Now Playing: Kristin Hersh--"Costa RIca"
The Hobbit (1937): I read the book and saw the Rankin-Bass animated film (with Match Game fixture Orson Bean as Bilbo Baggins and John Huston, three years after portraying Noah Cross, one of the screen's great forces for evil, in Roman Polanski's Chinatown, lending his voice to one of literature's great forces for good as Gandalf), made forty years after publication, as a boy and loved them both, though largely forsaking them for Tolkien's greater opus as I grew older. I grew out of The Lord of the Rings decades ago for various reasons: a nagging feeling of emptiness on reading it that I recognized while still a kid, the greater (though smugger and more painfully allegorical) achievement of Tolkien's friend and colleague C.S. Lewis with The Chronicles of Narnia, and a greater familiarity with Tolkien's role models both medieval and modern, such as the Prose Edda and Heimskringla of Icelandic saga-master Snorri Sturluson and the Victorian fantasies of George Macdonald and William Morris. For some time, I always spoke as if I preferred The Hobbit. After putting the theory to the test, I think that's still true, but not by much. Hole-dwelling hobbit Bilbo Baggins leads a contented life in the Shire, a bucolic landscape of small farmers and artisans, until a surprise visit by the mysterious wizard Gandalf, bringing in his train a raft of dwarves who hire Bilbo for a dangerous job in far-off parts, involving enchanted forests, nasty goblins, cranky elves, greedy townsfolk, the ferocious, wily dragon Smaug, and the sinister, cave-dwelling Gollum, the last probably Tolkien's finest fictional creation (for what that's worth). It's a fun story for much of the way, and the sequences in the Misty Mountains in particular are well-handled. Apart from Gollum, Gandalf, Bilbo and Smaug are terrific characters. Other than that, there are a number of quibbles, most of them leading back to the notion that Tolkien created a world but forgot to write a story. Tolkien was never a great stylist, and the prose clunks abysmally at times. Chunks of the story that were presumably included as a nod to the mythical inspirations for Tolkien's writing (Beorn's house, for example) could easily be excised. Were the writing more inspiring, they'd work very well, but the matter-of-fact prose simply makes them a distraction, sitting uneasily alongside the folkloric weight of the material. C.S. Lewis had similar problems in a way, but he managed to make it flow in a way to which Tolkien could never rise (both of them probably could have taken lessons from Jack Vance, had that been possible). The major criticisms can be found, much better expressed, in Lin Carter's excellent work on Tolkien's creations, Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings (1969). In the end, The Hobbit is well worth reading, but for my money hardly an icon (of childhood or of any sort) anymore.
Earthsea (2004): In contrast, Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy had steadily grown in my estimation since I read it shortly after (or while) reading The Lord of the Rings (in fifth grade or so). LeGuin came from a vastly different background than Tolkien, with a skeptically feminist consciousness infmroed by a through grouding in and engagement with the conflicts and culture of the modern age (her father, Alfred Kroeber, was a famous teacher and writer of the early twentieth century and one of the founding fathers of modern anthropology). Though some of her work could be didactic, unsubtle and self-righteous (her clumsy 1972 Vietnam allegory, The Word For World Is Forest, stood out in this regard), at her finest she was one of the best science-fiction and fantasy writers of the past half-century, obviating the curses of genre with superb literature. Along with the Hugo-winning, gender-bending sci-fi classic The Left Hand of Darkness (1969), the Earthsea trilogy--comprising A Wizard of Earthsea (1968), The Tombs of Atuan (1970), and The Farthest Shore (1972)--is probably her most famous work. Set in the heavily maritime, quasi-medieval world of Earthsea (essentially an ocean with countless isles and islets), it tells the story of Ged and his growth from a callow blacksmith to an older, wiser, but more sorrowful wizard. Using plot devices such as magic and dragons without once becmoing hoary or cliched, the Earthsea trilogy goes to psychological places I suspect Tolkien would have found completely alien, and Ged is a memorably realistic, strikingly drawn character. When I heard a few years back that they were making a film of it on the Sci-Fi Channel, I inwardly quailed. After finally getting around to watching it this past weekend, I have mixed feelings. Earthsea bears roughly the same resemblance to the Earthsea trilogy that Kevin Reynolds' 2002 film of The Count of Monte Cristo bore to Alexandre Dumas' classic and my favorite novel--somewhat superficially accurate, not quite in keeping with the spirit fo the story, but still passable fun. Somewhat confused during the first half-hour, I realized that the writer and director had decided to roll the first two novels into one movie, a strategy that works surprisingly well in structural terms. Ged (The Ruins' Shawn Ashmore), a young blacksmith on the island of Gont, charms up a concealing mist durnig a Kargad barbarian raid on his village, which brings him to the attention of the wizard Ogion (Danny Glover). After getting all cocky and charming up a demon, Ged is sent by Ogion to the wizards' school of Roke, where he will (presumably) learn to control his powers. So far so accurate, but then not only does the movie start to coincide with The Tombs of Atuan, it introduces an additional wrinkle by bringing in a scenery-chewing villain in the form of the Kargad king, one Tygath (a hilarious Sebastian Roche, who played a number of great baddies on Law and Order back in the day, most memorably obnoxious rock star "C-Square"), who's carrying on an affair with the devious, foxily slimy priestess Kossil (Jennifer Calvert), who hopes to succeed the high priestess Thar (Isabella Rossellini) and gain the secret of immortal life for herself and her lover, in spite of the virtuous opposition of her rival Tenar (Smallville's--and more importantly Edgemont's--Kristin Kreuk). In the meantime, Tygath senses that the main obstacle to his plans will be the most powerful of wizards, prophesied to arise at the same time (guess who?). Whew! Back at the ranch, Ged's teased by a pouting fop into raising one of the "Nameless Ones," which nearly gets him killed and then cast out of Roke to eventually face the gebbeth, or shadow, that will pursue him across Earthsea until he musters the courage to confront it. Still with me? All the plot threads combine in crazy-quilt fashion that preserves some of the books' themes but still fails to fulfil. The acting is adequate, as long as one can ignore the relative psychological complexity of the original characters. It was especially nice to see the adorable Erin Karpluk of the offbeat Canadian show Being Erica in a small role as Ged's childhood sweetheart Diana (Diana? There's another character named "Penelope," too--you think they could have come up with some non-canon names to match LeGuin's imagination). In a weird twist, some characters originally written as black (Ged's pal Vetch in particular) have been changed to "white", whereas in the original version only the "barbarian" Kargad could fit that description (a rather daring choice on LeGuin's part for the time, and one that countered previous fantasy writers' approximations of medieval Europe, one Ring-master's in particular). That change among others--presumably including the compressed plot structure and the elision of the last story, the moody and contemplative The Farthest Shore--got the knives out among online fans and caused LeGuin herself to completely disown the adaptation (what the copyright situation was I have no idea, although the thing was produced by the Halmi Brothers). I wouldn't go quite that far, but it certainly doesn't live up to the novels, which is cause for celebration as far as I'm concerned; after all, as I've said before, if you want a movie that's completely faithful to the book, read the book. Earthsea, while it doesn't live up to its inspiration, does at least offer some decent Saturday afternoon entertainment that would go quite well with folding the laundry.
Updated: 7 April 2009 12:42 PM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink | Share This Post