On Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” – Richard Armitage Defines Thorin Oakenshield

Having now seen “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” I must say that I loved the movie. Sure, there are changes from the books, additions to the storyline, and some rather inexplicable logic that puzzles me — but overall I give the film an 8-out-of-10 rating.

While Martin Freeman deserves considerable credit for his performance as Bilbo Baggins I think that Richard Armitage does a tremendous job of giving Tolkien’s rather belligerent Dwarf Prince a more noble and sympathetic character than he has in the book. In Tolkien’s defense he wrote The Hobbit as a children’s story with no real hope or intention of defining Middle-earth for a large audience. He did not expect the book to become as successful as it did, and by the time it was published he had severed some of the connectivity between the story and his then-primary narrative about events in Beleriand.

So the literary Thorin Oakenshield isn’t much of a character, much less a heroic character. Yes, he charges out to fight Bolg of the North in the Battle of Five Armies but his internal emotional struggles are not central to Tolkien’s tale. Peter Jackson and his co-writers have turned the story slightly to give Thorin his chance to shine as a pivotal character, and I think Richard Armitage was an absolutely brilliant choice to play this vibrant, active Thorin.

In the book if you peek in-between the comments you can sort of see that Thorin is burning with a thirst for vengeance. In the movie you can sense that Thorin radiates serious purpose. And the changes to the storyline (WARNING: some spoilage follows from this point on) are obviously (to me) crafted to provide Thorin’s character with greater substance and motivation.

Richard Armitage rises to the challenge. He is tactiturn, judgmental, prejudiced, derisive, arrogant, proud, and noble, loyal, calculating, honest, and heart-warming. Some people say the movie is boring. I say it’s an incredible character study set in a world that is conflicted by collisions between interpretive views and desires. Furthermore, that world is clouded by unnecessary stereotypes that play up to the kind of boyish audience that Christopher Tolkien so obviously detests (the burping Dwarves are unlike anything in Tolkien’s literature).

Nonetheless, Thorin and Company give Peter Jackson’s audience an inside look into the world and character of his Dwarves. This is Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth, which is large, beautiful, dangerous, and in some ways unforgiving. The twelve companions of varying temper and experience with whom Thorin journeys represent a microcosm of Dwarven society among Durin’s folk in the twilight of their civilization. They have become rustic but remain proud; they are brave and generous to their friends but they have their own priorities; they are outcasts in a world that has shown them little love and yet they still choose to do what is right. There is a glimmer of ancient glory and nobility in the singing, musical Dwarves of the movie — and that is a touch of unexpected magic.

But Thorin is their leader and right from the start he is given a sense or air of superiority. He is set apart from his companions in both rank and demeanor; but these distances are used as buffers. Thorin has deep-rooted feelings and he is vulnerable through those feelings. Hence, he maintains the distance and the others respect that distance.

The close relationship between Thorin and Balin is especially touching. I never really saw that in the story myself but it makes sense. Balin is old enough to be Thorin’s mentor and confidante. When Thorin is too stern, too withdrawn to connect with his loyal followers (even his nephews Fili and Kili) Balin explains his complex past for both the audience and the other Dwarves so that everyone understands that Thorin isn’t just some bratty prince who wants his kingdom back — he feels a deep sense of loss.

You see that loss in Richard Armitage’s eyes as he gazes into the past that Balin recounts for everyone. You feel that loss in Richard’s growing anger when he is confronting the Goblins. And at last Peter Jackson uses Thorin to provide a reasonable cause of grief between his Elves and Dwarves. Unlike Tolkien’s long-undisclosed reason for distrust between Elves and Dwarves Peter’s motive is much more recent and personal for the Dwarves of Thorin’s generation. Peter’s explanation of the division between Elves and Dwarves is acceptable within the terms of Thorin’s character — Peter’s Thorin.

In the book the Elvenking never led an army to challenge Smaug, but it is logical to infer that if the Dwarves and Men of that time were friendly then the Elves would have been friendly with them; and so why would Thranduil not reach out? And yet, confronted with the devastation wrought by the dragon the Elves seem to make a prudent choice. It would have to be a hard choice, but it sets up the conflict between Thorin and the Elf-king.

Of course in the book they don’t seem to have any prior knowledge of each other — a fact that would be overlooked by children but which has been questioned by more than one adult reader. Shouldn’t Thorin have known who the Elvenking was and vice versa? Yes. I think that Thorin should have been recognized by the Elves. But the case of mysterious identity works well enough in Tolkien’s book. I think what we can expect when Thorin is captured by the Elves in Mirkwood is a much more personal and intense confrontation between two former neighbors.

There will no doubt be Tolkien purists who deplore Peter Jackson’s Thorin as not being completely like the character in the book. For my part I think they will miss the point entirely: these movies are not J.R.R. Tolkien’s story to tell, they are Peter Jackson’s story to tell. JRRT never saw himself translating his stories to the big screen or any other form of dramatization; there is no way any set of movies can reflect his vision accurately and completely.

But there I go again, apologizing for changes that should seem natural to everyone. When you give a story to a different tale-teller there will be changes. He makes the tale his own. I don’t believe that diminishes the value of the original tale-teller’s work at all. No one will be able to do Tolkien “right” but they don’t have to. They just need to give us a Middle-earth that we enjoy visiting and wish to see again.

If anything I think that “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is much better done than “The Fellowship of the Ring” because this time around Peter was able to concentrate more on telling the story and less on explaining things. One of the great challenges in bringing Tolkien to the big screen is that there is so much exposition in his stories that you have to cut out a lot of detail or everyone on both sides of the film (makers and audience) will get lost.

Had Peter NOT added more exposition to “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” we would probably have seen far less of Thorin’s inner turmoil, and Richard Armitage would have been handed the thankless task of playing a plastic Dwarf. I’m glad I didn’t have to watch that kind of movie.

See also:

• How Much Padding Is There in Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” Trilogy?
• Is Tauriel in the Book, the Hobbit?
• Review of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”
• Why Is the Hobbit Movie so Different from the Book?
• How Faithful is Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” to Tolkien’s Book?
• Why Didn’t Thorin Want the Elvenking to Know about His Quest?
• Should Thorin Oakenshield Have Been Able to Wield Orcrist?

12

Click to Like