The Hobbit (Film)...?

I was just thinking about what I thought was Peter Jackson's upcoming film adaptation of Tolkien's story "The Hobbit". I was going to begin: "So they're making a film of The Hobbit". But they aren't! They are nearly making a film of The Hobbit. The original plan was to make it then go on to film the three episodes of The Lord of the Rings all at the same time. But that was a long time ago. It seems there are problems about a number of things, particularly who owns the production rights, who owns the distribution rights (not the same people, I think, unfortunately), and a law suit which has apparently offended New Line Cinema and made them vow never to use Peter Jackson for anything ever again...so I hear, at least. I don't know what is true, but it seems there is some trouble with this project getting off the ground.

So is it still worth writing my thoughts about the music for this film? Of course! Let's go!

Now, The Hobbit is a good story. It's a very good read. I always feel with Tolkien that it is somehow offensive to "right-thinking literary people" because it is a little bit naïve and doesn't subject its literary form to any radical exploration or expansion. Yes, it's not Finnegans Wake. Well those imagined opinions undoubtedly have some truth to them, but you could also say that since Tolkien goes back to the sources he knew so well - the Sagas, Eddas, poems and prose of Northern Europe which are our surviving mythological and legendary heritage - and since he tries to make a real story like stories used to be told, maybe that is a radical thing to do, in a way. But it's true that it's not avant-garde. It's rather conservative in that it wants some things to remain a certain way. Certainly in The Lord of the Rings the peaceful way of life of the Hobbits living in the Shire is threatened by the "development" and "progress" that comes out of the land of Mordor. It may mean several things but one is certainly that rural life is threatened with extinction by the Industrial Revolution. Plus there is world war, too - I'm sure people have looked into all this in plenty of detail.

So anyway, it's not a great work of modernist fiction, but I will include it as an important work of modern fiction because whatever is good or bad about the writing, the idea and its world have found many ears eager to hear more. It's a good story, like The Three Musketeers or a James Bond novel. I mean it's a GOOD story - I'm praising it, not belittling it!

All of which is not to complain about the book, but to examine why I feel I should be slightly embarrassed to be discussing it in public. Well, I'm not. It's a proper story, so there. Ha!

The Hobbit is fun because you can read it in a day (if you have all day). There are plenty of excitements, some spooky bits, some magic and comedy too. And plenty of escapism if you enjoy reading about home comforts. The Hobbit, it seems, is a homely creature who enjoys his bit of supper. Often more than once!

I was thinking about the music for this projected film. I imagined it would be in the mode of The Lord of the Rings, which I feel is an extremely strong score (from Howard Shore). Its use of Leitmotiv (a theme for each character or thing, so you can see how they are interacting in the story, associated most with Wagner - very appropriate for a legendary story about a ring) provides a great way to unify all three films, almost as good a unifying factor as Peter Jackson's brain, which must be enormous to have made all three films at the same time!

On the other hand, once you have your motifs worked out, not much has to change. Because Wagner operas are mythological, they are supposed to be beyond the scope and compass of mortal time, so time gets stretched out. There is climax, or course (see Isoldens Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde) but time is a bit flattened out. So maybe leit-motifs prevent a more natural flow of musical events? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway they definitely made the right choice for those three films.

But the embarrassing moments for me are: the "Happy Shire" music, intended to be antic and comically endearing, but rather annoying for me, and the songs.

A big song in a film (or "movie", as they are called) is normally a signal for you to go out and buy the record (or "CD" as they are called). Yes, it is a marketing opportunity, almost a moment of "branded content" - entertainment that is actually selling you something. But if the song has a dramatic purpose, that's different. If not...why is it in a film? Do they stop the story to say "buy Simpson's Shock-Absorbers"? Yes they do. It's called product placement. However, that doesn't happen all the time.

But it's the little songs I'm worrying about here. Why do they go wrong? In fact, musical examples of "real music" in films go rather badly - look at Mr. Holland's Opus! The Piano! Dear me. Supposedly examples of great music and would be fine on the soundtrack but not when you take the same level of musical discourse but expose it on a completely different level.

I'm talking about songs because there are quite a lot in The Hobbit.

Far over the misty mountains cold,
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere the break of day,
To seek the pale enchanted gold.

has potential (could still be ruined though) but

Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
That's what Bilbo Baggins hates -
Smash the bottles and burn the corks!
...So, carefully! Carefully with the plates!

could go badly wrong. You see, musical music (as used in an opera by someone who is intending the music to carry important meaning) has a great emotional and expressive range which includes comedy as well as more serious thoughts. But "background music" (which film music is not when it is one of the characters in the story but which it easily can be) doesn't have much range. It can illustrate or echo what is happening on-screen, but it needs more wide possibilities of expression, obviously, to express more things. Bad examples go like "Aha there is something nasty happening me better make loud noise bang bang!", but in a good example you hear an added level of story. Maybe it would be more dramatic with quiet music. Or no music. And so on.

So the score needs to be thoughtful, but it should think on a different level when the music gets exposed and we are asked to listen to it as "real music" in the story.

You have to think carefully, though, because a film score mostly can't have quite the same depth as music on its own in a concert, because film + music is the totality of the offering, each playing its part which should add up to 100%. But that's about good partnerships. When person X is doing something important, person Y should try to help...perhaps even by doing nothing.

Style is difficult for songs in a film because one assumes the audience has a very limited imagination of what songs should sound like. Songs are...well, anything from pop music, or "a folk song". What is a folk song? Why it's Irish of course!

Yes why does it always have to be Irish? Come on, you've got more choices than that! Or could it perhaps be because most films are aimed at the USA? Where there are a lot of people who think of Ireland as "home"? Or the home before this home? Could be.

Yes there are perhaps limited references to work with when you want to engage with the audience, but I still think you should give it a try. People are more intelligent than you might think. Still, they have to sell the picture. I understand.

If The Hobbit has embarrassing aspects, then they may extend to the film version too...and that may include the songs. Let's wait and see.

But Tolkien wasn't embarrassed, and neither are the fans of the stories. You have to get into the world to learn how to show people what it looks like. Being intelligent about it doesn't mean it has to sound "clever". It just will take people there, that's all.

I'm sure it will TURN OUT FINE!

McGee

I had so many different things to write about that there just wasn't enough time to write about them! And the trouble with that is that the longer I leave it, the more things I have to write about! I thought I should just say hello so you know I am still here.

However, I have just discovered that the interesting food writer Harold McGee has a blog which you can reach by clicking his name in this sentence. Harold McGee's great book On Food and Cooking is a 100% quality opus which is heartily recommended by me. Through it you can find out answers to puzzling questions like why are my peas grey, why is this steak too tough, and other things which might help you a little bit around the kitchen.

As for me, this 100% quality opus you see in front of you will continue soon!

Mister Men

Something strange is happening to the Mr. Men!

The Mr. Men is a series of children's books written in the 1970s by Roger Hargreaves, and published first in England. Roger died in 1988 so after that his son Adam carried on writing the books. He still does, but the whole Mr. Men "brand" was sold for a lot of money - so much that if you spent all the money on Mr. Men books and laid them out end to end, they would stretch round the earth five times! (They cost £2 each and I hope I worked that out right!)

Actually, they are worth more than that. They are very good.

I have two that were printed in the 1970s (because I was produced in the 1970s!): Mr. Sneeze and Mr. Funny. At that time, here were the other books you could get:


And, on the front, this is the kind of thing you would see:



Today, the only difference on the front covers is that the signature by Roger Hargreaves doesn't slope anymore. It is upright:

That's ok. Which do you prefer? (PS Mr. Silly looks funny, eh?)

The other changes are not so OK, in my opinion. First of all, look at what has happened to the back cover line-up of Mr. Men. They have all changed! Look at Mr. Funny and compare him with his picture above:



This is not the same Mr. Man! I don't think the colours came out right here, but one major difference is that his gloves aren't the right colour! Mr. Funny's body is green and his gloves are yellow. In the new picture his body and his gloves are green. Hmm, not good I think. Then look at the eyes. This is the most disturbing change. What is wrong with the eyes? Look at them! They are completely different now, and have no character! The bold lines of the original have been replaced by this hideous cosmetic surgery nightmare operation look. Maybe someone thinks he looks more human? Well, these days, perhaps that is true - when so many people in the public eye do have this weird plastic surgery/botox injection eye-look. Is that what it is? Has Mr. Funny had botox??? I don't believe it! He would never do that! This is the man who cheered up all the animals in the zoo when they had colds! But now they would have us believe that he is a fading star of the 70s, clinging on too long to his share of the spotlight and sinking ever deeper into a whirlpool of alcoholism like many before him (Krusty the Clown?)

Hmm. The Mr. Funny inside the books is the same one as before. Perhaps this back-cover image is some look-alike or impersonator they used for publicity material. Obviously Mr. Funny, like Saddam Hussein, is a person of such importance that he has many doubles for use in public work. I understand.

Having suggested that the insides of the books have not changed, I am afraid this is not true in the case of Mr. Dizzy. What on earth has happened to the images? They look like they have been scanned in by dogs. Or hamsters! (They find it harder to operate the mouse. Which wasn't supposed to be a joke. But I suppose you could see it as one if you want). Just look at Mr. Dizzy's edges:


Dear me. That's what it looks like in the book, I am afraid. Not good!

So you see, I am not completely happy with the state of the Mr. Men books today. But I can tell you: if you want to read them, they are all still with us, even if there is something strange on the back, even if there are a few odd things about them today. The insides are the same (except Mr. Dizzy and I haven't checked all of the books so I can't promise everyone else has escaped this treatment).

They come highly recommended (by me). They have been translated into 20 languages, so you should be seeing some near you! In fact, you are reading this in English so I would recommend you look for the English ones. They are the first and best!

Let me know what you think.

Jingle Pot

I have a book called 1001 Natural Wonders You Must See Before You Die. I wish it were called 1001 Natural Wonders You Must See. Of course I will see them (if I do manage to see all 1001 of them) before I die. Or should all books change their titles now?

"OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH - FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DEAD"

"THE DA VINCI CODE - BESTSELLER, READ BY LIVING PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD"

"THE PICKWICK PAPERS - THE TIMELESS FAVOURITE OF THOSE MILLIONS WHOSE FINGERS WERE ABLE TO GRASP ON TO LIFE SUFFICIENTLY TO BE ABLE TO TURN ITS PAGES"

The girl at the checkout looked at me with a funny look. As if she thought I was going to die in the next month! Maybe I accidentally picked the book out of the 'Terminal Illness' section? I don't think so.

I have seen several books called "Something Something, Blah Blah Blah, ...BEFORE YOU DIE". I suppose the publisher imagines the title will lend a certain urgency to your book browsing. You must buy the book ...BEFORE YOU DIE!

We could add it to all sorts of things we want to sell. Decoding Skin - Philip Howard's Solo Piano Album of Music to Listen to Before You Die!

Back to the 1001 Natural Wonders book. I didn't count them. I believe there are 1001. They said it, that's good enough for me. And they are all very natural and wonderful, just like it says.

I don't know the meanings of foreign place-names, but some of the English names are quite funny. Things are often odd or eccentric in England - it is good, one of the main positive features of this country in my opinion.

There was one I remembered. A cave somewhere. Pothole is a word for a hole in the road, or apparently also for a cave - a very big hole in the road, I suppose. That could explain a little bit about the funny name...

JINGLE POT

Well, I liked it!

Consulate

Remember me?

It was pointed out to me today that I said I'd be back in the blink of an eye. I did imply that it could be a long blink, so I think we can say I have been true to my word there.

Phrasebooks are useful. They are also quite funny sometimes. The old example was the phrase "My postilion has been struck by lightning". Very useful, eh?

I have here Collins' Greek Phrasebook compiled by Christopher Scott and first published in 1964. Perhaps a little quaint because it is old. Perhaps a little frightening as it demonstrates the frame of mind with which the Englishman approached travel in Greece at that time! (Haven't they heard of Byron?)

The Collins series is interesting from this period. Some phrases don't necessarily spring to mind, or certainly not to my mind. The Spanish book tells you how to say "He is a pansy" - a pejorative term for homosexual. I don't think I would say it in English - what are the chances of needing to say it in Spanish?

So let's open the pages of our Greek phrasebook and see what we want to say to the Greeks.

Good Morning.
Good Evening.

It starts well!


I beg your pardon.
Am I disturbing you?
I am terribly sorry.

Already several ways of saying sorry! Very important to the English then, and still is. Sorry!

Too dear.
Very cheap.
Quickly.
Slowly.
Gently.
Look out!
This way.
That way.
I am an Englishman.
What is the matter?
On the contrary.
Very well.
Whose turn is it?
It is not my fault.
I do my best.
Will this do?

A lovely little story. What was happening, you will have to decide. What about "I am an Englishman"? It sounds almost an admission of some shameful secret.

Now for the section called "General Difficulties". Always my favourite! Here we go:

I don't understand you.
Of course I don't, I'm English! We don't have foreign languages, you know. We do have phrasebooks though.

That man is following me everywhere.
Oh no, not that man! He was busy in 1964. Even if he only followed 10% of the people who bought this book.

I shall call a policeman.
I shall stay here.
(Threatening to occupy Greece?)
Help! Fire! Thief!
Who are you?
I don't know you.
I don't want to speak to you.
Leave me alone.
Go away.
That will do!
You are mistaken.
I didn't do it.
I will give you nothing.
It is very annoying.
It has nothing to do with me.
What have I done?
I have done nothing.
I have paid you.
I have paid you enough.
Let me pass.

A bit of excitement!

Many other useful phrases are presented in an interesting way. Those with lightning reflexes can grab their phrasebook, find the section for "Chemist and Hairdresser", read the Greek letters or use the imitated pronunciation system, and exclaim:

The water is too hot, you are scalding me!

I have been burnt by the sun would probably be obvious without the thought being spoken aloud. Also they were expecting it anyway.

A hundred Drachmas to win on...
Betting on horses? You don't get that in modern phrasebooks.

Does this street go to the Acropolis?
Did they ask that on every street?

We can see the travelling English at work fairly often:
I do not want anything with garlic in it.
We do not want retsina.

I have left my glasses in the toilet...
...was a bit puzzling for me. How did they get down the toilet?

Hey-ho, travelling was a strange business for us then. Not for everyone though. And you have to give them credit for trying with the phrases and everything (particularly if he was a pansy - was it the man who was following me everywhere?)

And if it all gets too much, if the prices are too high, the food too Greek, the language not English enough, then there is always one phrase standing by. The phrase of phrases. The cure-all:

Where is the British Consulate?

See you there!