Trivia, but Possibly not Trivial

So, one of the books I took along on my recent trip to Arkansas was TOLKIEN TRIVIA by Wm MacKay, a recent arrival I thought wd make a good addition to my on-the-plane books for when turn-off-electronic-devices took my Kindle temporarily out of commission. Reading it was an interesting experience, but not in a good way. It turns out that knowing Tolkien well doesn't necessarily mean you'll score the right answers. And that's because quite a few of the answers given in the answer keys are just plain wrong.


Now, for some genres there are rules. You can't misspell words in a dictionary. You can't publish a crossword puzzle in which the Acrosses don't mesh with the Downs. And you're asking for trouble when you have a trivia contest in which the person asking the questions knows less about the subject than the average person taking the quiz -- especially when the subject is one known to attract those obsessively devoted, as w. Tolkien.  In an unforgiving medium, MacCay simply gets too many things wrong. Not interpretively wrong, but factually wrong: names, titles, dates.

For example, here's a question from page 71: "What are the names of Bilbo Baggin's parents?" If you answered "Belladonna Took and Bungo Baggins", you're wrong, according to MacKay, who thinks Bilbo's father's name was GUNGO (page 72). Where he got this from is a mystery.

What are the "Three Elder Races" (page 33)? Turns out if you included Ents in your answer you're wrong, according to MacCay (his answer is Dwarves, Elves, Humans). So much for "Eldest", as even Celeborn respectfully addresses Treebeard in LotR.

What's the correct singular and plural for referring to the Dwarven race (page 35 and elsewhere)? Tolkien used "Dwarf"and "Dwarves", but MacCay claims Dwarve is the singular (page 36), and proceeds to use it throughout the rest of his book (cf. pages 43, 58, 59, 94. 97). He even at one point screws up a direct quote, changing Tolkien's spelling to his own (page 67-68).  Where he got this I can't imagine, but it's certainly not Tolkien's usage, and hence doesn't belong in this book, especially in a passage purporting to tell us Tolkien's usage.

"Are the Ents powerful?" (page 81). Well, given the way they tear into Isengard and flatten the vast orc army after Helm's Deep, you'd think yes, but MacCay says "No" (page 82), explaining there aren't many of them left (a non-sequitur if ever there was one. There weren't many dragons left in Middle-earth either, but everyone was glad Sauron didn't have one to call on, not to mention a spare balrog).

Other bits are simply inexplicable -- why does MacCay refer to Bombadil as a "grey and bearded creature"? (page 74). Tolkien describes Bombadil's bright colors in some detail, and I don't recall "grey" being among them, much less the dominant one ("bright blue his jacket was, and his boots were yellow", goes the poem).  Why does he think the name of Luthien's father is Thingol Greyhold (page 88)? Why refer to Morgoth as "Melchar" instead of "Melkor"? (page 86), or Middle-earth as "Ennor" rather than, well, Middle-earth? And why does he claim that "Oxymore", which he says Tolkien "sometimes" used as a pen name (fact check: "sometimes" = "once"), "plays on the etymology of [Tolkien's] family name" (pages 3-4), while at the same time saying it's simply French for oxymoron? Does he just make this stuff up?


Examples of carelessness and downright error extend to the queries and answers regarding Tolkien's real life and non-Middle-earth works. Thus we're told Tolkien left behind "a 2,000 page translation and commentary on Beowulf" (page ix), which is a grotesque exaggeration ((for the record, he translated BEOWULF twice, once in prose and once in alliterative verse, leaving the latter unfinished. But given that BEOWULF's only some three thousand lines long, publication of both translations together wd still make a slim book)). The 1925 Tolkien-Gordon edition of the Middle English text of SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT is here called a "translation" of a "long neglected" work (pages 15-16), both of which are entirely untrue. The biblical project to which Tolkien contributed late in life is here called "the New Jerusalem Bible" (page 16), whereas "New" was added to the edition that replaced the version Tolkien worked on.

But my favorite example of MacCay's getting it wrong comes in his bit on the origins of THE HOBBIT.  Here's the set-up question, which sounds innocuous enough:

Q: To what nighttime activity does The Hobbit owe its origin? (page 21)

--you'd think the answer wd be 'the Winter Reads', or 'read-aloud bedtime stories' or something of that sort. Not good enough for MacCay, who proceeds to give us much more information , virtually all of it wrong:

A: Years before his book was written, Tolkien dispensed snippets of Hobbit history as bedtime stories for his children. Eventually, at the urging of his good friend C. S. Lewis, he gathered the episodes into a book. The Hobbit was first published in 1937.  (page 22)

--leaving aside the 'oral origins of THE HOBBIT', about which there's genuine debate, where he got the C. S. Lewis bit, for which there's no evidence whatsoever, is a mystery to me. Sheer fantasy? An extrapolation too far? Confusion between the origins of THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE HOBBIT? Who knows.

What makes this all the more astonishing is that this turns out to be the second edition of MacCay's book. The neat little green hardcover I picked up at Barnes and Noble's HOBBIT table was preceded by a slim little mini-book more than a decade ago, though there's no trace of that anywhere on the copyright page of this newer edition. Digging into my overflow shelves down in the Box Room, I discovered that I have not one but two copies of this earlier edition, having abandoned it in exasperation on page 16 back in 2001.* I'd debated writing a review at the time, but decided the little book, though bad, was too ephemeral to do any harm. In retrospect I'm not so sure: given an additional decade or so, you'd think MacCay wd have improved it.

And checking the original (whose title was THE J. R. R. TOLKIEN TRIVIA QUIZ BOOK, apparently part of the "TRIVIAL TRUTHS" series) , turns out MacCay did fix some errors -- such as having thought that Mrs. JRRT's maiden name was BATES rather than BRATT. Interestingly enough, MacCay got the Dwarf/Dwarves thing wrong here too, having used the un-Tolkienian Dwarfs throughout. So someone must have pointed out to him that this was in error, and he corrected it wrongly, introducing an neologism that made even more of a mess (the Dwarfs usage shows you don't know much about Tolkien, whereas the Dwarve one shows you have problems with English). Don't know why he didn't fix "Gungo"; did no one point out the error to him in the intervening eleven years?

So, why all these errors? I have no idea. Bad sources may be part of the problem, given that among the eleven items in his brief bibliography (five of them by Tolkien) are found Grotta-Kurska's biography (bizarrely crediting the Hildebrandts as co-authors), David Day's TOLKIEN'S RING, and Tyler's TOLKIEN COMPANION, all dodgy in their different ways. But he also lists major works like Carpenter's biography, LETTERS, and Shippey's ROAD TO MIDDLE-EARTH. The new introduction has an interesting bit about how he was mentored in Tolkien studies by Guy Davenport, who famously claimed Tolkien got all his hobbit-names from Kentucky.

In the end, you might be able to have an entertaining evening passing this book around a roomful of Tolkien fans and seeing who gets the highest error-spotting score. But as a trivia book, not recommended.

--John R.

P.S.: Anybody want a like-new copy of the original edition? I've got one free to the first person to claim it. --JDR


*the second copy came when I ordered it online two years later, not recognizing the title and didn't know it was something I already had until the duplicate copy arrived.

The Cat Report (W. Dec. 26th 2012)

Wonderful to see the pictures of Mr. Brothers relaxed and happy in his new home. 

As if that weren't enough, news that adorable little Lady Claire got adopted as well made for another great Christmas present to us all.

Either of these were cats I'd have been happy to have in my home, were we not already at our quota (Rigby, Hastur, & Feanor -- the last and youngest of whom has just celebrated his tenth anniversary with us last week).

Today we have eight cats in the Cat Room: three stay-insides (Jane, Niko, Hottie) and five out-and-abouts (Ashwyn, Lemura, Tarah, and Lars & Linus). 

Started off the morning by making much of ASHWYN, thinking this might get him in a good mood and help him put his best side forward for visitors. Put the leash on and walked him around the store, where he was much admired and fussed over. Most of the time I carried him, but he seemed to enjoy it -- all but the fish, which frightened him for some reason (maybe the sound of all that water). He's really not bothered by dogs at all, so far as I cd tell. He thoroughly marked my face as his territory through face-rubs, which was endearing. Back in the room he enjoyed some catnip and then went high, ruling the cage-tops. When he was ready to come back down, I persuaded him to use my shoulder as a stepping-stone. He then sacked out in the basket, only going back into his cage at noon with considerable reluctance -- had to lift the basket, carry him into the cage, and turn it opening down to get him out, and even then he went up on his hind legs and climbed back up into it. Still, he was pretty well behaved, so pampering him at the start seems to have worked.

   Note: there was throw-up in his cage, mostly in his food dish (hair mixed with digested food). Suspect hairball is at work. Poor Ashwyn!

Also out and about a lot was LEMURA, who explored, played the string game, enjoyed the laser, thought a bit of catnip was v. nice, and generally acted like she owned the room and the other cats were more or less invisible. Late in the morning she surprised me by asking for a walk, so I obliged, but it didn't last long. She walked around to the front of the room and then tried to jump through the glass onto the cat-stand. Poor Lemura! Don't think it left a bump, but she was surprised and not at all pleased by window technology.

TARAH was her usual quiet, self-contained self. Came out, went to her favorite spot, hung out there till time to go back in, accepting a little petting now and then. Went in quietly enough. Her main excitement of the morning was finding a cricket that had somehow escaped the lizards, turtles, snakes et al and somehow made its way into the cat-room. Which makes me think the God of Crickets isn't at all a nice god. Eventually Lemura took it away from her. Poor cricket! In the end it got away, with a little help from me. That was the second one today, but the first had the good sense to lie low when the cats were out.

The Brothers, LARS and LINUS, are gaining more confidence. Both hung around the cabinet end of the room, Lars on the second cat-stand (seems to prefer the mid-level) and Linus beneath it, and both joined in the string game (and Linus with the laser pointer as well). Later on Linus went into the back corner by the waste basket and then back in their cage, while Lars climbed up into the blankets on the cabinet's top shelf. 

Having just five cats that like to go out and about seems to have put them all in a good mood: no swats, no hissing, only a growl or two. 

Of the stay-ins, Mr. NIKO was Receiving At Home, on his very best behavior and at his most charming. Got much petting (mostly by me, some by visitors), which he enjoyed greatly. Even let me straighten and clean his cage around him without fussing. HOTTIE was more nervous than last week, so didn't try to make her leave her cage. If her kittens join her in the cat-room soon, think that might draw her out of her shell some. Gentle, quiet, really good at making herself small. JANE by contrast was the only hissy cat today: I made her get out and onto the top of the cat-stand by the door (covered with one of her own blankets), and she didn't like it. She was too wound up to pick up afterwards, so moved the whole cat-stand over and made her jump back in. Think I'm now in her bad books; I'll just let her stay in next time.

Walks: Ashwyn, Lemura

 The string game: Ashwyn, Linus, Lars, Lemura, and Tarah

Laser pointer: Asnwyn, Linus, Lemura. 

The cricket: Tarah, Lemure

In-cage petting: Niko

Throw-up: Ashwyn

Outside the Box (but not in a good way): Lemura

Note: Ashwyn really likes one of the other cats' food (Hottie's I think)

And that's about it for this morning. Fingers crossed that things work out for Mr. Niko.

--John R. 

More New Arrivals

Note: I started this post on December 5th, then got busy with other things and am only now getting back to it. It's no longer as timely, but still seemed worthwhile for the sake of trying to be reasonably complete in listing the new HOBBIT-themed books as they've been coming out, albeit w. much less commentary this time around. Here's the original post from three weeks ago:


So, we've now reached the point at which the arrival of new Hobbit-themed books can definitely be described as a Throng.  Monday (12/3) brought three more, two of them pre-ordered months ago and the third having recently been added on once I learned of its existence (unfortunately the day before I saw it in a local bookstore, where I cd have supported a bookstore and gotten to take it home then and there, alas).

Monday the 3rd:

 Mark Atherton THERE AND BACK AGAIN: J R R TOLKIEN AND THE ORIGINS OF THE HOBBIT [Dec. 2012]

 Lynette Porter  THE HOBBITS: THE MANY LIVES OF BILBO, FRODO, SAM, MERRY and PIPPIN [Dec. 2012]

 THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY -- THE WORLD OF HOBBITS by Paddy Kempshall [Nov. 2012]

Tuesday the 4th
TOLKIEN TRIVIA: A MIDDLE-EARTH MISCELLANY by Wm McKay [2012]

John Vassos PHOBIA [:AN ART DECO GRAPHIC MASTERPIECE]. 2009 Dover rpt of 1931 limited-edition origin. (see post from a few days back)

H. P. Lovecraft's THE WHISPERER IN DARKNESS [The H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society, 2011]

[end original draft-post]
--I also, in passing, noted that I'd received a notice that the AGE OF THE HOBBITS direct-to-dvd film had been delayed, which I suspected presaged cancellation and speculated that the lawsuit had proved efficacious. I was totally wrong about that: AGE OF THE HOBBITS duly arrived on Monday the 17th. I've now watched it and will review if I have the chance at some future point, but for now suffice it to say it has no connection to Tolkien's world or story at all.

Of the books listed above, The Vassos will be a great Mythos tome in some future CALL OF CTHULHU scenario (think Dunsany's "Bureau de Exchange du Mal") and, as I said in an earlier post, makes an interesting juxtaposition to Tolkien's early BOOK OF ISHNESS (which I assume will see a facsimile reproduction someday, but probably not for years and years to come).

The Kempshall proved to be the most useful of all the movie-tie in books (at least until the subsequent publication of THE HOBBIT CHRONICLES: ART AND DESIGN) and a great help in sorting out the dwarves before going to see the actual movie. The Porter (her second book) I haven't looked at yet; seems to take a longer view and survey the different attempts to film Tolkien's work (a topic I've long been interested in, and attempted to deal with on a smaller scale in my contribution to Phil and Jan's book PICTURING TOLKIEN)

The Atherton looks to be an interesting book: the only one among the recent surge that doesn't come across as a movie tie-in or book written specifically to take advantage of publicity surrounding the films (two other books I'd put in the same category came out somewhat earlier, Corey Olsen's EXPLORING THE HOBBIT and Wayne and Christina's THE ART OF THE HOBBIT). More on this when somewhere down the line when I've had a chance to read it.

As for the McKay TOLKIEN TRIVIA book, I have some real problems with this one -- so much so that I think I'll save that for another post.

Merry Christmas, all!
--John R.

The HOBBIT movie -- Deleted Scenes

(1) So, one of the slightly disconcerting things about viewing the new HOBBIT movie was not seeing scenes I expected to be there. This was entirely my own fault, a side-effect of having viewed the seven-and-a-half minute 'super-trailer' so many times.* In that compilation of clips, we clearly see a scene of Bilbo climbing some stairs at Rivendell and entering the room where Narsil (the shards of Elendil's sword) is displayed. And yet no such scene appears in the movie itself, while the accompanying artbook is explicit in its claim that none of the rooms seen in the LotR films re-appear in the new film -- in the words of Alan Lee, "we didn't want to repeat any of the familiar vistas" (THE HOBBIT CHRONICLES: ART AND DESIGN, p. 133). So, is this a bit that'll be included in the extended edition (assuming there is one)? or a rejected scene that was filmed but we won't be seeing? or a bit from Bilbo's return journey, perhaps marking his introduction to young Aragorn (who was living in Rivendell at the time, age about ten, with Elrond acting as his foster-father)? Dunno.


(2) Another bit to look for, presumably from the second (or third) film: in the artbook's entry on Gloin, there's reference made to an exchange between Legolas and Gloin in which, seeing a miniature Gloin carries of his wife, the elf asks "Who is this ugly creature?" (ART AND DESIGN, p. 64).


(3) The biggest scene referenced in the filmbook but not in the film has to be the Old Took's party, which is mentioned (and illustrated) twice: on page 22-23 and 30-31. Dan Hennah, longtime Jackson stalwart through all the Tolkien films and Production Designer of the new HOBBIT movie, himself played Bilbo's grandfather. Here's how the scene is described in the ART AND DESIGN book (p. 30):

Gandalf and Bilbo first meet when Bilbo is just a little lad at the Old Took's party. It's a midsummer celebration in the orchard near the lake, put on by the Old Took for the children with a Punch and Judy show, fireworks and beer for the parents.

Gandalf plays a little trick and pulls a dragon out of his sleeve. All the other children run away, but Bilbo stays and is intrigued by the dragon, giving Gandalf the impression of a rather courageous little hobbit. And of course it was fun for me, as I got to play the Old Took!

Elsewhere (p. 22), it mentions how

. . . we had one day shooting . . . with Little Bilbo, his mother Belladonna, Old Hob, Old Gammidge and Bilbo's grandfather, the Old Took. They have a little chat over a drink when Gandalf arrives -- quite a nice scene actually. It was very picturesque with hobbits outside under a tent enjoying a half-pint, young girls dancing, a bit of colourful magic that set the scene for later events.

This is accompanied by art showing some hobbit characters, the best of which is an old gent with a high bowler hat (the Old Took I assume, though it might be 'Old Hob' or 'Old Gammidge' instead) and a pretty hobbit-lady in a shimmering red satin dress (Belladonna Took herself, I assume, given that a hobbit-boy who looks like a younger Bilbo is next to her). Apparently no Bungo, but at least we'll at last get to see the famous Belladonna Took (p. 23) -- after all, if they can bring Radagast from offstage into the main story, why not Belladonna?

Maybe the filmmakers felt that opening the movie with three flashbacks was one flashback too many. Or maybe it'll be in an extended cut. Or maybe, as I suspect, it'll be in the second film as a flashback. Time will tell.


(4) Finally, there's a sequence which did appear in some trailers (where I mistook it for Dol Guldur) and gets its own spread in the ART AND DESIGN book (p. 149-150): The High Fells, also known as the Tombs of the Nazgul (a name that irresistibly reminds me of the old DOCTER WHO episode Tomb of the Cybermen). It's rather nice to learn that one feature of these tombs was based on a passage in the Great Pyramid.



Aside from these, the HOBBIT CHRONICLES: ART AND DESIGN book (text by Daniel Falconer et al, Weta/Harper Design, 2012) is well worth getting in its own right. as the record of a team of artists' attempt to capture Tolkien's world in two-dimension. Two-hundred-pages of art, much of it sketches by Alan Lee and John Howe, plus explanatory text of what they were trying to achieve in a particular piece or sequence. At times the explanations were beyond me (as when the costumer used technical terms for fabrics and patterning and treatments ("distressed"). Other bits were clear, and interesting, as the passing comments about how they used Art Deco motifs for the dwarves and Art Nouveau for the elves of Rivendell (p. 51 and 136, respectively), about their attempts to retain each dwarf's iconic color (p. 37 and 67; I missed it, but apparently it shows up in the lining of their hoods), about their initial intent to have the dwarves bring their musical instruments to Bag-End -- concept art for some of which is shown, complete with travelling cases (p. 49), before Jackson decided (like Tolkien before him) that it was a bit odd for the dwarves to be carrying viols and the like on a desperate quest and the instruments were dropped (aside, I think, for a recorder flute -- Bofur's I think (see p. 69) -- which I remember seeing in a later scene. In short, they were, as at one point they neatly put it, "pursuing an aesthetic" (p. 196). Hence some changes, like the to my mind rather unlikely depiction of Goblin-town as composed entirely of scaffolding (where did they get all that wood? I kept thinking to myself. From some vast, previously unknown underground forests?), were made for purely practical reasons: "There's nothing more cinematically dull than a big dark hole in the ground" (p. 168). Similarly, forgoing the absolute pitch darkness Bilbo encounters when lost under the mountains was done in full recognition of the fact that "Lighting in caves is always something of a cinematic cheat" (p. 186), yet "The Hobbit is filled with scenes that take place in the dark" (p. 189).

A few comments or observations were simply amusing in their own right. I'd been bemused by the listing for "horse make-up" in the closing credit, but this book explains it. They'd carefully chosen out shaggy ponies for Thorin and company, only to discover when they were filming in the summer that these ponies shed their extra hair in summer. Not men to be put off by such things, Jackson and Hennah concluded that "The solution was to put them in hairy suits with wigs, so they ended up in make-up and hair just like the human cast!" (p. 15).  And I was much bemused by the observation that "if New Zealand's landscape was cast in the role by location scouts, it also had its share of make-up and prosthetics" (p. 111), which seemed to sum up the way they used and transformed actual landscapes nicely.

Two things described, or at least mentioned, in the ART AND DESIGN book that I totally missed in the film were (a) Ori's boardgame and (b) Grinnah the Goblin. The boardgame is shown on p. 59 and described as a dwarven version of fidhcheall or gwyddbwyll, the game Arthur and Owein play in that weird tour-de-force in the MABINOGION, "The Dream of Rhonabwy". Perhaps it's packed away in little Ori's baggage and will show up in the second or third movie(s). As for Grinnah, if he was ever named or is still to appear, I certainly never noticed any goblin being called out under such a name -- but then again, with so much going on, it's easy to miss one character among the multitude.

Finally, the ART AND DESIGN book comes with two nice added bonuses: a foldout copy of Thorin's Map with the moon-runes printed in glow-in-the-dark lettering, and a facsimile of the movie version of Bilbo's Contract.  And yes, I did test it to see if the glow in the dark moon-runes wd actually appear, and can confirm that they do. Or maybe the moon was just in its right phase last night for when my copy of the book was printed . . .

--John R.
current reading: THE TWELVE CLUES OF CHRISTMAS, a "Royal Spyness' novel by Rhys Bowen [2012]


*The most disconcerting thing about this was that it turns out the final cut of the film sometimes used slightly different takes than the trailer, so sometimes I saw scenes using different bits of film from what I'd already absorbed from the trailers.

A Hero's Passing

So, this weekend marked the funeral of Dan Inouye, the one person in the current U. S. Senate whom I think could be called a hero. I'd been looking at some of his life history just a few weeks ago, and was amazed by how many achievements he had over his long life. Hadn't known he originally planned to be a surgeon, and only switched to politics when he lost an arm in World War II -- fighting for a country that was rounding up his fellow Japanese-Americans and sending them to internment camps. Nor had I realized how long he'd been around in Hawaiian politics, having served in the territorial legislature, then been their first Congressman, then a few years later shifting to become Senator (I was reminded of Jackson's similar long time involvement in Tennessee politics). In short, there's never been a time in the history of the State of Hawaii that Inoue hadn't been one of its national representatives; I imagine it'll take a while for the shock to fully sink in for them. I was rooting for him to break Byrd's record as the longest-serving senator -- Byrd having been a problematic figure (he deserves praise for the principled stands he took in his final decade, but I can't altogether overlook his reputation for bullying in earlier decades, nor his having briefly been a Clansman), whereas Inoue had been on the right side of so many issues for so many years. From winning the Medal of Honor to having the most successful congressional career of any member of an ethnic minority, he was one for the ages. We don't have enough good guys in our government; he'll be missed.

--John R.

HOBBIT Movie Review (Part Three)

(again, spoilers)

The More Things Change . . . 

So, one of the major factors in evaluating any Peter Jackson Tolkien movie are the things he changes. This is of particular interest to purists like me, who almost always prefers Tolkien's original to any departure therefrom, even when we can see the reasoning behind the change. So for this final part of my HOBBIT movie review I thought I'd mull over some of Jackson's additions and alterations.

The first obvious one is quite odd, and shd have considerable consequence down the road. In Jackson's film, Erebor is not only the greatest dwarven kingdom of its day but the greatest kingdom in all the world (apparently outstripping even Gondor, which seems unlikely). Furthermore, whereas in the book the dwarves were allied to the Men of Dale (and of Lake Town) and had the friendship of the lands about, and thus presumably were on good terms with the wood-elves as well, the film's voiceover makes clear that Thror is not just sovereign of the Mountain but holds suzerainty over Dale and the Wood-elf realm as well: we're explicitly shown a scene of King Thranduil bowing in homage to King Thror. That cd change things quite a lot in the final impasse of Thorin vs. Bard vs. the Elvenking. As the movie sets up the situation, both Bard (as heir of Girion of Dale) and Thranduil owe Thorin allegance; their siege of the mountain becomes an act of treachery, which it most definitely is not in the book. In short, the movie's changes to the set-up has the effect, intended or otherwise, of putting Thorin in the right in the stand-off that develops at the Mountain.  I'll be v. curious to see how Jackson resolves this, whether by embracing Thorin's position, or changing events so that the matter never arises (think Elves at Helm's Deep), or some other solution.

By the way, the Elvenking's refusal, at the time of Smaug's attack, to send his men to certain death fighting the dragon is understandable enough, but his refusal to aid the fleeing refugees (his High King among them) is not just a betrayal but callous, darkening his character quite a bit. In short, it once again puts Thorin in the right if in the next film he behaves as in the book and refuses to deal with the wood-elves. Even Gimli's outburst at the Council of Elrond ("never trust an elf!") becomes, in retrospect, less paranoia and more a very reasonable position based on past experience. It'll be interesting to see how much they embrace or back off from this position in their depiction of the wood-elves when the time comes.

The dwarves' presumed imprisonment by the wood-elves is perhaps prefigured in the Rivendell scenes;
Saruman makes it clear that he intends to stop the dwarves' quest and send them all home. Hence Gandalf's conspiring with Thorin to go behind the White Council's backs and act while the so-called Wise are debating, simply leaving without asking permission or announcing the fact, so that by the time the elves realize it the dwarves are long gone. Perhaps I'm over-reading this (traditionally, elven places are harder to get out of than in, according to folklore), but seems to me there's at least a hint that Elrond might otherwise have prevented the dwarves' departure if they refuse to renounce their mission -- which makes the Elvenking's later doing precisely that fit into the same pattern. Though perhaps with less justification.

And, so long as we're discussing those who want to stop Thorin and Company's quest, there's one question that goes unanswered in this first film: who betrayed the king-in-exile to Azog's orcs? I can think of three likely possibilities, but at this stage have no idea which might be right: (1) some member of the Seven Houses of the Dwarves -- we know that Thorin meets with them and tells them his intentions immediately before arriving at Bag-End -- or Dain, who opposes his mission. (2) someone Thorin has told that we don't know about yet, or (3) Saruman, assuming he's already gone bad. Not enough to go on here, yet, but I'm sure there'll be a Big Reveal sometime in the next two movies. Let's hope it's not Dain, one of Tolkien's more appealing minor characters.

In an example of a change that made a lot of sense, Jackson has provided an explanation for a question that'd never even occurred to me. If the Arkenstone was so all-fired important, why did Thror and Thrain leave it behind? The film's answer -- that Thror intended to take it but it got lost in a sea of gold during the disruption caused by the dragon's rampage -- is as good as any: it brings the all-important Arkenstone into the story early, accounts for it's being left behind, stresses its important to Thorin's line and claim on the kingship, and even sets up where it cd reasonably be expected to be found within the Mountain. Not bad; not bad at all.

A few miscellaneous points: is Bilbo's spending most of the 'unexpected party' in his house-robe an echo back to Martin Freeman's role as Dent Arthur Dent in the movie version of THE HITCH-HIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY? Is the reference to Sting as "a letter opener" an in-joke to exactly such a letter-opener being sold as part of the LotR films' merchandizing? Could we have fewer burping contests and snot jokes next time? And what is it with the moths?

Just for fun I've decided to advance the hypothesis that in the world of the films, moths are all-powerful. Whenever one tells an eagle to do something, the eagles immediately do it. That wd explain why the Fellowship doesn't take eagles to Mt Doom: (a) the Nazgul and Eye wd have fried them like bacon, and (b) no one thought to ask a moth to get the eagles to fall in line.

I'd intended to write more, about the Diaspora, and to puzzle over a scene glimpsed in a trailer that doesn't appear in the film (saved for the extended cut? displaced to the second or third film as a flash-back?), to note how Thorin and Company use good D-and-D tactics of almost always having their two toughest fighters, Dwalin and Bifur, in the front or rear of the party, to praise Jackson for having solved one major problem: how to film "Riddles in the Dark" when you can't show things that happen in total darkness on a screen. But this review is already long enough, so I'll stop with one final observation: some of the dwarves' ages are changed to match the impression we get from reading the book, not to agree with the details revealed by a close reading. For example, most readers of the book don't think of Thorin as particularly old, whereas Balin is continually referred to as "old". But at the time of their capture by the wood-elves, it is revealed that Thorin is actually the oldest among them, older even than Balin. The movie reverses that: it makes Thorin a dwarf in his prime, while Balin is a generation older (about the same age as Dwalin, who is not described as old in the book). An interesting change: doesn't do too much violence to Tolkien's story but opens up interesting possibilities for the film.

So: plenty of quibbles, much curiosity about what's to come, and great delight in getting to see this film.  Highly recommended.

--John R.

current reading: THE HOBBIT CHRONICLES: ART AND DESIGN -- Weta Workshop [Dec. 2012]

HOBBIT Movie Review (Part two)

(once again, spoilers)

Returning Characters

One of the joys of Jackson's THE HOBBIT is seeing familiar faces again as members of his LORD OF THE RINGS films reprise their roles. It wd have been a shame to have a different director, different special effects/costuming/prop house, different composer, et al between the LORD OF THE RINGS films and these HOBBIT films. And the sense of seeing another story set in the same world is v. much enhanced by seeing the same actors playing the same characters, most notably Gandalf. McKellan has said he much preferred playing the character of Gandalf the Grey to that of Gandalf the White, and one can see why; the latter was more remote, as befitted his enhanced status, while the earlier was more human, more quirky, and warmer.

And Gandalf is given a lot to do here: he's one of the three main leads, second only to Martin Freeman's Bilbo. In keeping with Tolkien's portrayal in THE HOBBIT on the limits of Gandalf's power, the Grey Wizard is generally shown as powerful compared to the hobbit or Thorin & Company, but no match for, say, a war-party of warg-riders. This comes out best in a Jackson-invented conversation in which Gandalf brings up the fact that there are five wizards in all, which prompts Bilbo to ask whether Radagast is powerful, like Saruman and the two unnamed Blue Wizards, or "like you, Gandalf". That might be put down to hobbit naivete, were it not followed up by a meeting of the White Council, in which it is made painfully clear that Gandalf is subservient not just to Saruman, the head of his order, but also to Galadriel and even Elrond. That said, it's all the more satisfying to see how much Gandalf can do with what power he does have, much of which comes in the form of good advice (which Thorin and others may or may not take); he's also not above a certain amount of manipulation, not to say duplicity.

So, McKellan was pretty much universally haled as a great Gandalf in the LORD OF THE RINGS moview, even by those purists who didn't much like the Jackson movies as a whole, and he's in fine form this time around too: seeing more of McKellan's Gandalf is reward enough for going to see this movie, even without all its other virtues.

The other standout returning character is Andy Serkis's GOLLUM. Here the film-makers use what they know about Smeagol/Gollum's split personality to inform the performance here without being explicit about it (and thus keeping true to the spirit of THE HOBBIT). We, as viewers who have seen THE TWO TOWERS, can see the two sides of Gollum's personality, and recognize through facial expressions which side is dominant or speaking at any given moment. This leads to a few hilarious moments, as when evil-Gollum asks a riddle, and a few seconds later less-evil Gollum guesses the answer -- which has the interesting effect of showing us that the two sides of Gollum's personality don't necessarily each know what the other knows. A really fascinating performance by Serkis. But what makes the scene a standout is Freeman's Bilbo interacting with Gollum. Bilbo knows nothing about Gollum's two sides, but he quickly picks up that this dangerous stranger has two moods, and that the right kind of questions can bring the less dangerous one to the fore; his proposing the Riddle Game (and it is Bilbo who proposes it in the movie, rather than Gollum as in the book) is a direct result of keeping the creature talking and engaged, rather than letting him revert back into feral mode.

We're told this is the first scene Jackson filmed when starting THE HOBBIT project, and that decision makes all kinds of sense. It's the best scene in Tolkien's book, and arguably the best piece of fiction he ever produced. If they can't get this right, they're in deep trouble. If they can pull this off, they're on the right track and much else can be forgiven. I think they pulled it off. The final moment, when Bilbo decides not to kill Gollum, was too slow and drawn out for my tastes (maybe I missed the internal monologue of Bilbo thinking it through, and his sudden searing moment of empathy as he suddenly sees the world as Gollum sees it), but that didn't negate the overall achievement. Serkis deserves some kind of Oscar for this scene, but I have no idea what the proper category shd be. And Martin was right there with him, each pulling out the best performance out of the other. Remarkable.

Seeing Kate Blanchett's Galadriel again was wonderful. She looked great, and was more focused on the business at hand (less spooky and more effective). It made an interesting contrast that while the three other figures in the scene (Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond) stayed more or less in place throughout the White Council scene, she was in motion, slowly circling the area. The aftermath follow-up scene was also interesting in that it included a rare moment of tenderness between Galadriel and Gandalf. I think this was intended to convey a touch of sadness on her part at signs of him growing old (which wd have seemed strange to an elf, neither the immortality of a fellow elf or the swift life of a mortal but something in-between: aging but not dying of age). There was one odd bit about this scene, in that it both established that Galadriel was physically there (she moved a lock of Gandalf's errant hair back into place) and not there (in her sudden vanishing at the end of the scene). Are Jackson's elf-lords capable of teleportation?

The Gandalf-Galadriel exchange did have one moment which seemed to me the equivalent of loading a blunderbuss and hanging in over the mantlepiece in Act I of a play: deliberate set-up for something to come later. After the Council meeting was over, Galadrield told Gandalf that if he needed her, and sent for her, she wd come. Now on the surface that doesn't sound like a HOBBIT scene at all (naturally enough, given that Tolkien didn't create the character of Galadriel until a decade or so after he wrote THE HOBBIT), but I think it suggests that Jackson will be blending two events later on the the HOBBIT film series. We know from THE HOBBIT itself that during the events of Bilbo's journey through Mirkwood, Gandalf was away, helping the White Council to drive the Necromancer from Dol Guldur. And we know from the Appendices to LotR that during the time of the War of the Rings, forces from Dol Guldur and Lorien clashed, ultimately ending with Lorien's victory and Galadriel's coming to the Tower of Sorcery and casting it down. I suspect that, just as Jackson has collapsed time between the darkening of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood*, so too he may merge the two assaults on Dol Guldur into one. I guess we shall see.

Christopher Lee's Saruman was the sort of thing you either like or you don't: if you liked his portrayal of the mad wizard in FELLOWSHIP and TWO TOWERS, then you'll be pleased to see him recap the role in THE HOBBIT; if not, perhaps not. I for one thought he was great in FELLOWSHIP, in fact going so far as to call it the role of a lifetime (I suspect it played a large role in his subsequent knighthood), so I'm glad to see him re-appear. The film was careful not to give any indication whether Saruman's corruption had begun or not by the time of Bilbo's adventures; perhaps this may take place (or we may learn more about it) in the subsequent films. Or perhaps we'll have the fun of seeing Gandalf and Saruman (and Galadriel, and Radagast) all fighting together against the Necromancer's powers of darkness at Dol Guldur, which wd play against expectation and be interesting for that reason.

Have to say it was odd, though, that Jackson decided to add an undercurrent of humor to Saruman's speeches. In one he talks while most of his words are muted out by a telepathic conversation between Galadriel and Gandalf; a little speech which ends with Saruman's querulous complaint that he sometimes feels like he's talking just to himself.  The other was a speech in which Saruman belittles Radagast for eating too many mushrooms, saying something along the lines of 'they've addled his wits and turned his teeth yellow. The first point sounds like his similar critique of Gandalf's smoking in their first scene together in FELLOWSHIP, but I wondered if the second was an in-joke referencing his recent role in the Tim Burton remake of WILLIE WONKA, in which he played the dentist-doctor of the title character. In any case, bit of an odd note.

Rounding out the White Council is another important returning character, Hugo Weaving's Elrond. Have to say I thought he was much better in this film than in the LotR series. Elrond is supposed to be warm and welcoming ("as kind as Christmas, as Tolkien put it"), not stiff and haughty as shown in the LotR films. Here Weaving seems to be much more relaxed and comfortable in the role, and the Rivendell scenes are much better for it. Without losing the sense that Elrond is a deadly warrior (well established in the opening scenes of FELLOWSHIP), they now add on loremaster, a much more appealing side. They also, by the by, provided a plausible explanation of how Rivendell can be "hidden" when it's located in a river valley and its general location is well-known: the path into Rivendell was an interesting explanation for a curious feature from the original stories.

I've already mentioned Holm's Bilbo, but shd add one odd thing that occurred when I saw the film the second time. The first time, I was excited to see Holm as the original Bilbo in the opening scene, and accepted the quick seque back in time to the younger Bilbo played by Freeman. But the second time I saw the film a few hours later, it jarred a little to see someone other than Freeman playing the role. Still, glad to see Holm again; it was gracious of him to appear and set the stage for the next Bilbo.

And then of course there's Frodo's brief appearance in those same scenes, which again helps set the context and tie these new films back to the previous Jackson Tolkien series.

Overall: great use of returning actors in continuing roles. When you've got a resource like this and talent like this to draw on, and you're wise enough to use it to the full, that's a good sign.

--John R.

Next Up: The More Things Change . . . 

*I only just noticed it last night, but on the facsimile of the Lonely Mountain map, they've changed the wording to match this change in chronology: instead of "West lies Mirkwood the Great / there are spiders" the film's map reads "West lies Greenwood the Great". They also made a few other changes, so that the page is labelled "Thorin's Map" (not "Thror's Map") and the writing immediately beneath the Mountain reads "Here of old was Thror / King under the Mountain" instead of the book's "Here of old was Thrain / King under the Mountain", thus cutting through the whole Thror/Thrain/Thorin vs Thrain/Thror/Thorin business that Tolkien finally resolved, after much confusion, with the invention of Thrain the First.