"Character's more important than plot...[in Linda Bower's Rubber-Neckers] they make character so interesting, that you go on the journey with them...[as I said before], it's the characters that really hold you."
In a sense technical awards like the one - undoubtedly for special CGI effects et al - the Hobbit secured at the tail-end of last week's Baftas, alongside the three, similarly technical, others for which it had been nominated - these latter three, still unconfirmed, interestingly enough being very similar to the three for which the first instalment in Andrew Adamson's Narnia series, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - in which Yours Truly starred as a(n obscure, unacknowledged, uncredited - and possibly, ultimately, even unscreened!) faun, won Academy Awards in, I believe, the year following, are, in my view - though clearly and understandably not in the estimate of those intimately involved in the securing of those prestigious enough, and certainly not to be snuffed at awards - almost damning with faint praise the best characteristics of such films which seemingly should be being rewarded; though clearly that is hardly the intention of awarders.
Perhaps a noted film reviewer, as he said the other day, is indeed correct in emphasizing that such awards are way overrated, and, as I would put it, the very best films need no such glitz and glamour to sustain them much less rivet a memorable place in the minds and hearts of their devotees. Much as I somehow doubt that my own favourite film of all time - I think, though such 'scorecard' designations, as with those for one's fave songs, ever can be personally problematic if like me one happens to have a lot of really beloved movies - *David Wolper's Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory - the one starring Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum, Roy Kinnear et al, not Johnny Depp's much overrated debut, foray into a similar realm - won any such awards - at all - in its own day. Certainly in our own politically correct to a fault day and age it simply wouldn't stand a chance, 'a hope in hell'.
(*Interestingly enough I now see, apparently produced by good 'ole Warner Brothers, the film company financing the Hobbit films.)
This time I'll let the above alluded to film critic, New Zealand's National Radio's Simon Morris, have the last word. As he put it so succinctly and well as he signed off on his latest week's film review, with a bit of ad libbing on my part - keeping completely with the sense and meaning of his own words: "[Really good] movies don't last because they [simply] win awards, but because they win a place in peoples' hearts...and on that note [we'd all, and especially filmmakers and crew, be advised] not to take awards too seriously."
Monday, February 18, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
But Having Said That - i.e. all the foregoing - it's a !!! good film, in almost every which way, if you'll mind my Elvish
So why do I make such near-uncategorical claims as to the quality of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? That is, in light of the swarm of seemingly innumerable critics emerging from right, left and centre, out of the metaphorical floorboards as well as from every apparent crack and fissure and orifice of the supposedly reputable arts establishment, openly displaying their disdain, even to the extent of now issuing their thinly-veiled sarcasm and ridicule under the auspices of film academy favour into the very precincts of the Baftas?
Well, there are many, individual, reasons, on top of all those given in my three most recent postings on the topic. As a collection, let's simply call them, to employ my own take upon the cutesy-pie manner of so many in this 'trendy' day and age: my habitual, hebdomadal, non-hibernatory, hybrid of hobbit hubbub - thus effectively utilizing each and every h-b-vowel combo in the English lexicon. Out of which, to borrow another's wonderful blogsite title, one can, I suggest, distil 'the irrefutable truth about hobbits', including here, that of the first instalment in the film trilogy adaptation of The Hobbit. In fact, one of these I believe warrants mention in its own right, the first scene in the movie, or rather the conglomeration of related introductory pieces centering upon Hobbiton and the Shire, the Baggins household and Bilbo's meeting with the dwarf team at Gandalf's especial but unwelcome invite. In fact, time being, as ever, strictly 'of the essence', i.e. unavailable to cover all the other reasons the first of the Hobbit trilogy deserves special commendation, I've selected this 'one' for both its individual significance and for being to a certain extent representative and characteristic of An Unexpected Journey as a whole.
Thus far either completely overlooked by most critical naysayers, or, if mentioned, done so with an air of positive derision or simply damned with faint praise. Oddly, and yet typically enough I suppose, the selfsame critics who are at one moment so scathing of Peter Jackson's widely acknowledged and indisputable penchant, *nay passion, for blood and gore, in the very next breath dismiss outright this - in my view wholly appropriate - unedited homely scene so wonderfully reminiscent of The Fellowship of the Ring movie's own, previously inimitable, prologue. Evidently seeing it as tedious time-filling padding distracting from the film's major focus and adventure, directly contradicting those very same critics' own, it would appear, almost inordinate lauding of the same in Fellowship. And yet I for one would argue that this very scene, above all others in film #1, including that of the finding of the ring itself, sums up, yea constitutes the very essence of Tolkien's Middle Earth characterization and depiction, and indeed therefore is a glowing tribute, a back-handed compliment as it were to Sir Peter and crew's steadfast adherence to the actual spirit of Tolkien, in this new film as in the first of the Rings' trilogy. Without detracting from the far more familiar or at least **celebrated scene with Smeagol-Gollum, Bilbo Baggins and the fateful one ring of power in the heart of the Misty Mountains.
Yes, what some have - to my mind, incredibly - viewed as a long-drawn-out piece of superfluity, a Jacksonesque bit of cinematic candy-floss, the film's unabbreviated and intimate introductory episode, is not only absolutely essential for establishing character and setting and relationships within the emerging 'fellowship', it is critical in setting the tone for both this and the subsequent films, i.e. a highly involved and complex interplay of comic and serious elements well befitting the tone of Tolkien's own kids' fantasy mini-epic, or at least the initiating thereof. Yes, allegations, nay accusations that this section is tedious, allegedly even stretching to the good part of the film's first hour, contains a grain or two of truth only in that latter description, technically correct as to the percentage or proportion of film #1 taken up with this character establishment. But beyond that it is truth mingled with a fair dollop of error, or to be charitable an honest misconception. For not only is this prologue useful in memorably setting the scene for all that is to come, and especially the complex relationships sustained between Bilbo and the dwarfs, it is so very true to the fantasy tale itself, in fact serving as a beautifully-crafted initiation into hobbit-, dwarf- and wizard-lore; in a perfectly appropriate milieu, bedecked with hobbit- and dwarf-endearing mannerisms, mischief, moodi-ness and merry mirth, arguably equal in impact to and even surpassing in joie de vivre, 'magic' and sheer graceful wonderment, the equivalent introductory scene set in Hobbiton in The Fellowship.
What can one say, how does one adequately describe, do remote justice to this 'setting scene'? The dwarf-atop-dwarf-upon-dwarf-atop-dwarf gate-crashing Bilbo's cherished quietude in his secluded abode - no doubt to be paralleled, even excelled in film #2 as the adventurers arrive at the home of Beorn - is only matched, nay majorly exceeded, by Bilbo Baggins' own brilliantly understated, self-deprecating doubts and fears coalescing into a seething cauldron of inner perplexities and outward questionings as he proceeds to scrutinize the fine print in the carefully-wrought contract brought to him by the dwarf company, finally breathing an audible sigh of relief as the dwarfish blizzard of bamboozling blunderbussing bluster vacates his premises leaving it in an equally centre-of-the-hurricane stillness and tranquility. The dwarfish troop's patent lack of self-awareness, or rather their utter indifference therefor, is again perfectly juxtaposed opposite Bilbo's own dutifully, stubbornly self-obsessed and studiously-honed self-image, worthy of an Oscar in and of itself, even were he unaccountably to suddenly and inexplicably vanish from the face of this film or its two sequels. Yes indeed, it is that good, a wonderful exposition of both the hobbit and dwarfish natures and temperaments, enacted in superlative form and with characteristic power and pathos, giving, in exquisite, finely-toned detail, all the idiosyncrasies so noted and beloved in Tolkien's own carefully-wrought delineation of his assortment of Middle Earthian beings and beasties. Not to mention -whoops, I s'pose I just might - his decades-ahead-of-his-time psychological insights into and perceptions of neighbourly relations and boundaries - both physical and metaphorical - worthy of an entry, however belated, into the encyclopedia of fantasy psychoanalysis.
*A good example of this was a film guy's response to a statement/query from Yours Truly a good eight-some years ago now while undertaking University of Otago Emeritus English Professor Colin Gibson's Fantasy Literature: Word and Image: The Lord of the Rings summer school paper in Dunedin, New Zealand. This spokesperson for Wingnut Studios, Weta Workshop or associated film agencies involved in the making of the movie trilogy, said, in response to my assertion that Tolkien's own writing greatly lessened the films' comparative heightening of both the tension and moreover the degree of violence between, for example, Gollum and Frodo and Sam, that indeed he'd personally observed Jackson urging on the level of violence displayed between these respective characters. It is especially seen, in my opinion, in the similar physical antagonism expressed between Faramir and his men with Gollum in their cave from LOTR film #2, I believe, again wholly disconsonant with Tolkien's own treatment of said interpersonal relations.
**This evening (NZtime) the complex computergraphics involved in the reprised Andy Serkis Smeagol-Gollum of An Unexpected Journey, recently cited in Time Magazine for its cutting edge quality, even won the production its very first Oscar, though it had increasingly appeared it had absolutely no chance, or at best a very slim one, of scoring any rungs upon the Oscar ladder, especially with the unprecedented degree of hobbit-bashing and denigration going on at the ceremony itself just days earlier. And evidently this wasn't even for one of the three special-effects awards for which the movie had actually been nominated. And curiously a triumph - against all the odds at this stage, and certainly against the combined opposition, it would appear, of the majority of the film establishment elite - completely and inexplicably overlooked the following day by the two main standard-bearers - both state-run and private - of New Zealand's broadcasting media.
P.S. To the undying gratitude of my blogreadership, this will pretty likely - but I'm making no hard and fast promises, you hear - be the 'lucky last' in my now five-part series on The Hobbit film, just as it winds up its equivalent two-month-long stint at Aotearoa's big city movie theatres, at least here in Dunedin.
Well, there are many, individual, reasons, on top of all those given in my three most recent postings on the topic. As a collection, let's simply call them, to employ my own take upon the cutesy-pie manner of so many in this 'trendy' day and age: my habitual, hebdomadal, non-hibernatory, hybrid of hobbit hubbub - thus effectively utilizing each and every h-b-vowel combo in the English lexicon. Out of which, to borrow another's wonderful blogsite title, one can, I suggest, distil 'the irrefutable truth about hobbits', including here, that of the first instalment in the film trilogy adaptation of The Hobbit. In fact, one of these I believe warrants mention in its own right, the first scene in the movie, or rather the conglomeration of related introductory pieces centering upon Hobbiton and the Shire, the Baggins household and Bilbo's meeting with the dwarf team at Gandalf's especial but unwelcome invite. In fact, time being, as ever, strictly 'of the essence', i.e. unavailable to cover all the other reasons the first of the Hobbit trilogy deserves special commendation, I've selected this 'one' for both its individual significance and for being to a certain extent representative and characteristic of An Unexpected Journey as a whole.
Thus far either completely overlooked by most critical naysayers, or, if mentioned, done so with an air of positive derision or simply damned with faint praise. Oddly, and yet typically enough I suppose, the selfsame critics who are at one moment so scathing of Peter Jackson's widely acknowledged and indisputable penchant, *nay passion, for blood and gore, in the very next breath dismiss outright this - in my view wholly appropriate - unedited homely scene so wonderfully reminiscent of The Fellowship of the Ring movie's own, previously inimitable, prologue. Evidently seeing it as tedious time-filling padding distracting from the film's major focus and adventure, directly contradicting those very same critics' own, it would appear, almost inordinate lauding of the same in Fellowship. And yet I for one would argue that this very scene, above all others in film #1, including that of the finding of the ring itself, sums up, yea constitutes the very essence of Tolkien's Middle Earth characterization and depiction, and indeed therefore is a glowing tribute, a back-handed compliment as it were to Sir Peter and crew's steadfast adherence to the actual spirit of Tolkien, in this new film as in the first of the Rings' trilogy. Without detracting from the far more familiar or at least **celebrated scene with Smeagol-Gollum, Bilbo Baggins and the fateful one ring of power in the heart of the Misty Mountains.
Yes, what some have - to my mind, incredibly - viewed as a long-drawn-out piece of superfluity, a Jacksonesque bit of cinematic candy-floss, the film's unabbreviated and intimate introductory episode, is not only absolutely essential for establishing character and setting and relationships within the emerging 'fellowship', it is critical in setting the tone for both this and the subsequent films, i.e. a highly involved and complex interplay of comic and serious elements well befitting the tone of Tolkien's own kids' fantasy mini-epic, or at least the initiating thereof. Yes, allegations, nay accusations that this section is tedious, allegedly even stretching to the good part of the film's first hour, contains a grain or two of truth only in that latter description, technically correct as to the percentage or proportion of film #1 taken up with this character establishment. But beyond that it is truth mingled with a fair dollop of error, or to be charitable an honest misconception. For not only is this prologue useful in memorably setting the scene for all that is to come, and especially the complex relationships sustained between Bilbo and the dwarfs, it is so very true to the fantasy tale itself, in fact serving as a beautifully-crafted initiation into hobbit-, dwarf- and wizard-lore; in a perfectly appropriate milieu, bedecked with hobbit- and dwarf-endearing mannerisms, mischief, moodi-ness and merry mirth, arguably equal in impact to and even surpassing in joie de vivre, 'magic' and sheer graceful wonderment, the equivalent introductory scene set in Hobbiton in The Fellowship.
What can one say, how does one adequately describe, do remote justice to this 'setting scene'? The dwarf-atop-dwarf-upon-dwarf-atop-dwarf gate-crashing Bilbo's cherished quietude in his secluded abode - no doubt to be paralleled, even excelled in film #2 as the adventurers arrive at the home of Beorn - is only matched, nay majorly exceeded, by Bilbo Baggins' own brilliantly understated, self-deprecating doubts and fears coalescing into a seething cauldron of inner perplexities and outward questionings as he proceeds to scrutinize the fine print in the carefully-wrought contract brought to him by the dwarf company, finally breathing an audible sigh of relief as the dwarfish blizzard of bamboozling blunderbussing bluster vacates his premises leaving it in an equally centre-of-the-hurricane stillness and tranquility. The dwarfish troop's patent lack of self-awareness, or rather their utter indifference therefor, is again perfectly juxtaposed opposite Bilbo's own dutifully, stubbornly self-obsessed and studiously-honed self-image, worthy of an Oscar in and of itself, even were he unaccountably to suddenly and inexplicably vanish from the face of this film or its two sequels. Yes indeed, it is that good, a wonderful exposition of both the hobbit and dwarfish natures and temperaments, enacted in superlative form and with characteristic power and pathos, giving, in exquisite, finely-toned detail, all the idiosyncrasies so noted and beloved in Tolkien's own carefully-wrought delineation of his assortment of Middle Earthian beings and beasties. Not to mention -whoops, I s'pose I just might - his decades-ahead-of-his-time psychological insights into and perceptions of neighbourly relations and boundaries - both physical and metaphorical - worthy of an entry, however belated, into the encyclopedia of fantasy psychoanalysis.
*A good example of this was a film guy's response to a statement/query from Yours Truly a good eight-some years ago now while undertaking University of Otago Emeritus English Professor Colin Gibson's Fantasy Literature: Word and Image: The Lord of the Rings summer school paper in Dunedin, New Zealand. This spokesperson for Wingnut Studios, Weta Workshop or associated film agencies involved in the making of the movie trilogy, said, in response to my assertion that Tolkien's own writing greatly lessened the films' comparative heightening of both the tension and moreover the degree of violence between, for example, Gollum and Frodo and Sam, that indeed he'd personally observed Jackson urging on the level of violence displayed between these respective characters. It is especially seen, in my opinion, in the similar physical antagonism expressed between Faramir and his men with Gollum in their cave from LOTR film #2, I believe, again wholly disconsonant with Tolkien's own treatment of said interpersonal relations.
**This evening (NZtime) the complex computergraphics involved in the reprised Andy Serkis Smeagol-Gollum of An Unexpected Journey, recently cited in Time Magazine for its cutting edge quality, even won the production its very first Oscar, though it had increasingly appeared it had absolutely no chance, or at best a very slim one, of scoring any rungs upon the Oscar ladder, especially with the unprecedented degree of hobbit-bashing and denigration going on at the ceremony itself just days earlier. And evidently this wasn't even for one of the three special-effects awards for which the movie had actually been nominated. And curiously a triumph - against all the odds at this stage, and certainly against the combined opposition, it would appear, of the majority of the film establishment elite - completely and inexplicably overlooked the following day by the two main standard-bearers - both state-run and private - of New Zealand's broadcasting media.
P.S. To the undying gratitude of my blogreadership, this will pretty likely - but I'm making no hard and fast promises, you hear - be the 'lucky last' in my now five-part series on The Hobbit film, just as it winds up its equivalent two-month-long stint at Aotearoa's big city movie theatres, at least here in Dunedin.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)