Okay, I'll concede the point, indeed it surely goes without saying: Peter Jackson (& Co's) ability to put together an action-packed thriller high in adrenaline rushes and roller-coaster momentum crescendoing and cascading from scene to scene is completely unrivalled; it stands entirely in a class of its own. Yes sirree, Jackson and Weta Workshop (Et Al) are unqualified masters of their cinematic craft. But 'a place for everything, and everything in its [proper, appropriate] place'. And adrenaline rushes and emotional highs can, apparently - speaking now as a lifetime non-drug user and lifelong teetotaller (and unapologetic 'wowser') - be had in all manner of (differing) ways. And, sad to say, and to have to inform Sir Peter & Co: an unrelenting, continuous rush of adrenaline, in and of itself, does not - per se - a good film make. No, not in the least.
So what exactly am I getting at? Essentially, that by taking extreme liberties with JRR Tolkien's text - by seeing it impurely and solely through an adult, Lord of the Rings-centred lens and perspective (and that of the PJ cinematic variety) - Jackson Et Al have effectively created a series of Rings' prequels. So thus far we have: Prequel One: An Unexpected Journey; and Prequel Two: The Desolation of Smaug. And presumably - by mid-2014 - Prequel Three: There and Back Again. So that anything and everything pertaining to the Rings' film trilogy is fair game to be automatically transferred to JRR's earlier (chronologically and writing-wise) kids' adventure; irrespective of whether The Hobbit was created and written with such a textual crossover in mind. Which by all accounts, including a close or simply a reasonable reading of Tolkien's famed childhood tale, suggests, nay screams out - in neon colours, folks - it wasn't! And regardless of whether such a (cinematic) treatment ultimately does a huge disservice to Tolkien and his literary legacy; which I believe it assuredly does. And may I kindly, and ever so gently suggest that not all the fancy cinematic tricks (CGI included) nor all the Rings' extras and stunt doubles can ever put this particular kids' classic back together again.
But let me explain further. The characterizations in Desolation, while generally more than adequate - that is, as far as they went - were also not a bar upon An Unexpected Journey, which was a leaf out of The Fellowship of the Ring film's superlative quality. Despite this admirable effort, however, these touches were unable to make up for the film's major, irredeemable flaw: the cinematographers' essential *'adultification' of JRR's text. And even here [in Desolation's casting and characterization], amidst what was, in my book, one of the film's better aspects, there were glaring deficiencies.
While it could certainly be said that the film's star attraction, the hobbit Bilbo, lived up to his own well-deserved reputation - as, among much else, the master of the understatement and numerous 'underplayed' coups de grace - this was only to the extent that we were granted actual close-up scenes of and with him: precious few when compared with Tolkien's text. Thorin and his dwarf company also valiantly rose to the challenge - in terms of meeting (if not excelling) character expectations - though Thorin's empty or elsewise extremely foolhardy bravado in the very face of Smaug stretched credulity. Gandalf had aged considerably (in more ways than one - though facial lines said it all - and so his youthful extreme makeover in the 'subsequent' Rings' films will be a great relief when he revisits those decade-old performances.) And as for the premiering Wood-elves, and especially Tauriel and Legolas, they certainly delivered - but what precisely they delivered is entirely another matter. Sure, they quite definitely excelled in executing the PJ-promoted action boy (and girl) image, but perhaps, as with me, that didn't really quite 'do it' for you. No, I mean really. Again, in light of, or in comparison to, the exemplary base text of The Hobbit.
Thankfully Thranduil, the Woodland King, presented a more well-rounded all-purpose persona, 'catching' befittingly kingly overbearing and imperious tones alongside a suitably graceful, majestic stature and dignified mien so well (if briefly) portrayed by Tolkien's original character.
But to me, anyhow, overall little new in terms of characterization was added (except vis-a-vis the people in Lake-town - or rather, the Master, his Chief Steward and Bard's children in particular). And moreover, the ***central antagonist, Smaug, while physically conveyed ever so cleverly, even masterfully, utterly lacked the subtleties and nuances peculiar to dragons commonplace in ancient mythologies that could legitimately have been expected, and which Tolkien himself undeniably conveyed in spectacular fashion. Being seemingly in the decided minority in this instance doesn't really bother me - however lonely a position it might well place me in - as, no matter how loath I am to be lumped in with the much (and oftentimes in my view justly) maligned coterie of 'pedants', sometimes - yes, let the truth be told - even the mere semblance of faithfulness to a (particular) text really does matter. Yes, fair dinkum. And especially so when the original's as brilliantly composed as so many of us fondly recall - and know - Tolkien's is.
But to get down to the nitty-gritty specifics, let me say the following. Smaug the Magnificant's (the 'Calamity of Calamities')'s marvellous physique, unique power, and unsleeping malice - while being exceptionally well captured, there's little doubt (in my mind, anyway) - was belied implicitly in the all too evident, utter futility of Smaug's ongoing attempts to raise hell or high water (and preferably both at the selfsame time) in relation to his dwarf and hobbit assailants (whose relative puniness and vulnerability simply went without saying). And this despite volcanic lava flows (****'coulees', apparently) of extraordinary heat and velocity and intensity; and irrespective of Smaug's hulking mass and strength, and vastly superior, literal fire-power. And so, besides witnessing the complete jettisoning of all subtlety in Smaug's characterization, we were 'entertained' to the following surreal spectacle: the bizarre, inexplicable behaviour of the dwarf horde, foolhardily - in some rearguard, last-ditch, last stand act - seeking to tackle Smaug head on in his all but impregnable fortress-stronghold 'Under the Mountain'. The odds could hardly have been more lopsided - or more palpably pathetic, pitiable and pitiful. Not to mention piteous and pitiless. Yes, all of the above plus all the rest, with knobs (and scales) on.
Again, much like the world of Middle Earth in one corner over against Sauron the Terrible in the other. Only, this was supposedly not another re-enactment of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, but a cinematic interpretation of his equally popular (with a much more youthful 'set') The Hobbit. A small matter worthy of some consideration you might think.
This attempt, again, to mix and match 'previews of coming attractions' - i.e. the (chronologically later) Rings film trilogy's all-encompassing 'war of the world' - seemed a bit of a 'try (too) hard' for me, on numerous occasions and in all sorts of ways.
In this regard, one undoubtedly much-overlooked way this took place was in the frequent (I noted on at least three occasions, though even one time would be once too often) transposing, almost word-for-word, of various mini-speeches interspersed throughout the Rings' movies - and invariably to great effect in those films. Yes, awfully, worryingly close to verbatim at times, but even if the resemblance hadn't been so very close, these Lord of the Rings filmic equivalents were not only tiresome, after initially being somewhat of a shock to the system, for their sheer audacity - but, as the movie progressed, actually became for me rather predictable, and believe you me I was not 'disappointed' - while of course essentially becoming wholly so (disenchanted with this caper, that is). In a subsequent mini-review I will specify a whole slew of such examples, something that a Tolkien and Peter Jackson fan such as myself actually finds somewhat tedious but sadly all too necessary in regards to this second Hobbit film. The Desolation of Smaug? Methinks 'The Desolation of The Hobbit' would capture the movie's flavour more aptly.
*A new term I've just manufactured for the occasion: signifying where creative types take something meant primarily if not exclusively for a younger, childhood audience and twist, morph and otherwise 'mix 'n match' it to cater for and to an adult clientele. Doing on a cinematic plane what our society has long since tended to do on a psycho-emotional level: making our youth increasingly precocious at an ever younger age, thus effectively nullifying their age of childhood innocence and imposing upon them - by arrogant, know-it-all, adult-decreed fiat - an **adultified (**word creation #2) understanding of the world - in this case, of course, the world of Middle Earth. (A psychosomatic equivalent to what our age of advanced scientific innovation and techno-savvy expertise, with its hotchpotch of cloning, genetic modification/engineering and atomizing (just for starters), is already well along the road of doing, on an exponentially exploding if 'merely' physical level, for coming generations. Just as pesticides, insecticides, super-hormones and antibiotics have already long since tended to do (and in fact been well-established as doing) for at least a sizeable number of younger people in especially 'the third world': hastening on puberty and all the changes associated therewith.
***Yes, I know that Sauron - even in pure spirit form - clearly is The Desolation of Smaug's major villain/nasty/'bad guy' (and obviously way exceeding either Azog the Defiler or Smaug the Magnificent in persona and/or power). But excuse me if you will, it's just that I've yet to come across Sauron in my various readings of The Hobbit. Gee whiz, I really must've not been paying proper attention whilst reading and rereading Tolkien's beloved kids' fantasy over recent years, to think that I've managed to completely miss, nay utterly bypass, such a central, critical element: i.e. the centrality of Sauron The Terrible. Hey, but perhaps 4th (or is that 5th?) time lucky, when I - hopefully - reread the book again after the final instalment in PJ's trilogy. You just never know, do ya.
****A new word I chanced across while editing this post. As they say, you learn something new every day.
No comments:
Post a Comment