Les Miserables

(Note: This is still a work in progress...I love my long posts and I don't want to miss anything importiant for this one)

So remember when I said the next "Book vs. Movie" Post wouldbe on"The Tennant of Wildfell Hall"?

WELLLL....I lied.

(Sorry-not-sorry!)

About the same time I bought "The Tennant of Wildfell Hall" I also got the musical version of  Les Miserables. Even though the story itself is not entirely new to me, it's the first time I'd seen the story as a musical. 

It was life changing...

After watching  that, I read The Brick

re-watched the mini-series with Liam Neeson, 

and last week I completed my goal for this year to go to New York, and watch the musical on Broadway before it closes in September. 

I want to commemorate this journey by doing a comparative analysis of the versions I've seen so far here.

If you're not familiar with Les Miserables, the following analysis may not make a lot of sense to you.

 I'm not gonna attempt a synopsis of the whole plot, but the backbone of the saga is the story of a guy named Jean Valjean. 

Much of the story deals with how he breaks out of a cycle of destructive behavior in a society that sets people like him up for failure. 

If that sounds a bit Charles Dickens to you, you're not alone. I thought the exact same thing, especially after my first exposure to the story:

• 1998 Les Miserables Miniseries (2 hours, 39 minutes)-

(Very Oliver Twist)

The first time I saw this miniseries was about five years ago when I was visiting my Grandparents house. For all it's about callousness and darkness, it still somehow feels cozy. 

This story made me really attached to Jean as a character. All the time he's getting chased by the Inspector I'm like:

I think this story is excellent at (possibly more than any other performance adaption) telling Valjean's story, and making him accessible to modern audiences. What it's less good at is portraying the brutality and complexity of world that Jean inhabits (which is probably why they omit a lot of it), until the very last scene, and then [THING] happens...

One of the things I think is really cool about it is we don't find out what Jean actually did to become an "Unfortunate" until close to the end. We're invited to judge him, or withhold judgement, the same way Valjean's associates in the story are. 

We see him based on his actions, not on his past. So by the time you get to the end and Valjean finally confesses to his daughter this past misdeed he's been running from his whole life...

Verdict: 

• Les Miserables 2012 (2 hours, 40 minutes)- 

The covers look very similar, but it feels like watching a completely different story.

(And NOT just becuz of the music)

The whole story is on a grander scale: characters whose roles were minimized or omitted from the Liam Neeson miniseries get the spotlight here:

(The June Rebellion sub-plot has a lot more gravitas,

 and that opens a whole new level of #feels)

But especially...

("There...Out in the darkneessss...")

Because they use song to communicate dialogue and internal monologue, your get a lot more emotional range. The cinematography is also symbolic and stunningly beautiful.


The scope of the story is so vast, I think that most people can watch it and find at least one character who, or situation that, emotionally resonates with them. When I got to the end of the mini-series, I felt as if I'd missed something. This one felt complete.


Personal Story Time With Mormonhippie!

Even if you've not watched the musical, many people (eg. me) will know at least a few of the songs. Susan Boyle sings "I Dreamed A Dream" Peter and Evynne Hollens do a montage, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings "Bring Him Home"...

So it's very easy to start comparing the performance of these songs in the movie with the versions you've heard before. Which is exactly what I did, right up until Eddie Redmayne started singing Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.

 His performance was so powerful, and in the context the song was so meaningful, that it felt cheap and ridiculous to compare him to Peter Hollins.

 It's not just about how they sing, it's about the whole performance:

(And they nail it! One reviewer said: All the notes they don't hit with their voices, they hit with their faces. And I absolutely agree.)

As with any story that deals with these types of subject matter, sometimes it can be too dark heavy for some viewers. They tried to deal with that by adding comic relief in some weird places. The lovely-ladies sequence is almost painful to watch.
 My sister Ginger said: "It's kind of like they're trying to make this woman selling herself funny, and it's not."

Overall:

• Les Miserables AKA "The Brick" 1862 (TBD)-

This book reads like a two season television show, or a five season mini-series.

Its scope is pretty epic, and the characters are emotionally charged.

There's a lot of action and drama, and the story uses enough historical data to keep it all from seeming far fetched. However, this series also has its "filler episodes" and sometimes the plot seems a little convoluted. 

(Even though I actually really enjoyed that chapter) I felt like it was a similar experience to watching Game of Thrones (without the gratuitous sex). The plot is interesting, there are engaging characters and its easy to become invested in their journeys, but you have to be willing to indulge the writer occasionally. Thematically the story deals with change, and how individuals and societies (particularly France, where the story takes place) transform over time. Social and personal processes that appears to be painful, violent, or destructive are often the instruments of the creation of a better future. The four major characters are Valjean (Prisoner), Javert (Policeman), Thenardier (Criminal), and Marius (dorkface). A lot of the story focuses on the interactions these four people have over their life spans. The rest of the story deals with the true "main character": France. The affect this gives while reading is that the primary characters, while pretty well rounded of themselves, are facets of her personality.  My favorite part of the story is towards the end of Volume 1; where Valjean's walk with God takes an abrupt twist, and turns into a freaking marathon. I think it's the type of episode everyone has a different opinion on, but for me it turns the entire message of the series on its head. Kudos to Victor Hugo for taking a relatively simple concept and showing how complex it really is. I recommend this if you like history, long books, or Game of Thrones

Also featuring:

• Jean Valjean's Glooorrius mane of white hair...

• Javert is almost 15 years younger than him...so Valjean just thinks he's a punk.

• A Charming Young Man Capable of Shooting You Point Blank in the FACE!

Verdict: 

I recommend this if you like history and don't mind long books. You have to look at it as a series. It's not a book for you to conquer, you have to enjoy the journey. 

• Les Miserables Musical 1987 (2 hours, 55 minutes)-

OK, so now that I've read the book. I see that they've simplified the Jean as a character to highlight the change of heart that he goes through. I feel like this Musical!Jean is almost a composite of the best qualities of Book!Valjean and Book!Javert.


They do that to set up a dynamic that is present in the book and to represent the duality of these two characters.

Honestly, I think the Broadway version is the most streamlined version I've seen.

None of the characters seemed irritating. (Not even Marius, and I CAN'T STAND Brick Marius!)


Also Featuring:

• A heartbreaking, completely in-character, line from Grantaire the emo-manchild

Will the world remember you when you fall? Could it be your death means nothing at all?

• Also true to character, Enjorlas not hugging anyone during the song "Drink With Me" and just standing there awkwardly...(Even though he's the leader of this group, he's actually not close to anyone...seriously they fit in SO many details from the book!)

• Thenardier also gets the type of complexity he had in the book:

It's a world where the dog eats dog/and they kill for the bones on the street/and God in heaven?/He don't interfere/Cause He's dead as the stiffs at my feet.

• Valjean gets interaction with Eponine (Whoot, Whoot!)

• Eponine and Fantine are BFFs in the afterlife

Verdict:

(Sing with me now...):

"I did not live until today!!!!"

More comparative notes:

(You can stop reading now, unless you're a total nerd like me and want to hear my thoughts...)


Interestingly, I don't think that the book is the definitive version of this story, particularly where characterization is concerned.

In 'The Brick" Victor Hugo is more concerned with making his point about human nature than drawing realistic portrayals of people. Case in point: Jean Valjean is arguably the most important character in the story, and yet within the narrative he's treated as an enigma. He's the focus of a lot of narrative, but we don't have his point of view (courtesy of Victor Hugo's heavy-handed narrative voice), and often times we're not even sure if the character the narrative is following is Jean or not, because he's using an assumed name.

Similarly, in the first half of the book Inspector Javert is characterized as a closed-minded, secular Monk...A characterization that directly contradicts his behavior in the second half of the book where he thinks and writes about the way the system treats criminals. He is personally a lot more compassionate towards them...even the Patron Minette. Especially when you compare his behavior towards them with...say...Fantine...

There is ample evidence of a gradual character transformation but because of the narrative form M. Hugo has chosen, we aren't privy to it. Victor Hugo is less concerned with acknowledging the complexity these characters than sharing his vision of human nature and the meaning of life.

One good side to this broad characterization is that it gives adaptations a lot of free reign over how they choose to portray the characters. I almost feel like this is the type of classic story that, like A Christmas Carol, I could watch in twenty different versions again and again and it'll never get old, because each filmmaker/editor will bring a bit of their own vision into it. Appropriately, the film-adapted versions of this story expand upon these characters to make their viewpoints more personal and relateable. Unfortunately, they haven't yet been able to capture the subtle nuances, or gradual changes in the character's arc.

In film adaptions, Javert is portrayed more simplistically character, and the narrative focus on Vajean almost deifies him as god-like in his capacity for compassion, rather than as a man who continually struggles with psychological issues.

Liam Neeson Version:

• Canon Adherence-

-I think its cool that almost everyone looks the way they are described in the book. Cosette has brown hair and isn't a supermodel, Fantine and Jean have lighter colored hair, Marius is slender and has black hair. Jean is huge and buff.

The exception is Inspector Javert. However, I think Captain Barbossa did a wonderful job acting wise, so I don't mind.

-In the trial room, addressing his old gang-mates. Kind of not sure if he'll speak up or not. That was pretty cool!

-Valjean basically memorizes the town charter so he can win an argument with The Inspector.

-Cosette is knitting and Jean pays for her to play, does mirror one of the book.

-Cosette as a slightly neurotic convent schoolgirl destined to become a nun.

-The Inspector has a boss.

-Toussant has a lisp.

-The relationship between Fachelevant and Valjean is explained a bit more (even though they CHANGED Fachelevant's name!)

-Gavroche has his "babies"     /cry

-We see the inspector writing the letter, but we don't get to see what it says.

• Canon Divergence-

-In the book, Valjean became literate while he was in prison and afterwards he has no learning deficits of any kind. 

This is one of those areas I felt I had to suspend disbelief, not because I think it's impossible for someone to learn that quickly but because it was clearly a device used by the author to bypass some rather important character development.  I loved having Vajean learn how to read slowly, and having him dealing with insecurities of being a poor reader as a businessman. I feel like I could relate to his journey a lot better when he's not a genius, when he has some difficulties to work though, it makes him more human. 

-In the book, Valjean leaving M-sur-M was on a sour note. Everybody just assumed the worst of him, and his business was inherited by greedy people and the whole town went kerplunk. 

In this movie, Valjean transferred ownership of his company to the employees, which I think was a smart move. I like business-savy!Valjean.

-The Inspector is unjust and is motivated by prejudiced against Fantine.  This was done to make him a villain. 

-Fantine/Valjean is an actual thing so YAY!!

/happydance!

There's something oddly gratifying about Valjean banging the Inspector's head against the wall.

-Aside from the villainous Inspector, there actually is a good police officer. I don't know his name, but I really liked him. 

-Cosette and Valjean actually work through conflict and COMMUNICATE. There's an actual reason Valjean ends up becoming the champion of Cosette and Marius' ship. WHoot Whoot!

-Marius is a leader in the revolution and Enjorlas is his second in command. Marius isn't as annoying, but also Enjorlas is basically Enjorlas in name only.

-No teenage Eponine 

-The Villainous Inspector provokes attacks, and also is an incompetent liar...

-No mention of Valjean being in the National Guard.

-Valjean likes to pretend he's all Zen:

"I don't hate you, I don't feel anything"

Um..I've read you, and Um...YES YOU DO!

-There is no key to the sewer exit. He just lifts a little bar.

-The Inspector's final act of mercy comes across as a lot more poignant than in other versions. Like, in a really pathologic type way...

Wolverine/Gladiator Version-

• Canon Adherence-

This one actually has a lot of really cool things that reference the book:

-Cosette meets Jean in the woods, and fall in parent/child love.

(Side note: I found out Hugh Jackman's children are adopted. Can we say "awww!")

-The whole scene where Cosette and Jean Valjean are being chased by Javert and Co. is from the book, down to the part where Valjean rips off his cravat to help little Cosette navigate a wall. Because apparently Jean-le-Cric, human corkscrew, whose arms and torso are the far-REEKING JAWS OF LIFE cannot carry an emaciated 8 year old girl on his back.

(Yeah, Right Jean...)

-Gavroche lives in an elephant statue (in the book, the elephant statue has a whole backstory).

-The whole scene with Inspector Javert turning himself in to Le Maire.

(In the book, it's really funny. I imagine Javert getting all Whiny and hitting Le Maire's desk with his fist: "Wwhat? You won't fire me?! WHY NOT?!! Comon, If I can dish it out I can take it, too!!" This 40 year old man, transformed into a pubecent kid for like, 15 minutes.)

-The butterflies in the Fachelevant's garden

-Enjorlas and Grantaire's final scene is very similar to the book

-The "Barricade Boys" (In the book, called "The Friends of the ABC") are in character.

-Enjorlas, Eponine, and Grantaire actually look the way they are described.

• Canon Divergence

-Nobody looks the way they are described in the book except for Eponine, Enjorlas, and Grantaire. Javert has facial hair, so I guess that counts, too.

-Movie!Valjean is a lot more bold than Book!Valjean. I almost feel like he's a composite of Book!Valjean and Book!Javert.

-The Thenardiers are used as comic relief, their antics come across as humorous at times. In the book, they're more tragic. They do some pretty atrocious things and we're forced to recognize that to some degree they still deserve our sympathy. 

-Javert has a bigger role at the Barricade in the movie. In the book he was almost reluctant to be there at all because he knows the kids aren't bad.

-The Start of Javert's turning point is Gavroche, in the book it's Eponine (They're both Thenardiers so I suppose it's not a big difference).

-Javert and Valjean are both earnest Christians. In the book, only Valjean is. The Thenardiers also claim to be Christian. This allows the story to become an powerful analysis of Christianity and theology.

Broadway Version-

I already mentioned some of the more significant similarities to the book in the main article. So I'll add some book trivia/speculation here:

• Brick Canon -

-On Valjean/Javert:

The dichotomy of these two characters is something I don't think I understood at first. Then I learned that Valjean and Javert are partially based off of the same real life individual. A man named Eugene Vidocq who was (you guessed it: a criminal turned detective) who founded the study of criminology and the french national police and his own private detecive agency: the study of criminals and why people commit crimes.

Whose life is probably more facinating than anything found in this book.

His life is every bit as facinating as this book and even more dynamic.

What changed Vidocq's life? What motivated him to stop being a criminal and start fighting criminals? Didn't have such a powerful change of heart as Valjean did (although he did open a factory, and employeed primarily criminals one up from Jean...)

He was a trouble-maker as a kid, and for a while that was just the way he chose to make his way in the world. He lived that way until he decided to become a police informant, after he saw the end his friends were comming to.
Founded a paper factory, hired criminals.

Vidocq believed himself to be of the same character as a law defender as he was a criminal. "Wait a minute, I'm the same guy I used to be. I'm just doing different stuff."



You know that really awesome line that reveals Javert's backstory:

"I was born with scum like you/I am from the gutter too"

Well, you can hardly hear it in the Broadway version, they cut out some of Valjean's lines in the Wolverine/Gladiator version because the filmmakers were smart and realized if you miss this you're missing a very important part of the story! The whole freaking reason we set these two characters up as symbolic opposites in the first place only to realize that THEY'RE NOT OPPOSITES AT ALL...

In the book, they do some really weird things to explain Javert and Valjean's characters. 

(Yes, I know it's actually a coyote)

The narrator describes people with a pathologic mindset as wolves. He repeatedly refers to Valjean as a wolf, and he introduces Javert as 'a dog who was born into a wolf-family and then grew up to kill his wolf-parents and wolf-brothers and sisters'. 

(I'm sorry, WHUT?!)

I don't know what kind of animal documentaries Victor Hugo's been watching, but apparently I've been missing out

To make matters more complicated, Javert is the one who displays predatory behavior throughout the story. While, most of the time, all we see Valjean do is struggle to suppress it. 

So who's the real wolf here?

So I went online, and read some reviews and I finally found an explanation that makes sense:

Javert is a wolf and always has been (just like Valjean) he just looks enough like a dog when he's wearing a collar to pass for one. He's channeling all of his killer instincts into capturing criminals instead of committing crimes. 

(^^That's the exact choice he faced as a teenager!)

While Valjean fights against this instinct, Javert found a way to use it. They're both exhibiting a different type of restraint and attempting to channel their pathological mindset into productive avenues. The difference is Javert thinks he can do it alone, and Valjean knows he can't.

-On Just book!Javert:

In every performance adaption I've seen, they really make it seem like Javert is obsessed with finding Valjean for a really long time. So I was surprised to find out that in The Brick, he's obsessed with bringing down a criminal organization in Paris (Becuz he's awesome like that). Towards Valjean, most of the time he's just like "Hmm...I wonder what happened with that guy?" 

Victor Hugo purposefully writes his characters as characatures of themselves: they're stylized with bold strokes so that Victor as a writer can be on his little soap box and make his point about humanity. But it is cool to see that he has thought about them in relation to actual physical people. Javert represents and idea, but he also represents a type of person. 

Basically he's all stuffy at the beginning and by the end it's all


-Bishop Charles Myriel:

He's got a whole backstory and everything, it's awesome.




-On Just Valjean:


When we first meet Valjean, he's not immediately a sympathetic figure; he's actually quite sinister. Even after he is "Saved", he's steals this little kid's lunch money.

He doesn't quite fathom the profound change taking place within him, or the journey that he's embarking on; ultimately all he's capable of is one step of faith at a time. And that's enough,

The most powerful aspect of his story, for me, is whenever he has a period of self-reflection: he always comes out realizing he's sill the same man he was when he left Toulon. In the terminology of my religion, we'd probably say he feels the influence of the "natural man" working within him. And he's not comfortable with himself, he doesn't like himself. Honestly towards the end, it made me really sad. I felt like he should be "fixed" by now, after all the good he's done.


You would not believe the intense logic discussions that have taken place in my brain because of these characters:

Me: "Why isn't he fixed? Isn't that supposed to be how it works?"
Me: "Well, yeah. But only with God. He's trying to be Javert, he's trying to let his works save him."
Me: "But it's his IDENTITY he can't stand! He hates being Jean Valjean, he'd rather be Fachelevant, or Le Maire or one of his other aliases so he can pretend his past doesn't exist."
Me: "And he didn't loose his family...and become a gangmember...and do and witness horrible things. Post Traumatic Stress will do that to you."
Me: "So basically God doesn't cure your infirmities."
Me: "No, he redeems you of them. It's like 'Yeah, you've fallen short. You're not good enough, but that's OK."
Me: "But wouldn't that bring him peace?"
Me: "PTSD, remember? Peace is relative. For him knowing that not being OK is OK."
Me: "OoooooOOOOooohhhh...."

This book can get really cerebral...


Seriously though, I really do love that Jean can have those moments and still be the absolutely flawless, awesome guy I believe he is.



-On Marius:

Marius in the book is actually a pretty horrible person. Like, he actually doesn't care about social welfare, he just cares about what befits him personally. Where Movie!Marius will be sad he lost all his friends, book Marius doesn't care. I don't want to make it sound like he's a villain, but he is a "nice guy" in the worst sense of the word.

(Even Valjean hates him)

He's really selfish, he never merits any of his good fortune. I try to pass this off as Victor Hugo using him as another example of how grace works; all these people died so he can be an unmerited recipient of their labors. But I actually just think Victor just had a weird sense of romanticism...kind of like a Male Bella Swan.

-On Cosette:

I really feel like Victor Hugo Nerfed her character development. Like, she's got all these questions, trying to discover her past, dealing with issues. And then Marius comes along and she becomes a non-entity. Boo!

-Enjorlas:

Just Ugh! He's so boss! I so hope Javert got to see him [spoiler omitted].


-Thenardier:

I almost feel like the Thenardier family can be read as also one entity, even though in the story they hardly interact as a family at all.

The head of the family is No-first-name Thenardier. I don't know if Victor Hugo was just being lazy in not giving him a first name, if he wanted his name to be synonymous with the whole family, or if he wanted all of the family members to be synonymous with him.

 Most of the other poor characters are treated as "Unfortunates" M. Thenardier is "Infamous"This means that most of his misfortune is self-inflicted, he are not so much a victim of society as he is a victim of himself:


"Thenardier possessed all that is required to make [himself]... a [successful] honest trader...a good bourgeois* [but he still grew up to be a crook]."



(*Conventional middle class dude)



It's an interesting counterpoint to almost every other character in the book; even the members of the Patron-Minette are treated with more sympathy. In some ways, this feels really cheap...I mean, you excuse away serial killers and assassins as victims of society, but this guy...he's just a bad egg.

After giving this some thought, I think this is another one of the many times Mister Hugo is trying to be unnecessarily poetic. (See Also: Javert the Cannibal Puppy)

When you consider that this book isn't just discussing Thenardier as an individual, but rather as a caricature, or a type of person, a focus starts to take shape. Particularly when you compare his personality description to that of his children:

Thenardier has a lot of children, and he has basically nil nurturative influence on them at all, so basically whatever they got from him, is a reflection of biological inheritance; 

Eponine actually claims this when she does something super gutzy and punk:

 "I'm not the daughter of a dog, [...] I'm the daughter of a wolf."

Basically, she's inherited his temperament and because of that she's brave, tenacious, willful and determined to get what she wants even if it hurts other people, or herself. 

Gavroche is basically her foil: the hero to Eponine's villain: He's got the same (Thenardier) tenacity and cunning, but, while she uses it to exploit others for her own warped benefit; he demonstrates compassion, selflessness, and generosity. 

So this is who the Thenardiers are: Cunning people who can make what they want out of their lives, become whatever they choose, regardless of their circumstances. Considering how dogmatic all of M. Hugo's other characters are represented, this breakmakes them a breath of fresh air.

Another interesting point about the Thenardiers is that all the Thenardier POV characters get "happy endings" (if not conventional ones).

Think about it:

Gavroche has arguably the most gut-wrenching death in the story, cuz he's so young, But Victor Hugo points out that his death is  not a tragedy because his life had no potential for betterment any way. At least he was able to die with purity and dignity, and a relative degree of happiness...and not become his father's son as he was destined to be if he did grow up.

Dying is the best thing that ever happened to him...

In addition to having no potential for future happiness, Eponine was also aware of that fact (unlike her brother). From her own point of view, her death was fulfilling because she was able to plan her exit the way she wanted (like a romance, in the arms of her "one true love").

And Dad-Thenardier? Well, he actually gets away with all of his schemes, moves to america to sell slaves to plantation owners. 

Nice...

I wanna see a version where he's the main character! His role in the war, adventures with Marius' dad, 15 minutes of fame stuff...That would be fascinating!

Other Versions I want to see:

-The Modern AU

^^^ which was an actual thing, btw

-The Anime One (with subs in english, of course)

-The 1950-ish one where Valjean gets held hostage by the Thenardiers


-The one where all the characters are represented by their animal avatars:

Jean is a wolf
Cosette is a lark
etc.

(There isn't one, but I would so watch it).



-A version where Javert is Half-Romani (As he is implied to be in the book), and Marius' Dad is an actual character.

The Hobbit Stinks!! Part 3

Now that I've gotten all that nostalgia off of my chest...

I have to be straight with you, when we got out of the theater and everyone in my party was gushing over the movie and saying, "I can't think of anything they did wrong." 

I was thinking, "Welll...I can think of like five things." But I didn't say anything cuz that would be a JERK thing to do...

Just like those guys in the back of the theater who were bashing Legolas and talking about how stupid the dwarves were RIGHT BEFORE THE FRIKIN' MOVIE!

------------------

If you haven't seen the movie, this post will probably not make any sense to you. And even if you have seen it, there's no guarantee that my command of the english language will be decipherable.

But just in case: Be advised, this post contains spoilers for The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies.

This post is the third and last in a series exploring why the movies in The Hobbit Franchise Stink.

Here is part one (I also explain what it means for a movie to stink in this post, it's not always a bad thing)

Here is part two 

Here is Part Three:

Changes That Didn't Stink (as bad)

• Attack on Dol Guldur 

I'd been waiting for this scene ever since I found out they were expanding The Hobbit's plot beyond Bilbo's POV. Gandalf tells Bilbo about how he and the rest of the White Council stormed the Necromancer's lair and drove him out of Mirkwood. A bunch of magic people casting out a dark sourceror sounds preety cool, it's even cooler when the Necromancer is actually a disguised Sauron and the "Magic People" are all your favorite mentor-characters from LOTR

IT FINALLY HAPPENS!!! and it did not disappoint. In LOTR, you feel like you're seeing them waining, here you get to see them fight in their hay-day.

(they should do this more often)

My only gripe is: the scene was over pretty fast. :(

• Thranduil

This one is mixed for me. Thranduil in the movies is a very different type of person than he is in the book. Its as if they took a guy with the exact same tragic back story and had him deal with that trauma in a completely different way. 

Thranduil is a seriously damaged dude.

(And not just cuz of his face)

I was watching waiting for the moment when this character was going to get confronted with the magnitude of the destruction that's going on around him. (and kinda go "hey, maybe I should not be such a jerkface") A moment moves him to pity his destitute human neighbors, or recognize/regret his role in magnifying a political dispute.

That moment did not happen

(Don't even get your hopes up for a Thorin/Thranduil reconciliation...not going to happen...)

Thranduil has so many examples of good behavior around him. Bard, Bilbo, Gandalf, Tauriel, Legolas and he takes absolutely none of them to heart. 

I won't say he's heartless, but he might be the most cold-hearted primary character in these movies. When helps the people of Laketown, but makes it clear he's only doing this so he can get his monies. He has this moment during the battle where he stops and looks around at the loss of life around him, but wherase in the book takes into the account the loss of all life (goblins, dwarves, humans, elves) Thranduil is ONLY looking at his own people.

He has this great opportunity to tell his son that he loves him and he chooses not to. And the reconciliation arc between himself and Tauriel is very self-referential. He's talking about her heartbreak, but he's really talking about his own. 

In general, Thranduil is beyond empathy for anything that doesn't affect him personally. AND HE DOESN'T CHANGE.

Usually, this is the type of thing I would find completely irritating in a story, but in this case it made sense. Thranduil is (in a sense) dead on the inside. 

In a story that deals with issues like grief and loss, it's meaningful to have a character who is so irremediably damaged by them.

(On a side note: I really would have loved to see Thranduil finally getting his hands on those diamonds. I really would have loved to know if it was worth it to him.)

• Thorin

I was very close to putting this on the list of thinks that stink, but I think that (despite some inconsistencies and one pretty cheesy moment) it was meaningful.

In the movie, the gold sickness pretty much ONLY effects Thorin. And the manner in which it affects him resembles an episode of psychosis: complete with paranoia and hallucinations. 

The thing I don't like about this alteration is that it robs the story of a moral complexity. If you'd like to read more about moral complexity in The Hobbit, I'd like to suggest this post: In Defense of Bilbo Baggins

For Book!Thorin confronting the reality of a five-sided battle is what made him re-evalute his priories. 

(It's one thing to think, "OMGosh I hate those guys I wish they would all just die." and then sitting there, watching it happen.)

Movie!Thorin overcomes Gold Sickness by confronting his own feelings of guilt and inadequacy...by himself...in one scene. 

It sounds cheesy, and I thought it was at first too...

But in Tolkien's world, people become heroes by embracing humility, and the journey Thorin goes on in this version of the story embraces that morality. 

Even though he's a king and he's prideful and he's gained all of this wealth and power

He still sees himself as the guy who was reduced

 to fixing other people's stuff for a living.

 It's clear that Thorin's "pride" at the beginning of the movie is corrupt. It doesn't stem from self-confidence; it exists to cover up some really, really severe self-esteem issues. 

I think the most compelling personal journey in the series is when Thorin chooses to drop that facade. Thorin chooses a humility and, unlike the hobbit main characters in the story, it does not come naturally to him. But ultimately, it's a choice of self-acceptance and self-affirmation. 

There is a saying I read that goes: "True pride and true humility are exactly the same thing."

Subconsciously I think I've always realized this, but in recent years I've come to know that it's not a concept that a lot of people understand. For that reason, I'm very glad it was included in this movie.

If you'd like to read more about hubris: there's a pretty cool article from Aloha International.

• Killing the dragon-

It was over in like five minutes, but it was a super intense five minutes...not like they were trying to get it over with. The fact that they were able to reinforce a father/child trust relationship in the midst of all that was amazing.

• Romantic Subplot

People who are not fond of this romance will hate this movie. The story-arc pretty much follows their most negative expectations...

(It's a straight up love story. Not even a love triangle. Tauriel never loved Legolas I don't know why people kept thinking that she did, she seemed totally uncomfortable and weirded out when thranduil suggests it And Legolas discovers that his feelings for Tauriel because he identifies her with his mother.) 

As a person who never hated the idea of romance in this story, I was not at all offended. In fact I thought it was really meaningful. 

Remember that Hobbit Radio Drama from BBC I mentioned in my last post?

(No mormonhippie, I don't.) 

The radio drama introduces Rivendell as a community of elves with mixed-race heritage and introduces the king of Rivendell "Elrond Half-elven". 

Well, I automatically assumed that some of their ancestors were dwarves. So it wasn't hard for me to imagine a dwarf/elf relationship when I was first exposed to the story.

Nowhere in Tolkien's work is the possibility of such a union contradicted and the one time this elf chick's jealous elf-boyfriend says anything like "elves and mortals aren't supposed to get married except for, like, one or two times" (In The Children of Hurin)...Tolkien contradicts that by creating a whole other community of mortal half-elves (in Return of the King). This leads me to believe that inter-racial marriage in middle earth was fairly common, even though it probably wasn't talked about a whole lot. 

So, as a response to the question, "Why did they need an elf/dwarf romance??" 

 In a story that's about the importance of compromise, reconciling differences, and appreciating the beauty in other people I say:

"WHY THE HECK NOT??!?!?!"

Can't think of anything that could present these themes in a better way than an inter-racial romance. And although it didn't quite turn out the way I thought it would, it emphasized a sense of the sense of permanent personal loss that was absent in other aspects of the story.

*On a side note: 

Elrond, man...can you imagine what it would be like

 to watch your TWIN brother grow old and die 

while you stay young forever? #ugh #feels

I'm not saying these were improvements upon the book, because most of them are not. But I do understand why these alterations were made and I believe they were appropriate given the change from literary to cinematic format. 

And Now... 

The Things That Stink about "The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies"

• Music

I really didn't notice any new themes when  I watched he movie. I bought the soundtrack on CD to try and listen to it more closely...and the first CD sounds like relaxing background music.

 Kinda lame, especially when most of the movie is fight scenes and all they can play is 'LET'S ALL FREAKING FALL ASLEEP' music

I guess after 5 movies you run out of ideas.

Sad story: The second CD (the one with the credit's song that I really wanted to listen to) split in half before we could even take it out of the container.

 /Cry. 

Billy Boyd has a fantastic voice and the song that he sings during the credits is a lovely tribute to all the people who've spent their lives creating these movies. 

• Azog and Bolg, The Albino Goblins Who Magically Transformed Into Orcs...

They finally mention that these two guys are family (Legolas refers to Bolg as "the spawn of Azog" ) 

But that's about it.  The Book!Hobbit provided this excellent template for exploring the fact that goblins and orcs are people (I mean...corrupt evil people but still) . I think it would have been cool if Bolg's motivation were seeking revenge for the death of his dad (like in the book). But that road was not taken, and I'm disappointed.  

• Bilbo

In terms of acting, I think this movie might be the first time I looked at the character and saw Bilbo and not Martin Freeman (and that was mostly due to his interaction's with Thorin). It's unfortunate that, as far as characterization, Bilbo never succeeds on his own merits. 

 Like I have mentioned before, I don't think this is the actor's fault. The writers gutted Bilbo's personality and either deleted or redistributed everything that made him a unique and engaging character to character's like Tauriel or Legolas. 

His character arc began and finished in the first film, and quality of this series has suffered for it.

• The Battle

I'm not going to go into detail on this one; I'm just going to say that Professor Tolkien wrote out a very involved, dynamic, and compelling battle scene... that I would have LOVED to see on screen...and the filmmakers pretty much scrapped it. Also, it really stinks that Wargs aren't represented as one of the five armies, I liked the idea that wargs are sentient and have their own government and everything, but no...in the movies they're just cool looking horses. 

One thing I did like was that Bilbo was a bit more involved and didn't get knocked out until the end.  

• Pacing (I'm not talking about people walking back and forth, or that actor who plays Thranduil)

An adverse effect of stretching one small book into three big movies is that you have to fill the movies with fluff. (I wouldn't mind the fluff if they included the parts of the story with substance as well; unfortunately they don't) 

But there is another problem as well-

Do you remember this moment? 

(The Bilbo/Thorin hug?)

It's sweet

And awkward.

And says a lot about their relationship.

In the book, there is no single definite moment in which Bilbo "wins" Thorin's affection and friendship. Bilbo and Thorin don't emotionally get to the "Hug" stage until the final act. 

It's sweet

Because Bilbo has been hungering for acceptance and respect since day #1. He's no longer the dorky little brother who needs protecting, Thorin makes it clear that he's respected and valued as an equal.

It's awkward 

Because Bilbo is contemplating treachery. He's just spend this whole book building these relationships with these people and he's about to give it all up. 

It's gut-wrenching and ultimately tragic and it did not translate well to the movie because they built the Thorin/Bilbo relationship in one scene two movies ago.

• Alfrid Wormtongue (I don't care if that's not his real last name)

This character started out pretty interesting. He's an a bit of an inept opportunist; he's not evil, but he's not particularly noble or good. He's morally ambigous and, at the start, it makes him a breath of fresh air. 

Until his third fourth FIFTH vignette...Then you're just hoping he dies as soon as possible. 

• Good vs. Evil

This aspect of the story wouldn't have been so bad IF THE HOBBIT WERE IN FACT A STORY ABOUT GOOD and EVIL...

I'm very embarrassed that some fairly intelligent people (Like Peter Jackson, the three movie reviewers I read today, and millions of movie-viewers all over the world) think that this story is about good and evil

Guys....

The Lord of The Rings is a story about Good vs. Evil...

The Hobbit is a story about Right vs. Wrong

That may seem nitpicky, but it's an important distinction. None of the characters are confronting evil, they are confronting each other (and themselves).

Conclusion:

This movie would have been absolutely wonderful if it weren't for the book. The book, according to new line cinema, is a pesky juvenile fairytale novella that  just isn't worthy of the big screen...that is...until Peter Jackson came along and fixed it.

To be fair, Peter Jackson didn't want to do the job; and I have the feeling that, instead of resigning himself to it as an obligation...as something that he had to do...

he owned it... (a little too much so)

Like, 'If I'm going to do this job, I'm going to do it my way.'

I can't say I resent him for pressing his advantage, especially when he's sacrificed so much of his life and health for something that he apparently didn't want to do in the first place.

I am a bit pissed at people who look down on The Hobbit because it's a more of a fairy tale that just happens to exist in a world of high fantasy. This is not an opinion that was created by the hobbit-movies, but I am seeing it expressed more as people are exploring the source material for the hobbit movies and finding something lacking.

(If you have a general distaste for fairy tales...and I mean, like, Grim-Brothers stuff...the old folk-tales type stuff but hold High Fantasy in regard....PHLEESE DO NOT READ THE HOBBIT!!!

I would also recommend that you refrain from reading The Smith of Wootton Major, Leaf by Niggle or any of JRR Tolkien's works outside of The Lord of the Rings.

These stories will NOT live up to your expectations, PLEASE DON'T READ THEM....

also you suck)

It wouldn't be so bad if these movies weren't called "The Hobbit: [Insert Subtitle Here]" That title suggests the story is actually about one particular character having all these things happen to him....

and that's NOT what these movies are about.

I used to think it would be cool if they made a movie called "Thorin and Company" (because it sounds cool) and it would emphasize this colorful group of people and the different roles each member had (with emphasis on the burglar, of course). That would be epic... (I need to make a poster)

But that's not even what this movie did.

A lot of people like to pretend that Peter Jackson was using Tolkien's unfinished tales/history of middle earth to "fluff" the hobbit story with a history of middle earth (like Thorin's backstory, Thranduil's people, and Azog's background etc.)

(by people who like to fool themselves into thinking that The Hobbit films honor Tolkien's vision of middle earth) 

 if that's the case, he did a pretty bad job at that because those storylines were misrepresented as well.


So what does this movie NOT suck at?

It's good fanfiction.

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way (not all fanfiction is bad) but it's less of an adaption than it is a re-creation. 

I can accept it as an affectionate nod to Tolkien (or rather the Lord of the Rings movies), but it does not necessarily honor the source material.