Tuesday, 18 November 2014
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
DVD, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) film
I don't know what version of the book Peter Jackson has, but it bears very little relation to mine, and, I think, Tolkien's! The book is getting on for eighty years old, so I suppose they thought everything was well known enough, giving them reason not to 'bore us' with what we already know (despite that being the reason we're watching the film in the first place!), to rush through all the parts true to the story so they could get back to what they clearly enjoyed most, which was inventing. If they were so keen on creating within Tolkien's world could they not have made up some legend set back in the dark times of his history that we know nothing of, rather than messing up a perfectly good story? And that's what it's all about: I'm not sore at extra characters or added scenes if they advance the plot, but the trouble is it is badly written, like so many blockbusters of our time, filling in space while we build to the next 3D action set-piece. I really wasn't angry. I wasn't even disappointed, because forewarned is forearmed, and after the major depression of the first film, I had all but given up the series. Indeed, I didn't see it at the cinema because I knew I wouldn't enjoy it (not to £10 level, anyway), something I couldn't have imagined a decade ago! I thought I'd probably see it in a few years time when it eventually came to Freeview. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), I was given both films on DVD by a family member who knew they weren't likely to watch them again. So now I'm the proud owner of both films, and I almost question why!
Looking back on my first 'Hobbit' review, I felt perhaps I'd been unnecessarily harsh to the filmmakers, criticism is, after all, subjective. But seeing that film again confirmed my initial opinion that these films were bloating the tale out of all proportion in order to attempt to reach the critical and commercial success of 'The Lord of The Rings,' something that in my view became the best film trilogy ever, beating even 'Star Wars' to the crown. But that was a wrongheaded approach in all ways except the one that really matters: making tons of cash. Like Smaug, they were happy to lie on their spoils and snooze, guaranteed to rake in the undemanding public's money (not that they didn't put great hours of effort into it, I'm sure, and not that Smaug raked in money from below-par films, but a sleeping giant, bathing in the glory of past victories seems a fitting analogy for the man at the top, if a little insulting, though it's nothing personal). The point of all this is that I knew what I was going to get with this film, but not in the way I thought, or hoped I knew, what I was going to get with the first film (make sense?), which could have been a worthy successor and prequel to some truly great films, while also dramatising a wonderful, though smaller, story. That's not what happened, but it was necessary to visit this second instalment, even though I no longer cared, because, like a mountain, it was there.
Yes, there were sure to be subplots and side-quests and all the trappings of someone guiding the story who felt Tolkien's work wasn't enough to thrill modern audiences, but I was surprised at the level of disregard for the story, with often the best parts (those that followed the narrative), rushed through so we could get to Jackson's invented story lines, such as the romance of Kili and token female character, Tauriel the Elf-maiden, and of course, continuing the 'exciting' tale of Azog tracking Thorin. One thing that had been a draw for me before these films had come out, was seeing what Gandalf did when he left the dwarves at the edge of Mirkwood. Turns out he just met up with Radagast, popped over to Dol Guldur, and had a battle of light and dark with the black cloud that is Sauron at this time (another example of a misguided approach, as battling Sauron, or even seeing him, except for the historical figure, was avoided in the first trilogy, for good reason). And he's captured! Will he survive to wizard another day? While the makers seem to assume everyone knows the story so there's really no need for details on the original narrative side, thus losing the mystery, they realised it was quicker to tell rather than show and just have people spout off all this plot so we can just get on with the next all-action spectacular. Yet the action is generally the boring part, with the only sequence of passing interest to me being the invented Elf and Orc riverside battle as the dwarves barrel along to freedom (the difference between prose and film is shown in Bombur's big moment: in the book it's causing trouble by touching an enchanted stream and falling asleep - in this he's a whirling dervish in a barrel!).
The worst culprit is the finale with Smaug, letting go the charm and courage of the book in favour of dwarves dashing about Smaug's great halls in different directions like a comedy, or a cartoon. Despite him being about a hundred times their size, they keep outrunning and outmanoeuvring the beast, so that even his blasting fire-breath never gets them (except for one moment when the back of Thorin's coat catches fire, but it's okay as he just shrugs it off and carries on!). It's laughable that Smaug The Magnificent could be dealt with in this way, all an excuse to show off the dwarves in their natural environment, working levers and pulleys like Wallace & Gromit, for all their mechanical might! How they had time to set up all these things isn't explained, but in the end it's all for nothing, as they try to take out Smaug by covering him in melted gold, which they do, but he just flies off. It's all to provide a visual climax to the film, and that's its problem: being so concerned with sticking to the convention of a film rising to a climax, raising the stakes here and there; a quiet moment must be followed by action; that it becomes a jumbled mass of almost meaningless rides, like Bilbo sliding down Smaug's hoard. I didn't connect with any of the characters, there's no sense of Bilbo finding courage like in the book when it says that the moment in the tunnel was his bravest, as he dared to go down against all his inner desires. In the film, it just happens, the dwarves aren't even nervous about entering the secret doorway, Balin even having a friendly chat with the burglar as he sees him off!
Nothing happens that makes you care, so the story becomes boring. We know the story, so to see a substandard retelling of it, with added fighting, doesn't do much to keep the attention. Take Beorn, in the books a mysterious character who Gandalf is wary of, showing his cunning by introducing the dwarves a few at a time, so as to keep the man's favour. In this, they're chased into his barn by Beorn in bear form, which is no secret, Gandalf tells them all right away. So rather than have this mysterious protector as they make their way to Mirkwood, they all know everything. Beorn (is he Swedish? Transylvanian?), doesn't give two hoots that a load of dwarves have used his barn, he's happy to play waiter and pour out the milk. It seems he can't control himself when in bear form, and he's not shy about giving his backstory, either. Same as Smaug tells Bilbo everything that's going on; that evil is awakening, battle is coming, that sort of thing (or again, Sauron with Gandalf). He knows all about Thorin and there's no learning or uncovering, everyone just knows or gets told in the dullest way. How Smaug knows so much, we're not privy to, since he's supposed to have slept since long ages past. But back to Beorn: they rush through that bit, then they're at the forest of Mirkwood, which isn't so dark and threatening, neither is there much of a path, or magical feeling to it, except for them all getting drunk on claustrophobia, which, to be fair wasn't badly done because it gave Jackson an excuse to do some interesting visual tricks.
I suppose it's impossible to give us close to what we imagine of the books, which is what makes them special, but to not even try, and to show such eagerness towards their own invented parts away from the story, is very sad and demoralising. That is, it would be if I'd gone into it with any care. I already knew about the growing love between Tauriel and Kili, and pretty silly it was. I didn't mind her, even though her presence was as a token, and unnecessary. But as with the first film they tried to harken back to 'LOTR' scenes: Tauriel is this trilogy's Arwen, there to heal Kili in his time of need, as light shines around her; Gandalf takes on the Balrog on the bridge, only this time it's Sauron; I even expected the 'lighting of the beacons' in the form of the 'special' arrow (the only one that can kill Smaug), which sits atop the tallest tower in Lake Town, being reached probably only by some small person, as it was guarded, like the beacon in Minas Tirith. But we didn't get to that part of the story, so I suspect that will happen in part three. Lake Town, and scenes there weren't bad, but it would be difficult to mess that up as it's a town on a lake. It was fair enough to flesh Bard out, though at the cost of, yet again, mystery. Rather than a dark figure that rises to prominence he's early on a sometime ally of the dwarves and has this history and knowledge of a special arrow, as well as three kiddies and a dead wife. Compared to most inventions that didn't matter. The Orc attack on the dwarves left behind at the town (another invention from nowhere), made less sense - why didn't the townsfolk hear the commotion in their midst, and rally?
I was also surprised that Stephen Fry didn't make the Master a 'big' character as I'd expected when I heard of his casting. He seems almost vacant, and I wonder if Fry was as disappointed with the treatment of the book as I was? If Lake Town was a plus point, I would also say the same for the opening in Bree for Thorin's first meeting with Gandalf. This kind of 'LOTR' crossover scene was what I was looking for in films where the real story's treatment had become unappealing. It was a little disconcerting the film didn't open with some grand and exciting moment, such as 'The Two Towers' did so well, but I can hardly criticise non-action when I keep mentioning how the action drained the story away! I was immediately thinking things like 'where's Butterbur?' then remembering that this is decades in the past, and he wouldn't even have been born yet! It wasn't until the end credits that I realised the nasty-looking men eyeing Thorin up were related to Bill Ferny and his cronies, which was a nice touch. It's well known that Viggo Mortensen was asked if he'd like to be a part of the trilogy, but didn't want to, as Aragorn would be so young (and he was probably right to turn it down), but if he had been a part of it I could see it being in a sequence such as this. While the first film had old Bilbo, Frodo, Galadriel, Saruman, Elrond, the Witch-King and Gollum, in this we were limited to only Legolas (a more severe, unhappy Elf than we're used to, which actually felt quite fitting considering his Father, King Thranduil) making the transition, which felt strange.
Perhaps they'd scaled back their plans for maximum connectivity to 'LOTR,' or perhaps they're saving more cameos for the last film - if there was more set between the trilogies, I'd be more interested to see it, as I already know the story they should be following is going to be a train-wreck going by these first two as a guide. But there were other things to appreciate, it wasn't completely 'The Hobbit: Desolation of The Book': Though overall I was very underwhelmed by the Mirkwood part of the story (looked more like a small wood than a great forest), another rushed part of the tale, with the wit and ingenuity again sucked out, Bilbo climbing above the trees was nice, feeling the fresh wind on his face. It was undermined somewhat by not feeling the length of time they're supposed to be in there (I suspect this was in part a reaction to the slow, steady, and more true to the book, opening of the first film, at which much criticism seemed to be levelled, but which I enjoyed most!). It was also lacking in Bilbo's big moment (again, reminiscent of an 'LOTR' scene: Frodo's encounter with Shelob and the scrabble in the webbing), but what I did like was that he heard what they were saying once he had the ring on. It's been a couple of years since I read the book, and I think that was in there, but if not, it was an excellent addition, and a subtle touch that was largely missing from the film. The Elven feasts and the magic of the Elves in the book is all excised (perhaps it's in the extended DVD?), a bit like the scouring of the Shire in 'LOTR,' but I kind of missed it, even if it is a bit odd.
I'm not sure how they could have shown time passing in the Elven cells, but I'm sure they could have found a way, they just chose not to, and kept things moving as if getting to the Mountain was a headlong sprint rather than a marathon. Like everything else, the Mountain was suddenly there, and because time passes exceedingly quick or they do things super-fast, you don't get a feeling of the end of a long journey. The music throughout didn't help and I've been largely unimpressed by Howard Shore's work in these films, but there were a couple of pieces I did connect with, one being Tauriel talking of brighter, better things, and the moment Bard speaks the legendary poem of the King under the Mountain. Such 'high' moments were brought down by some serious toilet humour carried over from the first film. The difference between these films and 'LOTR' are the same as between the original three 'Wallace & Gromit's, and their subsequent films - an element of innuendo and the gross sometimes replaces goodhearted, perhaps old-fashioned, fun. In this they literally climb up Bard's latrine to enter his house! You can get away with this to some extent as dwarves are known for bad manners, and what you can refer to in passing in a book is more likely to be shown on screen, but it was another little peg downwards. But you can ignore minor moments like this, when others are impossible to ignore and difficult to comprehend: Smaug can see Bilbo, since he foolishly takes off his ring! Why doesn't he eat him right away? They keep chatting, and it all makes Smaug seem like no big deal.
To recap: it is action over story, ludicrousness over sense, CGI over real, invented over written word, desperate callbacks to a time when Middle-Earth films were good, mismanaged humour, and a sense of time passing slowly at the same time as key moments are rushed through, mercifully short, but feeling like an extended version of 'LOTR,' but with pacing a problem, and content, and then an abrupt end. That's it. We have to hold more over for the third film. Is it a cliffhanger, with Smaug heading to destroy Lake Town? Not really, because there's only Bard's family there which we have any reason to care for (why were the Master's men chasing him, since they know where he lives?!). Azog has far outlived his usefulness, which was almost zero in the first place, and I finally realised why I don't take to most of the Orcs in this film as I did to the ones in 'LOTR' - because those were almost all real people in superb prosthetics, and the majority of these, including main characters, are CGI. Did they learn nothing from the 'Star Wars' prequels? Oh yes. Yes they did: they learnt how to make money, and this did its job. I just don't think in future decades it will be remembered fondly by anyone except those who were children when they saw it and have nostalgia for it. Unlike 'LOTR,' which I predict will live on as some of the greatest fantasy films in history.
**
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment