I was not going to watch Tolkien. I always thought Nicholas Hoult was a good actor, but Rebel in the Rye showed his limitations: historical biopics about authors. I actually couldn’t believe that any casting director would even let him near another one, or that he would want to try his hand at it again. He was not bad, but he failed to overcome the confines of reality to deliver as riveting and expressive performance as he did as a zombie in love in Warm Bodies. Perhaps he should stick to the fantastical characters of sci-fi? Also doing a movie about an author as beloved as Tolkien is difficult because he appeals to so many different types of viewers that it is difficult to please anyone.
I changed my mind and decided to see Tolkien in theaters because Dome Karukoski directed it, and it is his first English language speaking film. I’m not a Karukoski fan, but Tom of Finland completely changed my perspective so I was hoping for a similar experience this time around. When the number of showings dropped precipitously during its second week in the theater, so did my hopes, but I decided to give it a shot anyway because everything is better with a bucket of genuine butter popcorn, right?
After about twenty to thirty minutes of Tolkien, I was bored. Even if you were watching this movie at home, you would eventually get distracted and start doing household chores like washing the dishes for a diversion. It is so painfully conventional, muted and dull with a stunning lack of chemistry between most of the actors. I yearned for the exploitive sentimental quality that even a television movie could provide. Timing is everything, and I watch too many movies. I hated Tolkien.
Tolkien decides to primarily focus on the titular author’s experiences in the trenches during World War I and his childhood. The film is predominantly a coming of age movie with several strong themes, but without a strong central character to tie them together. Tolkien is the least interesting character in a movie devoted to his life, and while tackling all these subjects make a fairly comprehensive story of Tolkien’s formative years, it does not make a focused or emotionally resonant one. It focuses on his friendship with three guys whom he met at King Edward’s School, his early relationship with his wife when they met as orphans, his struggle to discover his calling while going to Oxford and his WWI fever visions that inspired his fantasy novels. I was puzzled why the movie decided to focus on this period in his life and these three friends, especially considering how long Tolkien’s life was. He died at 81 years old, was friends with well known authors including C.S. Lewis which was part of a literary society called the Inklings; yet Karukoski decided to focus on the parts that would use the same visual vocabulary as Peter Jackson’s work and invite comparison.
Maybe Jackson should have directed Tolkien. Most people probably know that Tolkien exists because Peter Jackson’s career is devoted to adapting Tolkien’s books such as The Hobbit (dreadful and bloated) and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (perfection), but if you are familiar with Jackson, then you may also know that he is personally obsessed with World War I and spent most of his life either learning about it or making a documentary about the soldiers called They Shall Not Grow Old, which was a technical and emotional triumph. Even if Karukoski’s films were the best in the world, he still could not measure up to a man who has literally spent his life obsessing about these same subjects then spent years conveying his vision of WWI and the world of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings on the same viewers. Karukoski is on Jackson’s home turf and literally decides to play his game.
After I watched Tolkien, I discovered why Karukoski would engage in such a foolhardy project. He basically is using the author’s life as a way to tell his autobiography since he related to Tolkien since they both grew up without a father, were poor and bullied. I hate children in movies, but the movie was at its best when Harry Gilby played young Tolkien, and the children were at the helm. Gilby was able to project the turbulent emotion with a stable core and desire for excellence, joy in learning and a reticence and annoyance at his status and financial circumstances, which Hoult never manages to convincingly portray. It is one of the rare times that the adult actor does not measure up to the younger actor when usually the reverse is true. I’m not sure if it is Hoult’s fault or the filmmakers, but I never felt as if the character Tolkien truly acted like a student at risk of losing everything if he took the wrong step even if that step is objectively not that bad. I never felt the hunger or desperation to keep moving forward and plowing through until you could reach the point in which you could strike out on your own and survive. Hoult was obviously so much older than the men cast as Tolkien’s friends that the casting was a poor choice. They needed a younger actor, preferably an unknown.
Tolkien’s entire WWI story seemed ridiculous and contrived. When did I start watching Saving Private Ryan? Why is he allowed to do what he is doing? Isn’t someone in charge of him? If Hughes is so important, shouldn’t he appear in more scenes outside of WWI? He isn’t Wonder Woman, and he isn’t stupid so why is he leaving the trench without a weapon? On one hand, it worked because I was more invested in one friend’s story as a result, and he was the weakest actor in the group (his younger version was better too), but overall it fell flat because it didn’t genuinely convey the horror of war and felt gimmicky. Goodbye Christopher Robin wore it better.
I saw that there were some complaints of whitewashing Tolkien’s Christianity. I asked myself if someone were making a movie of my life, would Christianity be prominent and what would it look like? I don’t think that anyone wants to see a film about me going to church, maybe small group, but how many scenes can he hang out with his priest and still make an interesting movie? Since I did not leave the movie thinking, “You know what Tolkien needed? More explicit Christianity,” I’m going to say that those critics need to get in the back of the line because this film has so many other problems.
Other than Gilby, Derek Jacobi, Patrick Gibson, Lily Collins and Tom Glynn-Carney gave the real standout performances in Tolkien although even the work that they did had narrative construction flaws before they arrived on set. Their characters’ stories are either more interesting than Tolkien or at least enliven Tolkien’s flat on screen depiction. The most interesting aspect of Tolkien is Hoult’s eyes. Tolkien helped correct my pronunciation of his name otherwise I got nothing out of this viewing experience. Skip it.
