![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mithenThere was a thing going around on Tumblr with a short dialogue:
Me, before seeing The Hobbit: Well, I won't be shipping anyone from this.
Me, after seeing The Hobbit: [nervous sweat] I am so fucked.
That's pretty much me, although it took me three viewings of the movie (in two weeks!) to get there. The main reason, of course, was this majestic doofus:
Now, if you read Tolkien's book as a kid, you might be thinking, "That's funny, I don't remember Thorin Oakenshield striking me as a handsome, noble, brooding hero with a tragic backstory." That's because Tolkien's take on Thorin and dwarves in general was much closer to this:
There it is: dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.
This is one of the most awesome changes Jackson made to the movies, in my humble opinion. Tolkien based his dwarves on Jews--their language is based on Semitic roots, and he gave them traits he associated with being Jewish. That is to say, greedy and petty. Now, the evolution of dwarves through Tolkien's works is actually really fascinating: they start off as the worst of inhuman stereotypes in the early Silmarillion, become moderately sympathetic but not heroic characters in Hobbit, and by the time we get to Gimli (who is much less comedic in the books than in the movies) and the Appendices, we've got a race that has potential for great deeds and great tragedy. At this point he actually went BACK and added a much more interesting and sympathetic origin story for dwarves to the beginning of the Silmarillion, and so we come full circle.
Jackson has stayed true to the basic idea of the Jews as a base for dwarvish culture and history, but has decided to highlight themes that Tolkien didn't focus on (although they're there): the bitter grief of the diaspora, the grim endurance of serving others in a strange land, the passionate and burning commitment to regaining a homeland. As a result, Thorin HAD to be more than the pompous, greedy blowhard of the books. He had to be a heroic figure who's willing sacrifice everything (even risking the madness that he knows gold might trigger in him) to unite his people and give them a home once more.
To be fair, and very interestingly, one has the impression that Tolkien dimly saw these possibilities in Thorin and didn't (perhaps, because of his own prejudices and blinkers, couldn't) follow through on them. Because book!Thorin still somehow connects with Beorn to the point where, when he falls in battle, Beorn goes into full-berserker mode and slaughters a massive number of goblins to reach his body and carry him from the battlefield (then returning and routing pretty much the entire goblin army). After his death, the elves and humans not only give back the Arkenstone to be buried with him, the Elvenking returns Orcrist to him (forged in Gondolin! Wielded by an elf of legend! Slayer of a balrog!) to rest with him forever in the darkness. There are hints of this grandeur in the text, when Thorin reveals himself in Laketown ("Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror King under the Mountain!" said the dwarf in a loud voice, and he looked it, in spite of his torn clothes and draggled hood. The gold gleamed on his neck and waist: his eyes were dark and deep.) and most especially when he emerges from the mountain to fight:
Suddenly there was a great shout, and from the Gate came a trumpet call. They had forgotten Thorin! Part of the wall, moved by levers, fell outward with a crash into the pool. Out leapt the King under the Mountain, and his companions followed him. Hood and cloak were gone; they were in shining armour, and red light leapt from their eyes. In the gloom the great dwarf gleamed like gold in a dying fire.
*swoons*
But on the whole Tolkien seems to have been unable to understand how amazing Thorin could be as a character. Jackson found all the hints that Thorin was awesome, welded them together, cast Richard Armitage, and BAM, we have a character that's 100% swoonworthy.
But one character does not a ship make! So what's the appeal of "Bagginshield" as opposed to Thorin/Dwalin or Thorin/Thranduil (both of which are pretty compelling as well)?
Well, a lot of it is the "opposite but complementary" theme, and a lot of it is the "two loners who find each other" theme. But I can tell you the exact, the precise moment I started shipping these two (and it's not the hug!)
I came out of my first viewing of the movie understanding intellectually why people might ship them, but it hadn't set its hooks in my heart at that point. The key thing for me was when, at the second viewing, I was listening to Ian Holm's Bilbo talking about his adventures. "Ah, Frodo," he says, "Erebor.". And there's a depth of love and longing in his voice that completely took me aback, because book!Bilbo pretty cordially hates Erebor. So why, why, why does movie!Bilbo love it so much? What's different in this world? Well, the answer is all the dwarves (in the book mostly a set of interchangeable nuisances) and most obviously Thorin himself.
So you see there was a story there for me, and a destination--Thorin's deathbed, where he calls for Bilbo and clings to life so he may see him before he dies and apologize for everything; where Bilbo tells him it was an honor to travel with him and then creeps off to weep until his eyes are red and his voice hoarse. How will that destination look with THIS Thorin and THIS Bilbo and their relationship as it's evolving, I wondered. And, well, that was that. It's a beautiful, sad, closed story and its very finality ensured that I would want to give them as much happiness as I could!
Me, before seeing The Hobbit: Well, I won't be shipping anyone from this.
Me, after seeing The Hobbit: [nervous sweat] I am so fucked.
That's pretty much me, although it took me three viewings of the movie (in two weeks!) to get there. The main reason, of course, was this majestic doofus:
Now, if you read Tolkien's book as a kid, you might be thinking, "That's funny, I don't remember Thorin Oakenshield striking me as a handsome, noble, brooding hero with a tragic backstory." That's because Tolkien's take on Thorin and dwarves in general was much closer to this:
There it is: dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.
This is one of the most awesome changes Jackson made to the movies, in my humble opinion. Tolkien based his dwarves on Jews--their language is based on Semitic roots, and he gave them traits he associated with being Jewish. That is to say, greedy and petty. Now, the evolution of dwarves through Tolkien's works is actually really fascinating: they start off as the worst of inhuman stereotypes in the early Silmarillion, become moderately sympathetic but not heroic characters in Hobbit, and by the time we get to Gimli (who is much less comedic in the books than in the movies) and the Appendices, we've got a race that has potential for great deeds and great tragedy. At this point he actually went BACK and added a much more interesting and sympathetic origin story for dwarves to the beginning of the Silmarillion, and so we come full circle.
Jackson has stayed true to the basic idea of the Jews as a base for dwarvish culture and history, but has decided to highlight themes that Tolkien didn't focus on (although they're there): the bitter grief of the diaspora, the grim endurance of serving others in a strange land, the passionate and burning commitment to regaining a homeland. As a result, Thorin HAD to be more than the pompous, greedy blowhard of the books. He had to be a heroic figure who's willing sacrifice everything (even risking the madness that he knows gold might trigger in him) to unite his people and give them a home once more.
To be fair, and very interestingly, one has the impression that Tolkien dimly saw these possibilities in Thorin and didn't (perhaps, because of his own prejudices and blinkers, couldn't) follow through on them. Because book!Thorin still somehow connects with Beorn to the point where, when he falls in battle, Beorn goes into full-berserker mode and slaughters a massive number of goblins to reach his body and carry him from the battlefield (then returning and routing pretty much the entire goblin army). After his death, the elves and humans not only give back the Arkenstone to be buried with him, the Elvenking returns Orcrist to him (forged in Gondolin! Wielded by an elf of legend! Slayer of a balrog!) to rest with him forever in the darkness. There are hints of this grandeur in the text, when Thorin reveals himself in Laketown ("Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror King under the Mountain!" said the dwarf in a loud voice, and he looked it, in spite of his torn clothes and draggled hood. The gold gleamed on his neck and waist: his eyes were dark and deep.) and most especially when he emerges from the mountain to fight:
Suddenly there was a great shout, and from the Gate came a trumpet call. They had forgotten Thorin! Part of the wall, moved by levers, fell outward with a crash into the pool. Out leapt the King under the Mountain, and his companions followed him. Hood and cloak were gone; they were in shining armour, and red light leapt from their eyes. In the gloom the great dwarf gleamed like gold in a dying fire.
*swoons*
But on the whole Tolkien seems to have been unable to understand how amazing Thorin could be as a character. Jackson found all the hints that Thorin was awesome, welded them together, cast Richard Armitage, and BAM, we have a character that's 100% swoonworthy.
But one character does not a ship make! So what's the appeal of "Bagginshield" as opposed to Thorin/Dwalin or Thorin/Thranduil (both of which are pretty compelling as well)?
Well, a lot of it is the "opposite but complementary" theme, and a lot of it is the "two loners who find each other" theme. But I can tell you the exact, the precise moment I started shipping these two (and it's not the hug!)
I came out of my first viewing of the movie understanding intellectually why people might ship them, but it hadn't set its hooks in my heart at that point. The key thing for me was when, at the second viewing, I was listening to Ian Holm's Bilbo talking about his adventures. "Ah, Frodo," he says, "Erebor.". And there's a depth of love and longing in his voice that completely took me aback, because book!Bilbo pretty cordially hates Erebor. So why, why, why does movie!Bilbo love it so much? What's different in this world? Well, the answer is all the dwarves (in the book mostly a set of interchangeable nuisances) and most obviously Thorin himself.
So you see there was a story there for me, and a destination--Thorin's deathbed, where he calls for Bilbo and clings to life so he may see him before he dies and apologize for everything; where Bilbo tells him it was an honor to travel with him and then creeps off to weep until his eyes are red and his voice hoarse. How will that destination look with THIS Thorin and THIS Bilbo and their relationship as it's evolving, I wondered. And, well, that was that. It's a beautiful, sad, closed story and its very finality ensured that I would want to give them as much happiness as I could!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-01-16 12:36 pm (UTC)