I wanted to give a little bit of a critique on the Hobbit movie. I revere Tolkien and love his writing. I think that it was historically important because his work and Lewis' work reignited the Christian imagination when it was at a very dreary ebb. I left the movie with my feeling in a bit of a flutter (I was also in the process of contracting Influenza A) with some conflicted feelings. My feelings, since then, have been more studied and I have some real concerns about the film.

My biggest problem with the movie is that there is a book called the Hobbit that it is supposed to represent. I was worried that Peter Jackson (who is a talented director) was really overmatched by the Hobbit because of choices that were made in the telling of the story. New Line Cinemas decided to turn the Hobbit into three movies. It is shorter than any of the other books that were turned into three separate movies. Jackson was faced with more material than he needed during the first three films and he had to practice the skill of concision (i.e., cutting out that was less necessary). He did not always make these decisions correctly (IMHO) and a few are simply unforgivable--like cutting the Scouring of the Shire which is, in fact, the whole point of the book! All in all, however, his work was admirable if imperfect, and I really like the extended versions of the Rings movies. They are not nearly as good as the books, but they are quality entertainment. In the Hobbit, Jackson was faced with the opposite challenge: he had to take a shorter book and turn it into three full length films. He had to create and add to the story. This is a much more difficult skill. To do it well Jackson would have to be a storyteller of the same sort of ability and skill as Tolkein. If you were wondering, he is not.

So, if you were going to fill in details in a great story and you wanted to attract the attention of teenage boys today what would you add? If you guessed violence, gore, and chases, you win the prize. Note, I am not the most squeamish person concerning violence. I grew up in a football locker room and love Braveheart and Gladiator. My problem is this: the violence and chases really harms the story. (I am scared about what it will do the to the two (!!!) additional movies. Said differently, if this movie was called "Big Scary Goblins Chase Small Russian looking People and an Old Man" I would not have had a problem with it. (Probably would not go to see it, but it would be aptly named.) The goblin killing which is a small part of the actual Hobbit takes a prominent place in this movie.

My greatest problem is this: many people might thing that what they saw on the screen actually represented the story in the book called the Hobbit. Admittedly, there was some overlap, but the feel and purpose is all wrong. I left knowing that this was a pale and sad cinematic appendage to a great book. I hoped for more, but it could go worse (see any of the four movies with the name Beowulf attached to it--no, really don't). I realized later, however, that many might not know the Hobbit and might not read the Hobbit. So, here is my plea. If you have seen the movie but have not read the book, you do not know the Hobbit. You must go read the book.

Finally, the irony was not lost on me. The Hobbit is a quest for gold. The quest is not the most important thing that happens because of the unwitting finding of the One Ring, but the quest drives the plot of the book. Love of gold destroys people and dragons throughout the story. When I told my wife that they were turning the Hobbit into three movies she said, "Why?!?" I answered, "Gold." For the billion or so extra dollars they are going to mishandle the story. Things work this way in Hollywood, but hoarders and their gold are soon parted.

Again, read the Hobbit. It will make you forget about the movie.