dilemma facing Peter Jackson, it seems,was to make another, single film, which was as faithful as his Lord Of The Rings, and yet contrasted wildly; Due not to this, but because of the differences in the tone of the original texts; Or, having already madethe Rings, “retro-fit” the Hobbit to match that, and so that I would sit more easily with it. In that world... and from this point of view, I think the correct decision was made.
Here, there is no Pale Orc (Completely Jackson's creation – unless he appears in some other Tolkien work?), no Legolas (Imported from Rings) or female elf (another possible Jackson creation) or accompanying story-line, The whole Barrell scene has been re-rendered for action scenes, and some of the attitudes of the Dwarfs are “enhanced”. The “Necromancer” is known only as that, and no reference to Sauron is made, and this is only briefly mentioned when Gandalf goes out of the story for a time. Radagast The Brown Wizard is mentioned only once by name, and Smaug The Dragon is a jewel encrusted red creature, who's weak-spot, and relationshipto Bard does not involve the same back-story... Finally, actually the Eagles, and the Thrush have had their roles diminished, as in the books, these birds (and a raven) can communicate, which may have seemed too quaint for the movies.
So if you read this expecting the movie experience, you may be disappointed, but then if you didn't like the movies, but like a simple adventure tale told in the best traditions of the genre, you may like this better.
3 people found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review? |