Fridae

There's a difference between a story and its telling. A story or narration may begin in media res and told in multiple flashbacks and even flash-forwards, told from a specific viewpoint that may be limited or not entirely trustworthy. Plot though is everything that actually happens, in its chronological order. A common mistake in creative writing is to plot out the story. That is, to mistake plot for story, to confuse a definite idea of what happens with how it should be told.

There exists, on one hand, a charming story written for children called The Hobbit where the childlike Bilbo Baggins is enlisted in a trifling though thrilling adventure by Gandalf the wizard and Thorin's band of dwarves. Then on the other, an entire encyclopaedia's worth of footnotes and marginalia detailing the history of Tolkien's Middle Earth, including events happening simultaneously in the timeline of The Hobbit, and culminating with The Lord of the Rings. That is not so much of a problem as long as the two remain separate. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit attempts to merge the narrative of The Hobbit with the larger plot of Tolkien's Middle Earth and in doing so, illustrates the problematics of story and plot.

As written, The Hobbit is a more naïve narrative and a far less complex and literate work than Lord of the Rings. It is, as its title suggests, the hobbit's adventure. It is a simple adventure in the sense that neither the hobbit nor the dwarven party possess any inkling to the significance of their quest. Gandalf the wizard — the wisest member of the party and most au fait with Middle Earth — disappears for stretches to attend to far more pressing issues. The hobbit himself disappears from major battles. Yet we as readers are convinced that while more important stuff is happening off stage, it's more fun to stay with Bilbo's narrative.

Perhaps continuing with Jackson's mania for completism, his film adaptation puts in what was taken out, alluded to in ellipses, or simply put into the footnotes that became The Silmarilon and other books. At long last, you finally have the big picture of what's happening, far beyond a close reading of Tolkien's The Hobbit. Yet the copious additions may have the effect of bloating the film to the point where the story of a hobbit's adventure is lost in the larger plot.

If you were expecting a film for children just like Tolkien's book was a story for children, you'll be disappointed. Instead of being light-hearted and quick, the resulting film feels far more epic, serious, and violent — a prequel leading up to the LOTR film trilogy, in other words. It's in an entirely different genre from its source material. Yet because Tolkien's The Hobbit was a less sophisticated work than LOTR, Jackson's film adaptation feels stretched at times. It wants to be a Lord of the Rings, but doesn't quite reach its epic greatness.

What shines through is the impish humour and everyday humanity exuding from Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins. Whenever the film feels weighed down by too much epic posturing or exposition from Tolkien's footnotes, Freeman is there to deliver a zinging one-liner, a self-deprecating joke, or to put down a haughty wizard.

More plot than story, and more Lord of the Rings than The Hobbit, Jackson's film adaptation is an ambitious attempt to revisit Tolkien's abandoned attempt in 1960 to rewrite The Hobbit to fit the darker, more sinister tone of his LOTR. The jury is still out as to whether Jackson will end with a triumph, though.