FILM REVIEW: THE HOBBIT (AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY)

THE HOBBIT (12) 
Starring: Martin Freeman, Sir Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Richard Armitage, James Nesbitt, Cate Blanchett, Aidan Turner, Sylvester McCoy.

Director: Peter Jackson

Running Time: 169 minutes

Released by Wrner Bros.

OUT NOW

Ten years ago, The Lord of the Rings adaptations revolutionised cinema. The literary epic became a cinematic one – a trilogy of movies from J R R Tolkien’s source material that firmly put the director Peter Jackson, New Zealand and cutting-edge technology on the map.  It was somewhat inevitable that there would be talks about some of the other Tolkien stories heading to the big screen – but it still took a decade for that to happen - mainly due to rights issues and the fact that the MGM studio was hovering on the edge of bankruptcy.

But The Hobbit is here and in its first week of release alone, it’s on target to be one of 2012’s big success stories.

The premise is remarkably simple and familiar:  Young(ish) Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) is a hobbit content with his lot: for him his home in the Shire and the gentle comings and goings of Bag End are as about exciting as he wishes things to ever be. However when cantankerous wizard Gandalf the Grey comes knocking, it isn't long before Bilbo's home is ceiling-deep in hungry house-guests and talks of adventures. Gandalf wants Bilbo to accompany the dwarves in an attempt to reclaim their ancestral mountain home. Bilbo wants nothing to do with the perilous quest, but Gandalf can be quite persuasive, so despite his inner doubts, the hobbit finds himself racing to keep up with the group as they head out to parts unknown and dangerous…

There’s no doubting that there are elements here that excel – in many ways it’s a critic-proof venture and will be rightly applauded for its visual-effects, epic ambition and sense of scale.  It’s not perfect, though. There are moments in The Hobbit that look like they come from a video game. The decision to shoot the adventure at 48fps (frames-per-second) gives the images on screen a new, clearly different texture that moves between cutting-edge console-game pixels and an almost documentary-appearance in certain scenes. The dwarf palace in the Lonely Mountain, the Goblin underground city, the ethereal nature of Rivendell... are all rendered majestically and magically, utterly believable but perhaps to the point of distraction. But we're often noting the background’s panoramic qualities when we should be concentrating on the foreground. The set-piece battles (Orcs and trolls and dragons, oh my) do seem freshly set up for multi-platform gaming adaptation and too often veer into a love affair with impossibly kinetic shots rather than a clarity of who is actually doing what to whom.  The stories of motion-sickness are most likely exaggerated, but it's not unlikely that your eyes may ache from trying to keep up.

"Fans of the RINGS trilogy may feel they have travelled this route before - in more ways than one - and there's some reasonable suspicion that stretching the HOBBIT material to three films is a commercial exercise rather than a creative one. However there's no denying the film is a crowd-peasing on most levels..."

How was it for the people in front of the camera – knowing that the process would capture even more detail than ever before? Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf) says there are benefits and drawbacks… but he enjoys being able to see the hi-tech footage moments after it’s been shot.

“I think it was Michael Caine who said the trick of working with a film-camera is that you don't arrange your face, you just think and the face will magically do as little or as much as is required. But, seriously, it is wonderful to be able to do a scene and then, at Peter's invitation, to go and put on the 3D glasses and watch what you've just done. Then you can see if you've done too much or too little.  In the theatre, you're entirely reliant on OTHER people's reactions to it. You can edit yourself…” he explains.

So how was it to be back in New Zealand after the best part of a decade?

“I found it very similar. Behind the camera they all seemed to be old friends. Peter and his team... the camera-men, the person who did my make-up, Rick, was the same guy who did it last time... Emma who looked after my costume... yes, there were new people in front of the camera as well, but the whole tone of the film was exactly as it had been before. It was like a very expensive home-movie. There was that sense of having fun, knowing why we were all there and wanting to have fun with each other …” McKellen notes.

But the veteran actor admits that there were some changes and improvements to the process behind the scenes – especially now that Jackson and his team have established a bonafide cutting-edge studio facility in New Zealand.

“The big improvements were with the actual buildings . Most of the interiors for Lord of the Rings were filmed in an old paint factory which wasn't heated and wasn't air-conditioned. It wasn't sound-proofed and you had to do the takes in between planes taking on and off. Every single word in Lord of the Rings, as far as I'm concerned was added later (in ADR),” he explains. “This time we were in the state-of-the-art King Kong Studios where James Cameron and Steven Spielberg queue up to use. As for lunch... that's an important thing when you're filming (laughs)... nit in a flapping tent threatening to blow over, but in an actual building. And I agree about the sandwiches... the best food I've had on ANY job. That's another reason to go to New Zealand. ..”

The main problem that continues to be one of the ‘it’s –the-nature-of-the-job’ category is the fact that though Gandalf spends most of his time with the assortment of dwarves on the quest,  the actor barely sees them. That’s because there’s only so many ways that the wizard and his tall form can be seen alongside much shorter dwarves…. when the actors are in reality the same size.

“I adore all the dwarves and they know that! There is a special dwarf and he knows who he is... but enough of that (laughs),” McKellen winks. “The problem with the dwarves is that despite what they are in real life, they have to look smaller than me on the screen. There are a number of devices to accomplish that. None of them are congenial to acting, which is about spontaneity, and looking the other actor in the eye and working out it with them. Often, in these films, you don't have that necessity. Sometimes, cruelly, you are not in the same space when you're filing the same scene. ..”

“The first day, I shamed myself  by grumbling to myself that this sort of filming wasn't why I'd become and actor... and I'd forgotten I was wearing a microphone!” he continues. “Everybody, including Peter, heard. But I was rewarded the next day with love. The tent inside where I got made-up had been decorated overnight. There were remnants of old Rivendell, there was fresh fruit and flowers and carpets and cushions, dancing boys and girls (laughs). I was made to feel it would be alright and it was. We found other ways of doing it…”

Fans of the Rings trilogy may feel they have travelled this route before – in more ways than one - and there’s some reasonable suspicion that stretching the ‘Hobbit’ material to three films is a commercial exercise rather than a creative one.  However there’s no denying the film is crowd-pleasing on most levels, not least the return of Serkis and Gollum - worth the price of admission alone. As a showpiece of technology it’s excellent. As a creative endeavour it has its failings, including the padding already on show, but though it doesn’t excite quite as much as the truly ground-breaking trilogy that spawned it, it’s still an example of cinema at its most ambitious.

4/5