Despite *Jackson et al's once again coming up with the goods and delivering upon their usual promise of **unequivocal genius, it would be quite remiss to give the film a clean slate, a no-holds-barred endorsement. The creators of The Hobbit movie #1 are, after all is said and done, mere mortals as the rest of us, so let's not ever seek to pretend otherwise. My main gripes, grizzles and grumbles? Many and varied, naturally enough, but principally the adaptation's inauthenticity in realistically portraying, and thus convincingly depicting, the ***relative battle-hardiness of The Hobbit's respective good guys and villains. In this regard I'll cite some of the most glaring and grating and at times jarring inconsistencies and incongruities observed, if only in the interests of that all too underrated and lowly esteemed, seemingly quaint and apparently antiquated notion of fair play and balance. So as not to give even a skerrick of the impression of having viewed the movie with a pair of - one of my now two sets of - rose-tinted 3D glasses, seeing it as an unmitigated world of wonders. (*Let's not, as so many do, almost invariably overlook the other genii intimately involved in the making of these Tolkien film adaptations, especially the likes of Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, and Richard Taylor and his Weta Workshop team. **As my (1988) Chambers Concise Dictionary has it, meaning: 'unambiguous; explicit; clear and emphatic.' ***A commonly enough undertaken device of cinematic reinvention, admittedly, in order to maintain the popularly-accepted and welcome notion of the forces of good ever, or at least ultimately, triumphing over the forces of evil. Nonetheless a device by its very nature complicit in duplicity, in upholding fictions we wish to believe in rather than the realities better describing things as we actually tend to experience them - not to be too cynical.about matters. Though personally I actually subscribe to such a notion - of good ultimately, cosmically, 'winning out' over evil - I'm simply pointing out that upon this earthly plane things don't always seem that way, much less tend to play to that sort of script.)
So let's begin with the main character, Bilbo Baggins, brilliantly and determinedly, despite innumerable obstacles, cast by Sir Peter himself, and consummately executed by Martin Freeman. An eminently successful characterization, even unexpectedly acknowledged as such - if ever so sparingly, seeking to damn with faint praise - by one of the film's most trenchant New Zealand critics, he of National Radio's Matinee Idol infamy, nay notoriety, Simon Morris. Notwithstanding this sterling, well-nigh impeccable performance by Freeman, the filmmakers - in order presumably to tie together one very important ****'loose end', i.e. Thorin's deeply suspicious attitude towards and distrust of Bilbo, with their necessary, and literary-accurate, eventual reconciliation - take extreme licence to bend the parameters of credulity both to and well beyond the bounds of credibility in one major instance. This is the depiction in the film's final battle scene, and indeed penultimate scene overall, of the hobbit bravely sallying forth at the very last moment to rescue Thorin, when Azog the Goblin Chieftain and his gang of wolves drive the dwarf crew literally to the edge of a precipice. Not only is such bravery, however noble and well-intentioned, foolhardy in the extreme, the outcome of such - instant death and destruction by Azog & co - is so self-evident that Tolkien doubtless never even envisaged such a prospect much less included it in his story. Perhaps J R R knew something?(****Though actually in the book this relationship is fraught, deteriorating - in the extreme - once again, much later on in the story, and their 'friendship' can only be described as an on-again, off-again affair, a professional collegiality and camaraderie rather than one based upon any sense of 'fair dinkum' mateship.)
Alongside this portrayal, in the selfsame scene - a scene taking believability to new levels - we witness trees, flimsy enough in and of themselves, and scarcely sturdy enough to hold such heavy-set *****dwarfs much less a bunch of 'em in each tree, bending well beyond breaking point, to the nth degree and all the rest. And yet these admirable specimens of flora manage to somehow maintain their weighty and unwieldy cargo of passengers - otherwise long-since jettisoned 'over the edge' and into a literal abyss of despair, death and destruction - even when they are mercilessly assailed in no uncertain fashion, time and time again, by a veritable juggernaut of large, powerful and skilful beasts of malevolence on a mission of annihilation at any cost. Now really folks. Otherwise, as I said, an excellent, essentially flawless, even unsurpassable Hobbit-depiction by Freeman, capturing the nuances of Bilbo's character and moreover his extremely complex relationships with his fellow adventurers. Yes, he's definitely the star of this new show, no question about it. (*****Ever Tolkien's preferred spelling for our (English) 'dwarves', though sometimes also 'dwarfs'.)
Which isn't to suggest the performances by others such as Thorin aren't masterful also, but it's all a matter of degree. Although I would also contend, once again, that the rendering of the film's chief villains, be they Azog, the Goblin-King under the Mountain, or the three trolls - Bert, William and Tom - are equally unsurpassed. However the story's Arch-Enemy, Smaug the Dragon himself, makes his (highly premature but understandable) entrance into the film in such a way as to seriously strain credibility; though I would likewise argue - solely with the benefit, however, of a second and third viewing - that this is ultimately so well-executed, seen in the odd tidbits and snippets of Smaug and his various body parts, especially in the film's closing moments, that this concern is considerably allayed. Such a situation undoubtedly oftentimes comes about, I readily accept, with such fast, action-paced thrillers, and so perhaps cannot be helped. Yet 'seeing is believing', as they say, and for those without the time and cash to see the film again, let alone thrice, such initial, even if frequently inaccurate impressions truly do 'die hard'.
For this very reason - despite my later relief - my issue with his portrayal still bears mention. It is this: Smaug's eye-catching unveiling amidst the seemingly limitless horde of jewels at the film's end, and the immense fire-breathed energy and unrivalled presence of his power-packed physique at its start, were almost undone and belied, I would contend, by the 'precursor' bunch of silly-looking dragon streamers at the outset of his age-old assault upon the dwarf kingdom of Erebor. I appreciate these do have their modern-day resonances in especially Chinese and Japanese dragon festivals and the like, but frankly fellas, they just seemed a little amateurish. Essentially representing El Nasty as a bit of a lightweight, feather-duster equivalent 'bad guy'. Not such a good much less apt look for 'Smaug the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities'. No, One to be lampooned only at one's peril.
A central and equally contentious element of, if not Tolkien's fantasy literature itself, then certainly its Peter Jacksonesque interpretation, the battle scenes were otherwise both too many and too long and Lord of the Rings film trilogy blood 'n guts and gore extremish, though ably effected and varying enough from one to the next for all that. And so - try as I may, and I certainly have - it is hard to fault film reviewer Morris' contention that Bilbo's (captivating and well-depicted) character definitely lended itself to much more filling out, which additional characterization was precluded simply due to the exorbitant proportion of the film devoted exclusively to battle scenes. (Which was also of course a commonplace criticism of the Rings' films.) And so something had to give, and unfortunately, what 'gave' here was more of Bilbo, the main character who clearly deserved even much more of the attention he did get. Though it could equally be argued that we were given such a superb sampling of his sublime and ever-so-subtle character to be held spellbound, however short and seemingly stinted that cinematic synopsis may well have been.Thus whetting our appetites for what's yet to come.
Nevertheless, for devoted fans like myself, I suspect we'd have remained engrossed if the film had gone on for some while longer, as despite all the fighting, the film maintained a good, steady pace and captivating, suspenseful tension throughout. As for Morris et al's criticism that in (apparently) prolonging the film beyond its reasonable limit Jackson and crew essentially threw into the film each and every nook and cranny of the book, this actually shows a rather superficial understanding of Tolkien's classic, as Jackson and co arguably failed to do just that very thing. Sure, the film might well have highlighted the book's many much less protracted battles, but it meanwhile signally failed to focus sufficiently upon the oodles of space the book gives to the elaboration of Bilbo and company's characters. So those making such criticisms essentially contradict themselves, decrying the film's length (allegedly due to needless padding out with rampant fighting) while pleading for more character development notwithstanding. So maybe it's not the film's alleged lengthiness, only their tedium with its subject-matter they in fact find so objectionable. Methinks what such really want is both a cake and the eating thereof. And as I've ever found, that's somewhat tricky.
And so while I completely concur with Morris' contention that additional, useful, character-developing footage of Bilbo's character wouldn't have gone amiss, that's only because that was an important part of the relevant portion of the book which the filmmakers seemed to skimp upon. And as we all know, scrimping and saving is best left to the financiers and monetarists: not. But certainly not to those wishing to faithfully reproduce the classic literary works of such an idiosyncratic genius as Tolkien.
No comments:
Post a Comment