"Is Martin Freeman too ordinary to play the title role of The Hobbit?"
This question posed by an anonymous author in theTelegraph Online got me thinking not just about Tolkien's book but also about something his friend C.S. Lewis once wrote:
"... the more unusual the scenes and events of a story are, the slighter, the more ordinary, the more typical the writer's persons should be. Hence Gulliver is a commonplace little man and Alice a commonplace little girl. It they had been more remarkable they would have wrecked their books ... To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much. He who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange." (from the essay "On science fiction" with minor adaptations)
Is this why outrageously improbable films starring James Stewart and Matt Damon work so much better than those with Jim Carrey or Robin Williams? Is is that just because Carrey and Williams are irritating?
Going back to Tolkien's 1937 book, even at the time it was written, the author was well on the way to inventing a complex make-belief world with its own history, its own languages, its own geneaologies. As Lewis puts it in his book review for the Times Literary Supplement of the same year, Tolkien "obviously knows much more about [his characters] than he needs for this tale".
And yet, this doesn't alter the fact that the tone of the earlier book is quite different from that of the three volumes that were later (17 years later) to be published as The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, as Lewis writes in his review of The Fellowship of the Ring for Time and Tide in 1954, "The Hobbit was merely a fragment torn from the author's huge myth and adapted for children; inevitably losing something by the adaptation".
The hobbits are simple folk living an idealised life (smoking their pipes, eating, drinking, quarelling with each other and, naturally, being waited on hand and foot by their womenfolk) in the type of rural paradise that Tolkien ached for as he saw large swathes of the English midlands being chewed up for development by machines. (It's not difficult to see the inspiration for his Orcs and super-Orcs, the Uruk-hai, and for their evil human and sub-human masters.)
So, taking the straight man from The Office and making him Bilbo Baggins seems good casting to me. What matters is whether this Everyman can act, and that he undoubtedly can.
This question posed by an anonymous author in the
"... the more unusual the scenes and events of a story are, the slighter, the more ordinary, the more typical the writer's persons should be. Hence Gulliver is a commonplace little man and Alice a commonplace little girl. It they had been more remarkable they would have wrecked their books ... To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much. He who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange." (from the essay "On science fiction" with minor adaptations)
Is this why outrageously improbable films starring James Stewart and Matt Damon work so much better than those with Jim Carrey or Robin Williams? Is is that just because Carrey and Williams are irritating?
Going back to Tolkien's 1937 book, even at the time it was written, the author was well on the way to inventing a complex make-belief world with its own history, its own languages, its own geneaologies. As Lewis puts it in his book review for the Times Literary Supplement of the same year, Tolkien "obviously knows much more about [his characters] than he needs for this tale".
And yet, this doesn't alter the fact that the tone of the earlier book is quite different from that of the three volumes that were later (17 years later) to be published as The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, as Lewis writes in his review of The Fellowship of the Ring for Time and Tide in 1954, "The Hobbit was merely a fragment torn from the author's huge myth and adapted for children; inevitably losing something by the adaptation".
The hobbits are simple folk living an idealised life (smoking their pipes, eating, drinking, quarelling with each other and, naturally, being waited on hand and foot by their womenfolk) in the type of rural paradise that Tolkien ached for as he saw large swathes of the English midlands being chewed up for development by machines. (It's not difficult to see the inspiration for his Orcs and super-Orcs, the Uruk-hai, and for their evil human and sub-human masters.)
So, taking the straight man from The Office and making him Bilbo Baggins seems good casting to me. What matters is whether this Everyman can act, and that he undoubtedly can.















