Today I read a review written by Michael Smith which complained that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey followed a plot so similar to that of The Fellowship of the Ring as to make the new movie seem like a formulaic copy of the former. On a superficial level, this might be true. On a deeper level, however, Hobbit is the more complex of the two movies.
The Lord of the Rings bases itself in an inclusive journey. We, as the viewers, are invited to be members of a small, handpicked band of fellows on an epic quest of good-vs-evil. Although individual members of this fellowship may be weak, the fellowship takes strength in its overall goodness. As we watch our fellows brave evil again and again, we are buoyed up with the sense that "the right will prevail.
In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo is the center of the journey. He is the ring-bearer, selected to destroy Sauron's ring of power in the fiery bowels of Mount Doom. Every other member of the group is selected as a companion or protector of Frodo.
The Lord of the Rings confronts the viewer with profoundly Christian themes. Frodo in particular embodies personal sacrifice; although his death is not required by the quest, his life is. Frodo is no longer able to enjoy life after being the bearer of ultimate evil, and retires to the afterlife of the elves. Frodo is one of the hobbits, the little people, known for their kindness and hospitality. As such, Frodo is of the meekest and lowliest of Middle Earth's races. That this humble, childlike person is the only one capable of bearing of the ring (read: cross) shows him to be a Christ archetype.
The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a journey based in alienation. The dwarves are not the divinely-appointed destroyers of evil that the fellowship is; they are, instead, a race driven from their homelands to find support in the communities of men. Thorin and his band are tradespeople and former warriors on a quest to reclaim their rich heritage, but their quest is based as much in pride and greed as any noble motivations.
Whereas Frodo is the center of the fellowship, Bilbo is not accepted into the band of dwarves until the end of the movie. His motives are constantly questioned, and his lack of worldly knowledge is looked at as a sign of neivete rather than innocence. Although he is designated as the group's burglar, even he doubts his ability to be useful to the dwarves.
The alienation and quest for a homeland reflects not Christian but Jewish influence. The dwarves are a race scattered by the dragon, a symbol of evils that are in the earth. Although they prosper among the men, they seek a return to their ancestral land. Other aspects of dwarvish culture and propensities easily lend themselves to a comparison with the Hebrews, but in order to avoid stereotyping and PC issues I'll let it stand at that.
So, while the stories involve travel across the same territory and battles with many of the same beasts, they are in no way the same underneath the surface veneer. The Lord of the Rings tells a perfectly imagined (but somewhat standard) Christian moral fable, while The Hobbit's complexity lies in the fact that it is not a standard good-vs-evil story but a tale of aliyah, of a displaced people's return to a lost home. Rather than write up trite comparisons, the truly critical viewer should leave the theater with a profound sense of the importance of heritage, and sorrow at its loss.
No comments:
Post a Comment