Perhaps no one has ever tried to adapt The Hobbit since then, because Rankin/Bass did an essentially perfect job. It could only have been better if it were three hours long.
Nevertheless, there are two other films worth mentioning. The first, which most people are aware of, was a trilogy of major motion pictures based on a Lord of the Rings fanfic written by Guillermo del Torro, and directed by Peter Jackson. This adaptation borrowed heavily from other fanfics of the era, like Legolas by Laura, and worked in a lot of Legendarium
material. It is worth mentioning in this category at all because the films are set during the same timeframe as The Hobbit, so that Bilbo is out on his quest while the events of the movies are taking place. These films are feature-length adaptations. But they are not adaptations of The Hobbit.
The second, which very few people have heard of, was created in 1966 by a nearly-unknown (to me) Czech animation studio. This is an adaptation, but not feature-length. The animation company had early on acquired the movie rights to a tiny children's book no one had ever heard of. In the 1960s, suddenly, Tolkien's writings skyrocketed in popularity, and this company found they held rights to a major property. In order to maintain those rights, per the contract, they needed to use them. They needed to produce and air an actual version of The Hobbit. They had very little time or budget to do so. You can read the first-hand history of its creation here. And you can view the entire thing on YouTube.
What was produced is a short, less-than-twelve minute film that I think encapsulates the heart and charm of The Hobbit, in its short, hastily-produced format.
I had first become aware of this version a decade ago, and I have returned to it now because my three-year-old keeps asking me about Gandalf and Bilbo who are on the posters and box covers all over my house. People like to malign it, but I want to defend it. This movie is The Hobbit. But let me lay some groundwork.
Firstly, The Hobbit is a book for children. I first read it in elementary school, which is when children should first read it. The Lord of the Rings is for young adults, teenagers or older. But The Hobbit is for children. It is told by a strongly present narrator, whose voice is that of a kindly old man, likely by a fire, telling you this tale. It's not quite meant for a child who needs an adult to read, but also a child not quite old enough to read this sort of book without an adult's presence. The imaginary elements and features of the world are free-flowing, and alternate from wondrous places, friendly figures, and horrible monsters.
Secondly, The Hobbit is not a lore dump. Though there are aspects of The Hobbit that will be included into the larger Legendarium, this book is not intended to present the lore. It was not originally written with any of the lore in mind, either, but had to be worked back into the Legendarium that had already been planned. Fans of The Lord of the Rings, or The Silmarillion, or the rest of Tolkien's writings, will often try to view adaptations through the lens of consistency the lore. It's all about the lore, and representing all the deep connections, and exactly pronouncing Quenya names. And this is a tension that has always existed in Tolkien's writings, because The Hobbit does not care about the lore. The Hobbit does not care about who the Necromancer is, what Bilbo's ring is, about how dragons swallowed the seven dwarven rings, or that Gandalf's sword Glamdring was forged by Elven lord whats-his-face, the thirdborn son of so-and-so, or about the balrog that technically is there somewhere in the goblin caves during this book, or that Gollum is actually a deformed hobbit bent by the ring's power, or that Gandalf is a Maiar named Olorin. The Hobbit doesn't care. While those elements are relevant to the larger Legendarium, they are entirely irrelevant to The Hobbit, or the intended audience of The Hobbit, or the enjoyment of The Hobbit. For The Hobbit, all of the fantastical elements are only about the wonder and adventure they present in this book, unmoored to the rest of the Legendarium.
So sure, the stone trolls have the sword of the Elf-lord Turgon stashed in their mud cave. Why not?
Thirdly, The Hobbit is properly a book about... a hobbit. It is about Bilbo Baggins, the Baggins of Bag-End, and a descendant of the great Bull-Roarer Took who rode a horse into the Goblin Wars. The story is a classic story structure, of the normal everyman going into the unknown and growing by overcoming obstacles until he becomes a hero. Bilbo begins as a timid country gentleman accustomed to comfort and frequent meals. He begins gradually learning how to use his wits to defeat monsters far larger and stronger than himself, until before long he is single-handedly confronting a small battalion of gigantic spiders with taunts and dagger stabs, striking from the invisible air, sending them running in fear. By the end, Bilbo sneaks alone straight into the lair of a gigantic fire-breathing dragon and snatches a treasure right from under its nose. That is what The Hobbit is about.
One minimum requirement to being an adaptation, and counting as an adaptation, is that you have to actually be about the same thing that the book is about.
While Peter Jackson's movies are about heroic dwarves and vengeful orcs and love triangles with Legolas and confronting the Necromancer (Who is revealed to be Sauron in disguise! It's a tie-in!), the 1966 Czech adaptation is actually about the same thing The Hobbit is about. It's about a hobbit.
People critiquing this film on the basis of the changes are largely looking at it from a Legendarium lens. There was no princess of Dale! Dale had been burnt nearly two-hundred before the events of the story, not just a few months ago! Thorin Oakenshield wasn't a human general, he was a dwarf! The monsters weren't tree-ogres, they were stone trolls! Bilbo didn't use the Arkenstone to shoot down Smaug! It was Bard, the great-great-great grandson of the former king of Dale, using only a long bow and his last arrow! ... okay, the last one is a poetic note that is rather important thematically... but still.
But I'm looking it at from the standpoint of my three points above. This is a movie for children. It has a short length, it's even less scary than the 1977 Rankin/Bass adaptation, it has the same kindly narrator, it makes use of the same free-flowing imagination (such as the liberal changes). This is also ultimately about a hobbit named Bilbo on a hero's journey, overcoming challenges through wit and courage.
People also critique this film on the basis of the production values, which are really low. Though produced by professionals, it is not incorrect to say this has the same quality as a student film. Today, this could be made by most elementary school classrooms. But the fidelity of an adaptation is a different issue than the quality of an adaptation. In terms of fidelity, the low-budget illustrations succeed in capturing the fairy-tale imagination of the original book.
Is it a great movie? As a short film adaptation of a children's book, with imaginative artwork, for children too young for the real adaptation (Rankin/Bass 1977), yes. Otherwise, it's maybe a fun curiosity for adult audiences.
Is it a better adaptation of The Hobbit than the Peter Jackson films? Yes. Because Peter Jackson's films are not even an adaptation of The Hobbit. The Jackson films get the lore right. But again, from the standpoint of The Hobbit, the lore is the most irrelevant part. They get nothing else right. The Jackson films are not for children (far too scary and violent). They deliberately downplay the childlike imagination, taking instead the stance of "serious elf movie." They include heavy and boring lore dumps everywhere, with excessive over-pronunciation of Quenya words. They are focused on everything except for the main character, the hobbit of the title. Bilbo remains essentially the same timid hobbit by the time he goes into Smaug's cave, as he was leaving his hole in Hobbiton. These movies adapt something else, some other set of material, which had been granted the rights to use names and ideas from the book.
That isn't to say that the Peter Jackson movies aren't better as movies. Going on only metrics like production values or acting talent or cinematic experience, they arguably dominate the other two. But when ranked as adaptations of The Hobbit, they don't make it onto the list for consideration.
So when it comes to adaptations of The Hobbit to film, the short Czech animated adaptation is in second place. Which it takes almost by default, as there is only one other contender. The first place goes to the Rankin/Bass adaptation, which still remains the only feature-length adaptation of The Hobbit to this date.
It would be nice if someone with as much love and attention for the original book that Jackson held for Lord of the Rings, could produce a movie adaptation with as much care as Rankin/Bass did, but longer, to include even more of the places and people of the book. Until then, the Rankin/Bass adaptation of 1977 remains the only (and the greatest) feature-length adaptation of The Hobbit.
No comments:
Post a Comment