Appendix 4: Journey’s End: about the adventure of “reading” “The Hobbit” after „The Battle of the Five Armies“, part 3 (About how the battle was fought)

Maybe what I even like best about the “Hobbit” films, apart from the fact that they told “my story” so beautifully, is that it finally became necessary, and not “just great”, to have these two superior and really different actors for these two very different jobs. In the case of Martin Freeman the job is what actors probably like best: great epic storytelling, with long scenes that can be “run through” most of the time, and witty, beautiful dialogue. But to make it that perfect and enjoyable you need an actor with a lot of imagination who can think of doing little bits just a little different. And the little bit might even make a big difference. This kind of “fine tuned” acting is delightful to watch but really necessary as well for making you understand all the little angles of the story that will turn out to be important later on. I remember that I thought at first: this is a bit too much, or too big, or doesn’t look natural, but in the end it is EXACTLY as it has to be. It is important to make you notice everything, even if it is only subconsciously, because there is meaning in every little bit, and being able to “read” the story like this is crucial for saving the film from going down the drain towards insignificance. His character is the character through whom the story is told. If we “lose” him the story is lost.

With Thorin it is rather different because his story is mostly done “in bits”. He doesn’t just enter the film but “drops in” like an asteroid, and, from that moment, the tone of the story is changed. And one of the things I liked a lot about how they perceived Thorin is that he doesn’t say much. He always waits until the right moment has come, until it becomes necessary to say something. But you can observe him thinking a lot. You always expect something might happen any time, but you don’t know what. And then, when it comes out, it is often something rather unexpected, or even some surprising “thing of beauty”. It is gratifying to finally see some bigger acting scenes in the third film but the great feat this actor has done is to make every single “bit” come out so very special and unique. The reason for this is probably what one of his fellow actors observed about his method of working: that he is able to focus on the single moment to a degree that other people can hardly imagine. And this is probably not a talent or personal feature somebody can have, at least not to the degree he has developed it. It is a method of working that consists in not leaving anything to chance but to prepare for every single moment of shooting as if it was the only thing that matters. And this kind of attitude regarding his work paid big time, in the end. When you can see the complete picture you are able to appreciate how important every single one of these “high energy” moments has been.

In particular I liked the way the endings of the first and second film are linked by two of these special moments. The one is when they see the Lonely Mountain for the first time, and the way Thorin’s face is just lit up with hope and joy, as if the sun had suddenly pierced the dark clouds. It is the first time we see this “side” of Thorin which is, surprisingly, rather naïve and childlike. (There was one moment in every one of the three films where somebody made me almost cry. In the first film it was this one because, if you have read the book, you know what the future has in store for him.) - Then we have two single moments of this kind at the end of the second film. But then the music is changed. It is the way Thorin reacts to seeing Smaug being submerged by the gold and then seeing him emerge again. They are just “highly charged” moments of emotion, going through the whole body and somehow “exploding” in the face. (And, “originally”, that was just an actor dangling in front of a green-screen, probably staring at a tennis-ball! )  

Of course it is the context into which these moments are set that makes them so significant. There was this long “playstation sequence” about the dwarves turning from pursued to pursuers and finally even getting the upper hand which I rather loathed – until the moment I became aware of the story “behind” it. There is this great sentence Thorin says that I didn’t even notice until it became a song: “If this is to end in fire we will all burn together.” This is the moment he becomes aware that he believes he can defeat Smaug by what Smaug himself is: fire. And this is rather a lunatic – or “dwarvish” – idea, which is probably even the reason why it works, at least to a certain degree. And then there is this moment when Thorin feels he is victorious, looking Smaug in the eye. And, at this moment, he is exactly THE SAME SIZE as Smaug! He has confronted what he feared most, and now he isn’t afraid of anything anymore. From that moment on everything is changed. Because, having looked the dragon in the eye, he has become LIKE the dragon. He isn’t a small dwarf anymore, not even a “great” dwarf, and this is something he has wished for secretly, and which is a central theme of Tolkien as well: the desire to be transformed into that being that wields absolute power. And, just for a single moment maybe, he has arrived there …

I was delighted how these single significant moments make us see where EXACTLY Thorin stands at this stage of his journey. And how they bring into focus other “bits”, charging them with meaning. For example I liked it a lot when, in the first film, the “oakenshield” made an appearance, not seeing the significance completely until the third film when Thorin says to Dwalin that he shouldn’t speak to him as if he was still “Thorin Oakenshield”. Well, this sentence is clearly one intended to make you THINK about the story they wanted to tell! - I was delighted because I had felt that the oakenshield, as a metaphor, has a different meaning than the meaning Thorin - and probably even Richard Armitage, who instisted on having it, even made a design for it himself - attributed to it. For Thorin it is a token of strength and hope: that he has been able to defeat an enemy stronger than himself, and will be. (And in the end he is! But it will be his own death as well.) This is the story that Thorin wants to tell to himself, but the story Tolkien is telling about him, and of which he is subconsciously aware!, is that he always operates from a position of weakness. What is an oaken branch to defend you from the maze of a giant orc? His position has always been desperate, and, to change this, there is probably nothing he WOULDN’T do!

Why Martin Freeman had always been first choice for the hobbit is so obvious that he apparently felt the need to dissociate himself from his character and say: As a person, I am not like Bilbo Baggins at all! Of course he isn’t. He is a great comic actor who studies people, including himself. – As far as I can judge, Richard Armitage is a very different actor, kind of like my long-time favourites Ray Winstone and Mark Addy who always go for the “core” of a character, and always “hit” it. And I don’t understand in the least how they are doing this. Maybe because it is a different thing every time one of them is “putting together” a significant character like this one. A character that is UNLIKE anything I have seen before and doesn’t grow kind of naturally “out of” the actor’s own “material”. The only thing you can see is that there is nothing “natural” and easy about it, and that it requires a lot of work, and skill, and intellect.

And, as I am just watching the “specials” to “The Hobbit” again, I think I have found out something important about this from the documentation about Smaug (– which might be the single most fascinating part of the documentation as such!) It was Benedict Cumberbatch who said that playing Smaug required a “leap of faith”. Being able to convince himself that he could be a dragon. (In his case it was PLAYING him, but, to make that character emerge, there were more than a few “leaps” to be made at practically every “angle”.) That was the moment I suddenly kind of “got it” what he is doing, and why I find his acting so interesting and singularly successful. And I think this is, generally, exactly “the thing” we cannot see or understand when one of these complex, previously unknown characters comes into being. When the actor has achieved THIS, the character is just kind of “there”.

The most obvious example for this in Thorin’s case is the voice. In his interview for the documentation Richard Armitage gives us a clear account of what the initial stage of uncertainty – when you still “have” nothing “on” the character – is like. And I didn’t really get this until I saw the documentation on “The Battle of the Five Armies” where he gives the real reason for hiding from the backstage cameras (which is VERY obvious, especially when you are looking for him!): He didn’t want to be seen on any footage about the shoot, in case he didn’t “work out” as Thorin and might have to leave the production. And I was really kind of shocked when I heard this. But this is what it is like! And I know that it happened at least two times, for example to the actor who was casted for Aragorn in the first place – whoever that was??? Of course I don’t know, and, personally, can live very well without this kind of information, but there isn’t much you can hide from the fans “on the internet” these days. And only then did I understand why on this first press conference – which must have been quite early on – Richard Armitage, who is usually confident and eloquent when giving interviews, appears to be the only person at this long table who is obviously feeling VERY uncomfortable.  

The first time I became aware of this “part” of the acting process was about Ray Winstone playing Henry VIII. Compared to Richard Armitage he is not very explicit when talking about his work. And he answered the question what had been his worst experience about playing Henry VIII with: “The first fifteen days”. By which, I think, he must have meant the first fifteen days of SHOOTING! And, even though he got slightly more loquacious answering further questions, this was the most helpful piece of information for me for kind of “measuring” what he has achieved there. – In the case of Richard Armitage the main problem was probably that he knew that he was kind of too young to play Thorin. And this is a problem for these films which wasn’t really “solved”, not “aesthetically” anyway, because being youngish (and kind of “classically” good-)looking is certainly great, just not for “being” a dwarf!

I must admit that for the first time AT ALL I noticed make-up in a film. And this is of course kind of unjust because it can be as much of an art as everything else that is done there: making faces look exactly the way you want them to look. But you notice their art only when something is wrong. I mean, how often have I thought: this costume is gorgeous, and all these totally amazing sets, and, of course, the animation, and even, sometimes: this is a great stunt! Of course very seldom because you are not supposed to realize that it is a stunt. But make-up as such – though in these films you certainly become aware of prosthetics and hair all the time - I never noticed the hundreds of times it works great, only when it doesn’t work. And Thorin, as I never really wanted to admit but can now, kind of didn’t really work. But there is something interesting I “retrieved” from this experience about what happens when I “read” films. Because, having seen the films so often, I noticed that I kind of “extrapolate” the moments where Thorin looks great – as a dwarf - to the moments when he somehow doesn’t look “right”. (Which is - what I didn’t want to admit but can now – like most of the time) But I wouldn’t have been able to extrapolate if the acting hadn’t been SO RIGHT! There is probably no such thing as perfection, but some things are certainly close, and there is certainly a great need in “us” for SEEING it! Maybe Thorin is even my best proof for what I realized about film adaptations of books, watching the Tolkien-films: that, for me, it doesn’t matter if this character LOOKS like the character “from” the book. Of course it is great when he does, and it even makes sense to say that Martin Freeman’s Bilbo looks like Bilbo “in the book”. But the most important thing is that the actor convinces me that this IS the character from the book – in Thorin’s case not exactly the grumpy old dwarf from “The Hobbit”, but more like what is suggested about him in the appendices to “The Lord of the Rings”. Of course, for me, being so particular about the dwarves, he HAD TO BE one of my favourite characters from these films, probably my favourite anyway, and I would notice and value everything about him. So I certainly WANTED to be convinced, but Richard Armitage still had to ACHIEVE that!

Anyway, I think he knew very well that there was something not right as it was and that it was his job to deal with it. And something like the first and decisive step for this character, apart from moving and fighting “like a dwarf”, appears to have been to create this special voice for Thorin. And there was this “leap of faith” already when he imagined where this voice should “come from”. Which was obviously Shakespeare. I don’t remember where I have this quote from, but the voice was partly “taken from” Lear, which is rather “far out” for an actor his age. In any case it is a big “leap” from his “natural” voice – though I noticed then that he always changes his voice, if only slightly, for any character he is playing to a point that it is impossible to say, if you know him only as an actor, what his natural voice is. Another indication for this kind of acting is that I have never quite seen him “doing” his natural smile, which is rather a great feature, on camera. Being rather unassuming and direct as a “public” person, with a great sense of humour, his most interesting characters are arrogant and gloomy, and always kind of mysterious. I think that this rather complex feature is for what he is commonly chosen as an actor: He is especially good at being an enigma. This is what John Thornton in “North and South” is about. In this case we know that he will turn out “good”, but in other cases they used him to play with the expectations of the audience in a rather nasty way. As in the “Spooks”, where people actually DIDN’T buy the 9^th series on dvd because they knew then what was going to happen with Lucas North and didn’t want to see it. Or people who bought this horrible “Robin Hood” series to see if Guy of Guisborne would turn out good, in the end. (Idiots! Well, I didn’t buy the 3^rd series at least!) And then there is this rather beautiful episode of “Moving on” where he is playing a guy who seduces a woman for the purpose of using her for drug trafficking – but, of course, we don’t know that. If I had consciously noticed the first time I saw it that they had changed his eye-colour to muddy brown there would have been no suspense about the outcome at all. Eye-colour is certainly a feature we never take into account, but we always notice it subconsciously, and it may in fact be an important feature for what kind of characters an actor gets to play. If you have blue eyes there certainly is a chance that you might not turn out completely bad! - But, even though there are certainly physical features that make somebody perfect for being an enigma, as a “special” kind of beauty and even eye-colour, the most important thing is probably what somebody likes to do best, as an actor, and what, because of that, he is especially good at. In an interview Richard Armitage gave on the occasion of the premiere of “The Desolation of Smaug” he gave away something about the third film that made me worry at first. He said that he had especially liked it to be able to do something he hadn’t done “on camera” before: looking for things that are “discontinuous and irrational” to show the “workings of a breaking mind”, which is quite unlike what you usually do. Well, I was worried about the “breaking mind” and the madness which is something that actors appear to like, and which, in my opinion, always turns out rather disappointing. And, in this case, might have destroyed the character and what the rest of his story was meant to be. But I should have had the greatness to believe him if he had been so convinced that what they had done would turn out great. I should have trusted his judgment, because: how much more prove do you need? But I couldn’t help being worried because exactly this part of the story meant so much to me.

Now, having made my final assessment of the three films, I can even admit that it was ME who has been right about this. At least that my fears were certainly not unfounded. And, of course, I had so wished NOT to be right! Yeah, and IN THE END, I wasn’t, but this thing really teetered on a knife’s edge – and I will take this up again in my “report” about the last part of the “battle”.

Something that has deepened my “reading” of the “Hobbit” films a lot is that, at the time I saw the extended cut of “The Desolation of Smaug”, followed by seeing “The Battle of the Five Armies”, I was rather “into” another text: Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”. And I felt that, the better I knew the text, the less I understood it. Until I accidentally used my “method” of looking at a small, marginal bit. I had stumbled upon the word “equivocation” in the porter’s scene, which I had never heeded before, although I had noted that, still, about three people are laughing at any performance of “Macbeth” at the porter’s joke that drink is an equivocator with lechery. The meaning of the joke is obvious, but I noticed that I didn’t know what exactly “equivocation” means. The next thing I noticed was that it appears more than once in the porter’s monologue, and then, near the end, is used by Macbeth himself. When he sees Birnam wood come towards Dunsinane he begins “to doubt the equivocation of the fiend” who told him about it. (To “doubt” here meaning: “to suspect”.) After having got the meaning I suddenly saw it “everywhere”: in single expressions and images (like: “from that spring where comfort seemed to come discomfort swells”), the “weird sisters” of course, who “give out” meaning which is, as Macbeth himself is unable to see, always equivocal: “Fair is foul and foul is fair …” And, most important, in the character of Macbeth itself – which is at the centre of what I still don’t understand. Maybe there is nothing to “understand”, but it is interesting that, even though there are so many great, beautiful, and really bad “versions” of Macbeth on dvd, I have never seen an actor play Macbeth even REMOTELY in the way I see this character. – My biggest surprise at reading Shakespeare again was that I suddenly found him to be such a great “naturalist”. Which probably means that he represents the world the way I see it myself. If I presuppose that there is some kind of meaning to people’s lifes at all. But, in my book, it is always equivocal, and I am never “taken in” by anything “one-dimensional”, with easy questions and totally satisfying answers and the kind of happy ending you see in major feature films. In “Macbeth” I am probably always missing that first part of the “equivocation”: where you can somehow see some “good” in that character – before the whole thing tilts and the spiral movement towards disaster is set in motion. I might be wrong about this where Macbeth is concerned, but we can see that kind of thing I was looking for the way Richard Armitage is playing Thorin: perfectly “equivocal”. And there is reason to assume, from what he himself said about playing Thorin, that a lot of it actually “came from” Shakespeare.

Appendix 4: Journey’s End: about the adventure of “reading” “The Hobbit” after „The Battle of the Five Armies“, part 2 (About what you need to win a battle)

Of course, quite like my attitude of denial in the beginning, the perpetual worrying wasn’t completely unintentional. Imagine the worst, and there is a fair chance that it will turn out better. As it did: so much better than I could possibly have imagined. They really surprised me – as much as they surprised me with the first film. The main reason for this I had always anticipated because I had always appreciated the genius casting they had done on the Tolkien films. They really employed the best people on every job to be done for these films, and this is, of course, why they are so good. And the writing is genius, as it always has been. But the most important thing that would decide the fate of the films, in the end, they probably knew best. They knew what the most precious material is these films are made of: great actors. As much as I had noted and admired the genius casting for the “Lord of the Rings” films, I think in “The Hobbit” they surpassed themselves. Of course it was an unbelievable stroke of luck as well that an actor like Martin Freeman EXISTED to play the hobbit. And it says a lot about priorities that they arranged the shooting in a way that he was able to go home and shoot “Sherlock” for three months, rather than trying someone else!

As, after this, I will be singing the praise of only two actors for probably quite a long time, this is the moment to be finally grateful. Grateful for my two favourite dwarves, Balin and Dwalin, the “Scottish” brothers, played by Ken Stott and Graham McTavish so brilliantly. Special thanks to Ken Stott for making me ALMOST cry! And Dean O’Gorman shows great promise as an actor. Although he has always to “stand down” for Aidan Turner you can see how rather “dwarvish” he is, in these few moments we see him. Thanks to him for making “us” have at least a glimpse of what I expected Fíli and Kíli to be from the book! And I am grateful for Evangeline Lily who, although she is mainly employed as an action figure, made me think about elves TWICE, and maybe understand them better. She became my favourite elf, apart from Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. And I think elves are actually the most difficult “to do”. (And of course she looks great!) - Another very special elf, totally different from what we were used to, was Lee Pace as Thranduil. It took a while for him to convince me that he was “genuine”, but he came finally out great in “The Battle of the Five Armies” as this important and rather sinister war-lord. And Luke Evans as Bard is really good as well. He does everything exactly right and beautifully. And of course there are more ... as Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis, and, of course, Cate Blanchett, whom I almost forgot because they have already been in the “Rings films”. They simply couldn’t have done without them! And, how could I forget: Benedict Cumberbatch who knew he would play a dragon as nobody had ever done before. And lots of others still who had a bigger or smaller part in saving the films from insignificance. Best comes last, of course: Thanks to Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage for saving the films, full stop! And I offer my apologies in case I had doubted THEM!

I’d like to say that I hadn’t, but it isn’t that simple. Well, I certainly never doubted Martin Freeman for a second. It was just obvious that Bilbo was always going to “work” and be great. And that the actor would be able to carry off his story successfully, even splendidly, although it might have been drowned partly in the “noise”. And if THAT story worked the films would basically be okay. Even if they wouldn’t be as great as “The Lord of the Rings” there would be a lot of things to enjoy. I remember now that, in the first place, I hadn’t been worried about the dwarves. I had been worried about “who” Bilbo would be. But after that first scene between Bilbo and Gandalf the issue was determined. Great, everything will be fine, now I can safely enjoy the dwarves coming to Bag End … And this may be strange to say, but he was so good that I actually “forgot” about him for quite a long while and had my focus entirely on the dwarves. So it was a great thing, by the time I really began to watch the acting, to discover what an unbelievable “job” Bilbo has been. I am sure that I have never before seen an actor with so much variety, depth, and precision in his facial expression. As one of his colleagues said, I think it was Ian McKellen, who is such a great actor himself, and who was surprised at this “new” kind of acting: You actually can see on his face that he is thinking two different things at the same time. And you even know what they are. - Well, even if you don’t care that much about the films: it is just a pleasure to watch!

(I have to make a kind of footnote here which I rather regret because of the way it might reflect on what I have just written. But to praise what somebody else has done doesn’t cast a shadow on any other achievements. There are just so many great British actors … Of course I had seen it before! I had seen somebody do exactly the same thing before, but you don’t see “him” in the film doing it. It was Andy Serkis as Gollum. Now I think it is so great that the most enjoyable, maybe even the most perfect appearance of Gollum is actually in “The Hobbit”. And, the ultimate climax: seeing both of these actors together in that scene!)

I must now appear to have lost my thread for a while longer because there is one important preliminary thing to discuss. I’ll introduce it with something Richard Armitage said in his interview for the documentation of “An Unexpected Journey”. It was the one of the many funny or remarkable things he said that made me laugh longest – although it probably wasn’t intended to be funny. He said that doing the first read-through of the script had been difficult for him because he didn’t have Thorin’s voice yet – and because he thought they might ask themselves why they had picked this BRITISH actor for the part. – In case he hasn’t done the counting himself, I’ll do it for him, as far as I can: Out of the 37 most significant characters 20 are played by actors I know are British, 14 are played by actors I know aren’t British, and about three I couldn’t find out. So, there were well over 50 percent British actors employed on these films anyway, and if you add “weight” to the count the scale would even be tipped a good deal more in favour of the Brits because most of the leading characters – as Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Smaug, and Bard – are played by British actors. How come?

(And even though they were so proud to have cast over 50 percent New Zealanders for the dwarves, it is tell-tale that, apart from the “sons of Durin” (Thorin, Fíli and Kíli), only the three amazing Brits, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, and James Nesbit, have virtually any lines to say …)

There are certainly a number of reasons for this, first of all that British actors are “predestined” to speak “decent” English – which is rather important in this kind of film. The other obvious reason is that there are SO MANY great and really DIFFERENT British actors, for which, in turn, there are probably two main reasons. The first being something like Darwin’s law of the diversification of species and the survival of the fittest, the second the theatre tradition, and Shakespeare. I suppose that my explanation why I think working in the theatre, and especially “on” Shakespeare, makes them better actors will appear strange to actors because I know nothing whatsoever about acting (…)

This, of course, is still true, but in the meantime I had a “theoretical” workshop on “Playing Shakespeare” (which is an amazing program with members of the RSC broadcasted in the early eighties.). And I think most of what they say, apart from comparatively insignificant progress – as not to say things like “conclus-i-on” or “oce-an” any more, which is absolutely unnecessary and hugely distracting! – still constitutes the main points about playing Shakespeare nowadays. And I was enormously pleased that these were EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS that I tried to explain awkwardly and never managed because I didn’t have the actor’s perspective on it. First of all, that, as there were no directors in our sense in the Elizabethan Theatre, and practically no rehearsals, there was either a tradition of how all of this was done conventionally, or, in the case of Shakespeare, who was probably hugely unconventional to a point that he “invented” the “naturalistic” acting style which kind of developed into the 21^st century, the directions had to be written INTO THE TEXT. So the first and most important thing is that Shakespeare’s text is so rich in everything you need for your acting that actors largely learn the right kind of acting “automatically” from rehearsing Shakespeare’s plays. (Many significant British actors haven’t even played a substantial Shakespearean character on the stage, but I guess that many of them, like Richard Armitage, use some of these characters like musicians use études, to “bring out” something they need for playing a character to perfection. Or even use their experience in “reading Shakespeare” much more than their personal experience to determine what a certain character should be like.) - Most of this I had actually found out for myself by watching the CHANGES the text undergoes when I am reading it aloud instead of “just in my head”, and when I am trying to imagine how it may be acted – which sometimes happens “automatically” – and, of course, by seeing it acted. Because then you realize what a treasure of possibilities can be found in this text, and nothing like the only way of doing it. Which is what makes actors better actors than others who don’t have this scope of imagination. And who don’t have this tradition of acting in a way that they trust what is in the language, and the text, and the story, and the intense interaction with other characters (which I consider to be vital “in” Shakespeare and miss most of the time). So they don’t have to rely only on what is in their own imagination and experience – which always is poor, compared to the possibilities contained in a great story, and, in certain cases, might yield nothing at all. And one of the reasons why “The Hobbit” finally works better as a film than “The Lord of the Rings” is certainly that they had this kind of actors for every major character (but one), and that there is no “fuzziness” and insignificance at any point. Which is so incredibly important for THIS KIND of characters that have to be totally SPECIFIC and ABOUT TEN TIMES LARGER THAN LIFE. There are two great examples for direct comparison about what I just said, which are Elijah Wood as Frodo (who was really good, by the way!) and Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and, for an elf-character: Liv Tyler as Arwen (who was basically one of the ONLY three cases where they cast insignificant actors for significant parts in these films) and Evangeline Lily (who is Canadian but certainly “theatre-proof”) as Tauriel (a character that doesn’t exist in the book, but I am so grateful they invented her because she kind of “repaired” the first “fuck-up” about the elves.) It is this kind of brilliance, exactness, and variety that these actors have, which “bring out” these characters exactly as to what an elf and a hobbit ARE ABOUT. And it is not mainly in the way they look, or their general state of mind, or how they grew up as individuals, or whatever. It is all in THE STORY, in what happens to them and how they deal with it, and, in this special case, the larger HISTORY of their people.

The other two “fuck-ups” were in my opinion David Wenham as Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings” and – as I am sorry to say because I know my readers will disagree (if I haven’t lost them already anyway) – Aidan Turner (who – as I am grieved to say - is a British actor!) as Kíli. But I examined this again, and there is in fact exactly one scene where he convinced me of being this character, which is his first scene when they enter Bilbo’s house. After that I “lost him”. And I am even sorry because he probably isn’t a “bad” actor. He is just not the kind of actor that works in this “environment”. In many films, especially contemporary, you get away with the kind of actors that have become actors because they are good-looking and confident, or they are even exactly what you need when they “fit” the character. And the main reason I am writing this – though I probably have an axe to grind as well for him damaging the great work of other actors in at least two scenes because of his insignificant acting – is that it is such great “negative proof” for the SIGNIFICANCE of these films. As no other fuck-up, which certainly has happened on a project of these dimensions, or stupid, unnecessary deviation from the book, which happened as well, could damage the films for me as much as THIS did.

A kind of synopsis for what I was trying to state still very awkwardly about theatre and Shakespeare is what Richard Armitage said about playing Thorin, which is in the documentation of “An Unexpected Journey” as well. He said that Peter Jackson always had this great vision about Thorin that he himself “couldn’t quite see”. Well, IN THE END we all saw it, I suppose! And for this, in my opinion, it was not at all unimportant that, to get there, there were still so many unknown heights and depths to explore.

And there is another reason, besides “quality” why there are so many British actors on these films. Which I’d call “variety” or “scope”, and which appears to be brought about in a similar way as variety in nature, according to Darwin’s law of the diversification of species and the survival of the fittest. Because as there are already so many great and exceptionally skilled actors “on that patch”, actors, like species, probably tend to “diversify”. That is, they “develop” special features that will enable them to “fit” into a certain slot stories provide quite often or regularly. This is the original meaning of “survival of the FITTEST” (notwithstanding some of the actors demonstrating great pride of their physical fitness in the specials to “The Hobbit”, and rightfully so!): It is about which individual fits best into one of the divers slots nature provides. But nature, not unlike what we call “luck”, tends to be a bit of a bitch most of the time, with a will of her own. I suppose that Martin Freeman already had rather a long carrier as a comic actor of the kind that is funny through being rather serious and endearing, and just slightly ridiculous. He certainly had a large British audience on “The Office”, but I, like most people who don’t usually watch British television, first saw him in “Love actually” with a rather tiny story. Then, about ten years later, he suddenly “emerges”, almost at the same time, as Dr. Watson in “Sherlock” – which is “just” a BBC series, but very successful and of the kind that acquires a large international audience – and as the lead in a major feature film: “The Hobbit”. It appears that his “slot” had just been opened big time, as the two stories are “structurally” alike: At the core they are about the friendship of two very different individuals, one of them being rather “normal” – somebody we would understand and probably like if we met him in the real world, but not think him to be very special. The other being rather important and special, but, most of the time, rather difficult to deal with, if not a real pain in the ass. They are both structurally identical stories which require two actors with the same “special features”, basically, but very different nonetheless.

One of the important features for both Dr. Watson and Bilbo Baggins was that Martin Freeman is “so very English”. They use that in “Sherlock” – as Conan Doyle did - by constantly showing how the typical Englishman would react to somebody as eccentric and weird as Sherlock. And I suppose that came to Martin Freeman quite naturally. In “The Hobbit” it is even more essential because this is the reason why Tolkien knew so well what “a hobbit” was, even when he wrote that first sentence of his book. Because a hobbit is the “essentially English”. Everything he loved about his countrymen, and found, sometimes at the same time, a little ridiculous – or even at least as ridiculous as endearing. (Whereas he knew nothing yet about elves – compared to what he intended them to be in the “Lord of the Rings” – nor dwarves, for that matter. This is why I love the little paragraph at the beginning of the twelfth chapter (out of nineteen!) of “The Hobbit” where the narrator suddenly feels the need to explain what kind of people dwarves are supposed to be: “Dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk …” As if to say: Well, they are exactly the kind of people you know and don’t like so very much.) Of course I know that Martin Freeman, apart from being a small, very English guy, is essentially a great, outstandingly intelligent actor. Which is finally much more decisive for playing Bilbo than his personal features. But in this case they came in handy as well. 

With Thorin it had always been more complicated and less obvious. As I had never tried to imagine the dwarves I wasn’t really surprised at the difference between the character in the film and the grumpy old dwarf in the book. But I felt that, choosing this actor, they had done something rather interesting and daring. I approved, even more than that, but nonetheless was watching rather suspiciously, always feeling that I was in for more, maybe even unpleasant, surprises. And not before Thorin’s death in “The Battle of the Five Armies” was I able to understand that this was exactly as it should be. This was exactly what “they” had in mind for this character. Quite unlike what was intended for Mr. Baggins, in his case nothing was supposed to be “natural” or obvious. Of course nothing ever is, but there was little doubt about how Bilbo was to be played, and would be. Whereas Richard Armitage’s unease concerning the read-through is quite understandable. Even if he himself was probably convinced that he would do a great job he knew he still had a lot to prove. And as long as he didn’t fully understand WHO Thorin was supposed to be he couldn’t be certain himself why they had chosen him for that job. And, as it turned out, THIS was the most ingenious choice they have ever made. Maybe with the exception of Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn in the “Rings films”. I remember myself thinking when I saw him for the first time: This guy cannot be Aragorn! There are a few parallels in fact which I cannot explore here, but in both cases I noticed that I hadn’t liked any of these characters in the books, nor had been able to imagine them at all, but had felt that what they would do with them would be crucial for the films to turn out right. And then, I do not think a long time before I was far into the second film of “The Lord of the Rings”, I was just totally amazed at what I saw. Actually, I think, they are both very different actors, but with a similar attitude towards their work, what it means to them, and, accordingly, a similar level of focus and energy in their acting. And that was exactly what was needed here: somebody to take this difficult task EVEN MORE seriously.

There were some obvious features in the case of Richard Armitage as well, one of them being that he stands rather tall. Which appears funny to say of somebody playing a dwarf! I had a laugh noticing who he was for the first time when I saw an interview with him and he literally tried to “fold” his long frame into the interview chair. In fact THIS was the one of his physical features that proved ideal for playing Thorin, especially in relation with Martin Freeman who is rather short. It sets both of them off beautifully, and they never had to worry here about the intended difference in height between a dwarf and a hobbit. But there is a psychological dimension to “standing tall” which became much more important. It is best explained through another character who is in each of the six Tolkien films: Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. Physically she doesn’t stand tall at all, but, although in her case they have to use “tricks” to make her look taller, the main thing is a personal feature which is a natural authority much beyond any usual level. This is what makes her so convincing as an elf, in fact makes her “be” Galadriel in the same sense that Ian McKellen actually IS Gandalf. And that means a character that is UNIQUE and a lot “larger than life”. And even if height and beauty may be a big help, it is natural authority that makes people stand as tall as they do. (And this “feature” was in fact the main reason why they chose Richard Armitage to play Thorin, as Philippa Boyens (“chief” writer on “The Hobbit”) stated on behalf of casting the dwarves in the “specials” to the first film.)

But standing tall might not always be an advantage for an actor because it is a “special feature” that is not often needed, or might even get in the way, in the usual kind of “naturalistic” context. Maybe some of the pride and delight you can see on Richard Armitage’s face when he is interviewed about “North and South” is due to the liberating experience of finally being able to play a character of this “epic” format he clearly is “made for”. Because in some of the tv productions he had been in before he appears to be slightly “out of place”, trying to “fit into” a character that is a great deal smaller than he is, in real life. And now, finally, eight years after “North and South”, he gets the chance to play the dwarf Thorin, who is in fact a proper epic “hero figure” and great battle commander. And for once he is EXACTLY the right size for it.

Appendix 4: Journey’s End: about the adventure of “reading” “The Hobbit” after „The Battle of the Five Armies“, part 1 (About taking up the challenge)

What finally convinced me to look again at what I had written a year ago about reading the “Hobbit” films was that I took a day off the “real world” just after Christmas and watched the three extended cuts in succession. And I was so pleased to find how well they work “as one film”. Unlike the “Lord of the Rings” where the story is actually getting weaker towards the end, and there is kind of an anticlimactic feeling. Which, of course, is difficult to admit if, after all, it had been this totally special experience of discovering a new world. But now we have “The Hobbit”, and for me “The Hobbit” always HAD TO BE special. A situation to which I reacted in a typical manner by going into total denial. I honestly never watched a trailer or read anything beforehand about the filming, the characters, or the cast – which I am so glad NOT to have done after watching the “specials” when the extended cuts got out! Of course I would go to see it because I couldn’t miss seeing THIRTEEN dwarves … But that was it. I still find this very strange, but, in the end, it turned out as a really intelligent thing to do. I wasn’t even really looking forward to the extended cut of the third film, didn’t even watch it immediately when I bought it because I thought it would be just the battle being still longer. Which is basically true, by the way. But, what was really strange, when I saw the extended cut for the first time it “worked” like this: Though there were two really important scenes added to it (one being Thorin buried under the Mountain with the Arkenstone, which I had so much wanted to see!!!) I saw JUST the battle still being longer and suddenly doubted what I THOUGHT I had seen watching the cinematic version. But I had then done a really clever thing, which was watching the three films in succession in the cinema when I saw it for the first time. And when I did that now, with the three extended cuts, the battle was exactly the right size. And all the other scenes I so loved, even if they take up a comparatively small part of the film, again “worked” the way they were intended to. Even partly BETTER than they did before. And, like in the case of “The Desolation of Smaug”, the extended cut of “The Battle of the Five Armies” was rather a different film. Because in the extended cut the battle finally “made sense”, and it actually is what the final part of the book is about! But, together with the rest, the battle was again put into perspective, and so was the main “human issue” story of the film.

I enjoyed this experience so much and thought all the time: “I have been RIGHT, I have been RIGHT!” ( I mean what should I have made of the fact that they had TWICE put a scene into these movies that I would have put into it as one of my favourite moments which was NOT AT ALL a necessary scene for telling the story!) that I am now really looking forward to reading and editing what I have written about this experience. Even if a big part of it will be kind of redundant, and I probably would write a lot of it differently now. And I will put in these “editor’s notes” about how I see things now probably quite often. But I enjoy reading it as what it really had been: this “battle” about WANTING to read the story the way I understood it. And sometimes this is what it takes, and, in the end, I WON!

„The Hobbit – The Battle of the Five Armies“: last chance of getting everything right about that story, and, surprisingly: they did! Even when I saw the film for the first time I was able to “read” it completely and to see how right they have been about that story. The one that really matters. But it is always easier to say so afterwards. When the battle is done … “An Unexpected Journey” I saw expecting absolutely nothing – and it was great. “The Desolation of Smaug” I saw expecting too much and all the wrong things – so it was rather disappointing at first. I might even say it was a disaster. Seeing “The Battle of the Five Armies” I probably managed to expect the “right” things. But I would never have dreamt of raising my expectations that high!

I know: I should have known. And I probably did. It wasn’t before “The Hobbit” that I discovered ultimately what great achievements the Tolkien films actually are. I have always loved the beginning of “The Fellowship” when everything is dark, and then we hear this voice from the depth of time speaking what instantly became my favourite “bit” from “The Lord of the Rings”: “The world is changing. I feel it in the water …” But it wasn’t until I had finally seen “The Battle of the Five Armies” that I fully realized what great expectations had been triggered already at the beginning of “The Fellowship” and how much they would be fulfilled, for me, by the end of that journey. Of course we can now continue by watching the “Lord of the Rings” again, but “historically” these films were just the beginning.

There are a few things still to be dealt with before I am really going to start on this. The first is that I rather dislike “fantasy” – in literature as well as in film. I had only just started reading “The Lord of the Rings” when I saw “The Fellowship”, and it was probably the instant I heard that special voice speak that first sentence when I thought: This is great! I really must read this …  I remember that thought, and I think I had sensed already at the very beginning of the first film that THIS wasn’t about any “fantasy world”. This was about something completely different. And, from that instant, the films have always proved me right.

Of course the books and the films are about a lot of things. Especially things that people really like, like heroes, strange creatures, battles, weapons, blood and gore … I happen to like some of these things as well. Probably heroes, at least if they have sufficient cause for being one, certainly strange creatures – like dwarves! – and battles as well. (I found out about that strange predilection finally by reading Shakespeare’s history plays again because I understood then that this kind of politics without the battles would have been a bit like sex without orgasm. In the great scheme of things they might not have made much difference, but without them nobody would ever have FELT as if they had achieved anything. Before that I might have felt a little guilty about liking the Battle of the Hornburg so much.) Weapons and bloodshed as such I don’t fancy as much as most of the people who have used and “created” them in these films probably did. But with heroes and battles in the bargain you simply cannot avoid them. And, on the whole, people who tell me what I should or shouldn’t like have always made me suspicious.

So, blood and gore and crazy fighting I have always tolerated very well, or even liked where it really “meant” something in the film. But there is something I have never come to like. It is everything that still looks like playstation – and I think in “The Hobbit” there is even more of this than in the “Lord of the Rings” because in the meantime this has become a “look” generally accepted, maybe even desired, for “this kind of films”. And I am sure the “generation playstation” doesn’t mind, or maybe even notice!, that “The Hobbit” partly looks like “Game of Thrones”. But it isn’t “Game of Thrones” at all! – It is not that I mind the always increasing amount of technical innovation, cg creatures and effects as such. (Apart from what it does to the conditions actors have to work under so that we can see them in 3D – which I don’t like anyway, and almost everybody else I have spoken to doesn’t like any better!) In any case I didn’t mean the things, and especially digital creatures, that look great, which means amazing and “real”, like Gollum or Smaug do. Even the digital orcs in “The Hobbit” look much better than the “real” ones. I think Azog came out really great! But behind any of these creatures stands an actor who was able to make them feel so very special and alive! - What I really mind, and always did mind, are digital “stunts” that look as if anything was possible, even easy, because this makes things appear to be LESS instead of more and damages my perception of Middle-earth as a “real world” – an effect professor Tolkien had been able to achieve by making even the smallest thing feel as if there was an incredible amount of historical detail “behind” it. And that is what Peter Jackson tried to achieve as well. To a level unparalleled until now, I think. - Accordingly, I tried not to mind too much, so as not to spoil the films for myself. But sometimes the “playstation part” becomes predominant and tends to swallow up the “good bits” – which then come out just as “bits”. I really minded that and was afraid that this would inevitably happen in the “Battle of the Five Armies”: the film “going to bits” despite all the great work so many people had done on it. Surprisingly, and contrary to what many people appear to think, FOR ME, it didn’t happen!

The most important thing about me “as an audience” though is that I have always loved the dwarves so much. They have always been my favourite people in Middle-earth, and I am the only person I know who really missed them in “The Lord of the Rings”. And genuinely felt the loss when they travelled through Moria. Of course I know why I stubbornly refused to have any expectations about the “Hobbit” films at all! Thirteen dwarves might just have been too much of a good thing. Not unlike them, I was used to hardship – not to being spoiled like that. But, as I have learned seeing “The Hobbit”: there isn’t “too much of a good thing”. If it is really good. - And it was a good thing as well that I have never been able to imagine them, nor tried, because when I finally saw them I was just amazed. Maybe there were a few “bits” I didn’t like that much, but on the whole they were so great that I was prepared to tolerate that Thorin doesn’t have a dwarvish beard, as I instantly understood why they hadn’t done that, or even that Kíli neither looks nor “feels” like a dwarf at all. Well, maybe not that … But on the whole I was much more than content and just really happy about the first film. Like the little girl who finally gets exactly the thing for Christmas she has wished for, which can never happen in the “real world”. It felt as if I had just wandered into the land of my dreams … But by the time I had seen “The Desolation of Smaug” I had become painfully aware of what a special but really different audience that made me regarding these films. Because, in that way, I was really in for ALL the ups and downs on that journey.

I think, the main reason that “The Battle of the Five Armies”, contrary to “The Desolation of Smaug”, became such an instant success with me is that I had managed to understand until then how important the part about battles and war actually is for that story. One preliminary thing I haven’t mentioned is that I never liked reading “The Hobbit”. But, in the same way I came to read and love “The Lord of the Rings” AFTER having seen “The Fellowship”, I have at least come to appreciate “The Hobbit” as a totally fascinating text after having seen and digested “The Desolation of Smaug”. Because this is how it all began. And through my difficult reading of “The Desolation of Smaug” I developed a theory about how the original text had probably “come together”. Of course, for this to be a serious theory I should have read all the former versions of “The Hobbit” that have survived, and what Tolkien himself said about it, but mine is a very rough theory for “home use”.

As we know, it began with a single sentence that suddenly “hit” professor Tolkien when he was marking his students’ papers: “In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit.” Of course this might be legend already, but, if it is, it is a really good legend. (And, of course, “all good stories deserve embellishment!”) This sentence obviously triggered the idea to make it into a story for his children, and this probably triggered a number of other ideas, with the plot of thirteen dwarves, a wizard, and a hobbit going on a quest for a treasure, stolen from the dwarves by a dragon, as a centrepiece. And I don’t know what kind of a book this would have become, but I know that there wouldn’t have been a “Lord of the Rings” nor “Middle-earth” or any of the many creatures we love so much if Tolkien had just “left it there”. Very likely he saw the limitations of this kind of story very early on and felt that he needed something more to make it into a somewhat satisfying book. And, I think, the “something more” was already there. It was there, but he didn’t know it until he was already rather deep into his story. Because in the “real world” there was still something “going on” which was a completely different type of story. Basically it wasn’t a story at all. It was about people surviving a war, the biggest war the world had ever seen, with a lot of new technology, bigger and better ways of killing people. To us, after the Second World War and the whole world becoming a potential war zone, from which little Europe, not unlike the Shire of Middle-earth, seems still to be excluded, the First World War might appear more like nostalgia. But certainly not to the people who had the bad luck of fighting in it. They wouldn’t have been able to imagine anything that big and didn’t know in the least what they were in for when they joined the army. As did professor Tolkien, together with his closest friends. And it is a long time that I read this, but I am rather certain I remember this correctly because it was a bit that “stuck”: He was the only one who came back.

I have no idea if he wrote a diary, or if he ever really talked about what he had experienced “out there” to anybody. Most people never did. And then, so many years later, he sent a little, rather ridiculous creature on that journey with a bunch of lunatics to show the dragon what’s what! The book even became a success, probably because of the unconventional way he wrote about elves, and dwarfes, and “hobbits” – the endearing little creatures entirely unknown from any other tale. In fact they were the only people in the book he really knew anything about when he wrote “The Hobbit”! And there was a reason for it – the same reason why that book became “English heritage”, but would never have become “world literature” had it not been for “The Lord of the Rings”. Because the parts which it was made from were rather difficult to “fit together”. Maybe I am not the only person who never understood how “The Hobbit” was to be a children’s book. At least I found the way it concludes with a massive battle rather strange. Suddenly there is nothing “funny” about it anymore. And I know now why I was rather bothered by the deaths of Fíli and Kíli, whereas Thorin’s death is just the “natural” ending of his own story. And nobody cares about him anyway because in the book he is just a grumpy old dwarf! But Fíli and Kíli who are “innocent” and generally liked … I think this was the closest Tolkien could come within this story to saying: This is war. Good people die. - But it wasn’t until I suddenly understood my favourite quote from the book that I came to appreciate the story as I do now. It is what Bilbo says to Bard about the Arkenstone: “This is the Arkenstone of Thráin, the heart of the mountain. And it is also the heart of Thorin.” In my opinion, this is the birth of the “ring metaphor”. It is the moment Tolkien first realized what he really wanted to write about. And it wasn’t to tell us about what the war had been like for him. If he had wanted that he might have written his memoires – truthfully! It was about what still bothered him after he had managed to forget about everything else and got on with his life. Bothered him about war, how it can “happen”, and about how evil can take hold of people who he knew hadn’t been “evil” in the first place. I remember to have read that his favourite play by Shakespeare was “Macbeth” – which isn’t so very special as such because it applies to many people, including myself. But it is rather conclusive in this context as it certainly wasn’t just about the moving forest and the “crack of doom”. Because this is exactly what “Macbeth” is about. And maybe Shakespeare has done much better here, writing about the birth of evil and the way it changes people and causes their downfall, but Tolkien didn’t want it “that way”. He still wanted to find out about something else, and THAT was why he needed a hobbit. And why he sent him on that journey.

I suppose, what Tolkien wanted to explore is still the reason why so many people love his books, and why so many rather inferior worlds and stories have been spawned by them – apart from heroes, strange creatures, battles, weapons, blood and gore of course. And it has a lot to do with why I have always appreciated the films so much – not as an opportunity of making another “fantasy movie” with still more battles, stunts, and special effects than the last one … which I haven’t seen and never will because life is too short to waste it on things like this. At least when there are still so many great adaptations of significant literature by the BBC I haven’t yet seen. Because this is what I have always perceived the Tolkien films to be: really great adaptations of professor Tolkien’s books. And the reason I like adaptations of interesting works of literature so much is that they give people the opportunity to think really hard about these texts, and you can see the outcome in a different medium. And of course because they hold so many opportunities for great actors to do “something different” and really use their skills. In a way this is the most significant kind of research that can be done on these books. And I think that THIS is what defines a successful adaptation of a book on screen: not that it is “close” to the original text, because in that case it is probably not a great film, but that it is perceived as a challenge to really understand what the book is about.

(And that was in fact the moment when I found an answer to a question I couldn’t answer before: why I have always been so interested in film adaptations of literature even though the book is usually “so much better”. But that isn’t the case at all! Because making a film about a book, or performing a character from the book, cannot “damage” the book itself but is partly a particularly interesting case of READING – one that I myself am unable to do. And even in the cases where it turns out as disappointing I am learning so much more about my own reading of the book by being able to compare it with other peoples’. And even if in some cases – very seldom, as for example when Ray Winstone played Henry VIII (who is not a fictional character, of course, but a character I know only from fiction) – I don’t need another interpretation of this character EVER, it is usually so interesting to see different versions of a story or a character because it is practically the only way to see how other people have read and “lived” these stories. And sometimes failure is even especially interesting - as I am endlessly fascinated by all the failed attempts of putting Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley” novels on screen and am following religiously the continuing failure of finding a “final” version of “Jane Eyre”. Because by this you can lay a finger on what might be “wrong” with a book, and this is often the reason why this book is so interesting and such a great success in the long run. Because readers will always be fascinated by its “perversity”.)

And, concerning “The Hobbit”, they had this historical chance not only to write film history but history of literature as well, because of the opportunity of getting this story right in the light “The Lord of the Rings” shed on it. For Tolkien the story was finished when “The Hobbit” was published. There was nothing more to say. But he didn’t discover the significance of some things he had written before he started thinking about “The Lord of the Rings”. The part about the Ring of course, but, generally, the importance of this story within the history of Middle-earth. One of my favourite bits Tolkien wrote about the dwarves is the tale about the “Quest to Erebor” from the appendix of “The Lord of the Rings”, where Gandalf is telling the hobbits, after the War of the Ring, how he had met Thorin Oakenshield in Bree where “everything” began. And the writers of the “Hobbit” films saw the significance of this as well, as they put this in at the beginning of “The Desolation of Smaug”. And this is only one example – though my favourite one! - for the “little” story of “The Hobbit” becoming a significant part of the “big” history of Middle-Earth in the films. (Most of which appeared only, to its full extent, when I saw all three extended cuts!) - On the whole, I’d say, they saw the golden opportunity and seized it!

As I said, “The Hobbit” is about a lot of things. A significant part of it certainly is about a battle, and, more interesting, how this battle came to pass. And, as I had understood in advance why the battle was so important within the context of the book, I was able to “read” that tale already when I was watching “The Battle of the Five Armies” for the first time. And they told it very well. Of course most of the blame fell on Thorin, as I knew it would, but if you look closely it isn’t quite as clear cut. It is a tale about how people don’t understand each other, partly because they don’t want to and partly because they can’t. And I liked it a lot that they really took the time to show this! - And there is a tale “behind” this battle as well which has a lot to do with the most important story about Bilbo and the dwarves. It is about people trying to do the “right thing” when everybody else is only trying to save their own head, or gold, or seeing the opportunity to pursue their own objectives. It is always the most difficult thing to do, of course, and, in the big scheme of things, may appear totally pointless. Bilbo’s attempt to help his friends almost leads to his death, and, in the end, doesn’t help to bring things forward. And then it suddenly doesn’t matter anymore because the big war machinery is marching in. And there are no wizards nor eagles in the real world, nor “super-heroes” like Beorn, to set the score right. But there certainly was advanced war machinery that made the individual look and feel insignificant and completely helpless. Like Bilbo is feeling at the end of that battle. This is the tale professor Tolkien wanted to tell about war in his book, and, on the whole, it is told very well in the film.

So, all is well that ends well. And now I am constantly asking myself why I had been so worried. But of course there were reasons for me to worry. As there are serious limitations for “this kind of film”. I mean the one that has to be entertainment for a large audience. Where should that kind of budget come from if you cannot expect the same kind of money in return? Not surprisingly, a thing like this always gravitates to where the biggest pile already lies. And with that, inevitably, towards insignificance. There WERE serious reasons to worry - two at least. Because, as a considerable percentage of the audience would be young and female, there had to be a love story. There had to be somebody young and hot falling in love with a beautiful female. And NOT somebody with a lot of hair on his face of course – no way! The whole thing might have been spoiled already by the fact that it was impossible to show any of the sexy body parts … Unfortunately, or rather fortunate for me, not every great story is about love. And, apart from the fact that love stories in major feature films tend to get rather boring, they have a tendency to draw the attention from the really important part of the story. At least that was what I feared. And I have been wrong, both times, basically. First about the damage the love story might do because they found a good “place” for it to make it “work”. And probably about the fact that not all important stories are about love …

On the other hand, as another considerable part of the audience is supposed to be young and male, the “playstation sequences” always had to be a substantial part of the film. And the “wrecking ball” had to come in, in the end, and smash everything to bits – apart from the young and sexy of course. At least that was what I feared. But I was wrong again, basically. Both times. And I don’t think I have ever been so glad of being wrong before. Of course Fíli and Kíli had to die! How could I fear that they might change the story at this angle? And of course the wrecking-ball set in really big, but this time, for once, in the end it didn’t win! Because there were two heroes to stand up against it and to outact it seemingly effortless. (And, to nip any misunderstandings in the bud: neither of them is Orlando Bloom!) – So everything was well, in the end. But with all the worries I had I cannot say this often enough: I was completely amazed that none of the things I had imagined finally happened, and that “they” stuck to their story like this and told it in the best way it could possibly be told.

And I know that I should have trusted them to do that. At least when I had understood how great the storytelling had been in “The Desolation of Smaug” – again! But there were more than a few reasons to be worried seeing “The Desolation of Smaug”, especially before the extended cut. In the theatrical version the story is actually “going to bits” more than just a little. The main reason for this appears to be a danger I hadn’t even apprehended because I didn’t know about it. Before seeing the extended cut and the documentation I hadn’t been aware that they had been planning to do “The Hobbit” in two parts even until the film was basically shot. And the long sequence about the dwarves going down the river in barrels and fighting orcs - great “playstation sequence” with very little importance for the actual story - had been intended to be the final sequence of the first film. When I am thinking about the actual ending of the first film, and how important it became in the light the third film shed on it, I might almost want to cry with gratitude that THIS didn’t happen!

So it wasn’t entirely my own fault that I was rather downcast after having seen the theatrical version. To the extent that I wasn’t even able to really enjoy Smaug! But then the extended cut was out and set almost everything right. We see them REALLY meeting Beorn, and REALLY going through Mirkwood - with Bombur falling into the stream and Thorin shooting at the white stag! - whereas this sequence in the theatrical version had felt more like a weird dream. Of course going down the stream for ages, fighting orcs, and Legolas and Tauriel fighting orcs for ages, stays the same and doesn’t get the least bit less boring. But it doesn’t matter that much if we don’t lose sight of Bilbo and the dwarves. And I would never have thought what a difference it would make for me actually to SEE Thráin! (And then it was Anthony Sher! I couldn’t believe it. So many nice surprises already before Christmas this year. I suppose Christmas is going to be shit …) For me this was probably the final affirmation that they took the story I CARED FOR seriously.

In fact, the barrels and the elvish action figures were only accidental. They were to what I attributed what I didn’t like, some kind of scapegoat. What I was seriously worried about were the new story-lines developing during the second film. Because in the first film we basically have Bilbo and the dwarves. And that was, of course, what made it so great for me: a whole film about dwarves! But although it took some time to disabuse me of the notion that this had to go on like that, it was rather necessary. On the other hand it is understandable – and even intended – to make the audience worry about what might happen in the third film! - Well, liking the dwarves so much, I had a hard time to see what they were “really” like. And then, even before having seen the third film, I thought: This is really well done. And not just that: this is EXACTLY as it has to be! Because, to finally understand the story about Bilbo’s friendship with the dwarves and Thorin, you have to accept first that they can be a real pain in the ass: “Obstinate, pig-headed, and difficult”, with the worst manners you can possibly imagine. Great! (It isn’t quite what Tolkien imagined them to be. In particular he made a point of showing that they had very good manners! And what I had always found rather interesting about the dwarves, historically, is that they were the people who created links with the others. They were the ones who made roads and learned Sindarin to be able to communicate with the elves – who continued to entrench themselves in their fortresses. Nonetheless I find the assessment they made of the dwarves in the film very much to the point and very true. “Obstinate, pig-headed, and difficult”!!!) But they never forgot about their good qualities. They only get buried temporarily when they have to deal with “scum” like elves and men. (“This, master Baggins, is the world of men.” I just love it how Richard Armitage said that sentence!)

What made me seriously worry was the Legolas-Tauriel-Kíli story and the way Bard emerges as a “hero alternative”. Now I cannot believe it, but I secretly feared that they would “lose” Thorin, as they did Denethor in “The Return of the King”, and let Legolas and Bard finish “the job”. And I was wrong. Of course I was wrong! As I said: never been so wrong, and never ever been so glad of it!!!