My First (12th December, 2013) Viewing of The Desolation of Smaug. No, not a happy chappy.
Thoughts immediately afterwards, as I sauntered home on foot...
Taking creative licence to the nth degree - and way beyond - (i)'Peter Jackson's'
second Hobbit film is a complete (ii)rehash of Tolkien's classic (or perhaps simply hash - without any tag attached - is more apt). For in Desolation (in stark contrast to An Unexpected Journey), Jackson Et Al have radically reinterpreted and - in my view, if no-one else's - (in)effectively restated JRR's subject-matter with breathtaking gall and presumption. Just as if we'd (that is, Sir Peter & Co on the one hand, and 'we' the general readership of The Hobbit on the other), (previously) read entirely different books and thus 'imbibed' completely contrary impressions and understandings.
That it's powerfully 'put' and ably and skilfully executed throughout - in sheer cinematic genius (as per usual) 'and all the rest' (suitably impactful visuals, exquisite costuming, riveting battle scenes etcetera etcetera etcetera...indeed almost 'ad nauseum') - almost goes without saying, and certainly warrants some of the usual accolades and bouquets so freely and readily dispensed upon such occasions. But, and it's no mean but, with its accompanying woefully deficient script and evident failure to properly grasp and hence faithfully reenact Tolkien's almost incessant strokes of brilliance, The Desolation of Smaug lets diehard Hobbit book fans down and in a big (and frankly, unforgivable) way. Irrespective of however many erstwhile critics have now crawled out of the woodwork and scurried on board the Peter Jackson fan club to ((iii)quite inexplicably) lobby volleys of undeserved praise for rather token and superficial 'improvements' on the first film; which, in this lay reviewer's estimation, anyhow, was head and shoulders - and every other available anatomical appendage on offer - above and beyond and light years ahead of this subsequent effort. A rendition, in my view, that is as unfaithful to the Tolkien text as one could dare (or rather fear) to imagine.
Unfortunately tending to give anything but the lie to the rather jaded assessment (or so I once thought) concerning Peter Jackson Et Al's cinematic reinterpretation of The Lord of the Rings, of an old family friend - one who so happened to be intimately acquainted with old English texts, lore and language. This lady's rather unsparing, all-embracing criticisms I had once thought were more a matter of (unconscious) elitist disdain and (associated, subconscious) envy for Jackson and Co's undeniably successful popularization - in modern form and lingo as it were - of a rather timeless classic by another unconventional, eccentric, classical scholar. Someone (i.e. Tolkien) whose own
idiosyncratic tastes and sensibilities, in this esteemed lady's estimation, would have quailed before such populist vulgarities and licence given to his (iv)especial life work and tour de force. Or at the very least have led to some rather decided turning in the grave.
A thought tending to re-evoke latent (if similarly suppressed) misgivings I'd myself long since harboured alongside my own euphoria over PJ Et Al's power-packed and beautifully-characterized cinematic adaptations of each and every one of (v)'the three' Lord of the Rings' books. Yes, as a somewhat johnny-come-lately to the Rings' film trilogy obsessive-compulsive 'band' during a varsity summer school paper in early 2005 - after all three films had appeared on the screen and no doubt been well-scrutinized and reviewed 'till kingdom come' - though initially decidedly taken aback, as is doubtless common with imagination-centric fantasy bibliophiles of especially a previous generation, the three movies quickly 'grew' on me, and their majesty and beauty, power and pathos soon erased any lingering doubts, questions or quibbles I might well have entertained about their faithfulness, or the lack thereof, to Tolkien's text. Or perhaps, mesmerized like so many by such stunning, glorious visuals and dramatization, I simply didn't wish, nay adamantly refused, to even 'go there', least of all be (seen to be) yet another nit-picking nerd or pedantic party-pooper with a massive chip upon his shoulder. Yet, returning to and relating these subjective impressions of mine to The Desolation of Smaug, it's one thing to stand out from the crowd on a point of basic principle - and be accordingly pilloried for the same - and quite another to indulge in petty politically-motivated partisanship which blows cold one moment and the next hot according to the prevailing winds of public fashion.
That the numerous, faceless critics - only too ready and willing to rise up and knock back down another tall (kiwi) poppy (especially one seen as in the pocket of and cuddling up to the present 'corporate welfarist' New Zealand Government, or at least highly favoured and patronized by the same) - (vii)apparently loved, and have accordingly regaled and extolled this second instalment of PJ's cinematic take upon The Hobbit, and that in proportionate measure to the selfsames' absolute panning and damning with faint praise the first, An Unexpected Journey, should give both initial pause, and elicit plenty of suspicion thereafter. Yes, I'd wager this says an awful lot more about said critics than how well PJ & Co have rendered Tolkien's classic kids' fantasy. And in those (last two) words lies - in my own lowly-esteemed view - the operative point (of my critique).
Which is this: whereas The Lord of the Rings was fairly clearly intended as a story for adults, The Hobbit was just as self-evidently written for a wholly different audience - the 'kids' set' if you will. So PJ's - I readily admit, well-, even consummately-executed, efforts to transform Tolkien's Hobbit from a childrens' tale into adult fantasy, however powerfully pulled off with Peter Jackson Et Al's characteristic manner and flair - fell down and ultimately failed for that very reason. I.e. mixing and matching as many Rings' film trilogy elements as humanly possible, to the point of even transposing or interchanging - and then, virtually word-for-word - various script references from The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and/or The Return of the King, into their respective (superimposed, or reassigned) characters in The Desolation, means Tolkien's classic has thus been radically (x)revised, nay, overhauled and rewritten. Yes, I'll state it once more: such fundamental (x)revisionism definitely didn't go down well with this particular Tolkien/Jackson admirer and lay critic, whatever others have said. No, not by a mile in Shire reckoning - whether in the Third or the Fourth Age.
Though so many of those aforementioned critics may indeed have found quite to the contrary, to me Peter Jackson and Co's efforts spoke of nothing so much as sheer lethargy, if not downright laziness, while certainly sticking faithfully to that holy grail of modern-day movie maxims that the more action (read: gratuitous violence and battle scenes) the merrier, and the more violent and gory that action the better. And so (xi)'the reality is' (for Jackson Et Al) - not that they're listening much less vaguely interested in what some obscure, self-styled critic such as myself might well say, but anyway - said action (as portrayed so 'effectively' if needlessly in (xii)this second film, and of a piece with that so much in evidence in some of Sir Peter's earlier films like The Frighteners I gather) - is quite simply not even remotely what Tolkien was ever 'on about' in the first (let alone last) place. And that goes for not just The Hobbit but (xiii)even (if to a much lesser extent) The Lord of the Rings itself, which, to this wannabe reviewer at least, shows that PJ seems to have somehow missed the essential spirit of JRR's writing; certainly, the further he has gotten into cinematically recreating his work. And for an erstwhile and extremely staunch, even at times vociferous admirer (and defender) of both the film trilogy(-to-be) (xiii)in general, and An Unexpected Journey in particular - and moreover in their deeply polarized political context - that's a rather unfortunate admission to feel compelled to make. But make it I must. Let me say it again: PJ Et Al's complete remaking of Tolkien's classic work - i.e. their second instalment thereof - sure, definitely comes across powerfully, duly suspenseful and exciting, visually impactful and aesthetically appealing (in most respects), but to someone more than familiar with JRR's story line, it was deeply disappointing.
(i) Accepting each and every one of the (ultimately sixfold) collection of Tolkien classic film adaptations (three Lord of the Rings, three Hobbit) directed by Sir Peter were hardly solely the input of his one mind, indeed being majorly co-written (and co-produced) by the likes of Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens (among many other deeply involved individuals and organizations, such as the famed Weta Workshop), let us, as is commonly done, take it 'as read' that Jackson's own particular, very personal 'take' on these (v)'six' stories doubtless represents the substantial thrust of and tone adopted by JRR Tolkien's volumes' cinematic counterparts.
(ii) Sure, any such cinematic reinterpretation of a written text is, per se, just such a 'something
made up of materials formerly used, esp. a restatement in different
words of ideas already expressed by oneself or someone else'). And yep, you guessed it, a definition from my trusty 'ole Chambers Concise Dictionary.
(iii) But perhaps not so very unexplainable in view of the intensity, yea the vehemence of the denunciation (from so many quarters) of An Unexpected Journey almost as soon as it premiered. Which patent hostility (towards Sir Peter Jackson in particular) I have little doubt had a lot more to do with many (such) peoples' contempt for the politics involved in the (New Zealand) Government's decision - in connection with Warner Brothers - to salvage the Hobbit film trilogy for these shores. And as is such a well-documented psychological phenomenon in such circumstances, i.e. whenever people go to one extreme upon an argument or issue, yet inwardly cannot dodge from a very real sense of 'the guilties' for adopting such unreasonable partisanship, the very next moment (or 'Nekminute' as our beloved Pita Sharples might well have put it) they then veer off to the entirely opposite pole (of said dispute) in order to compensate (subconsciously) for an inescapable sense of having transgressed their inner moral code(s).
(iv) Though many Tolkien scholars and fans reckon The Silmarillion represents the summit of JRR's genius and literary achievement.
(v) Noting, once again, that JRR originally produced The Hobbit as just one book, and, by contrast, wrote The Lord of the Rings 'tripartite' (i.e. in three (main, distinct) parts) - or (essentially) as a triad or trilogy; yet where each major division of which (The Fellowship of the Ring, The (vi)Twin/Two Towers, and The Return of the King) itself is, as Tolkien himself has clearly specified on his contents and (various interspersed) subtitle pages, composed of two books.
(vi) A quite unintended 'pun' (of sorts), as The Two Towers' release 'coincided' (a year on, admittedly) with the literally earth-shaking and metaphorically earth-shattering events of '9/11' (with, of course, the destruction, conspiratorial or otherwise, of New York City's (then) 'Twin Towers'). But much more than that, the then American (Bush #2) Administration was criticized by some as utilizing the all-too-evident militarism associated with that second film to justify its manner of dealing with and to those world-terrorizing events. Or, even more specifically, of adopting a similar approach (by readily utilizing the selfsame background pretext) in the subsequent (spectacularly unsuccessful) attempt (of George W and Tony Blair) to rally the world (anew) against brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in order to justify the Iraqi invasion and overthrow of his regime; in the process employing the ready-made metaphor of (the collective forces of) good versus (the amassed hordes of) evil. (A rather useful adjunct to such an effort indeed.)
(vii) Here I am but referring to the general comments and observations that have issued in the days immediately following the second film's premiering both worldwide and in New Zealand - certainly not to any review, as I have thus far (and no, I won't be touching wood for good measure), scrupulously avoided reading or listening in to any; save, admittedly, to hearing the odd word or phrase thereabouts. But I might well comment upon such at a later juncture - but post my various Hobbit film #2 blogpostings - so as to avoid, not just being influenced by, but also the charge of being a mere copycat of others' observations thereabouts. (Though due to ever-hard-to-avoid Christmassy/New Years holiday 'stuff' (that affects us all to some extent) I've been duly frustrated and thwarted in almost every single attempt to complete these various reviews, scribbled semi-indecipherably in the final moments of the film and/or the minutes and hour immediately following my first and second viewings (seen back-to-back on the (premiere day)12th of December evening, and Dec.13th morning.) This time my theatre-going was restricted to the 2D and HFR (High Frame Rate) 3D versions respectively, seen within half a day of one another to help make my observations fresh and resonant upon writing up. (The first film I viewed in all three formats, and I (viii)plan to see the final in 'just' the HFR 3D version in which it has been especially shot.)
(viii) I thus feel I'm 'doing my bit' to support Sir Peter and Co in their admirable - my own significant (already and/or still to be enunciated) reservations notwithstanding - efforts and determination to keep the production on shore (i.e. in God's (One and Only) Own), despite numerous and various obstacles thereunto with which most kiwis will be only too familiar. On top of my (ix)continually thwarted attempts to get a part on one of the films during one of the various nationwide auditioning events held around the nation from late 2010 into 2012, which effort cost me $59 for a return bus ticket to Oamaru. And that for a role, presumably as a man (as opposed to a hobbit, a dwarf or an elf etc) in Lake-town (which features in this second film and of course in the soon upcoming final one, where the spectacular battle royale of Smaug the Dragon will be hosted).
(ix) Though a fellow bus traveller from my home-town of Dunedin convinced me in no uncertain terms that my distinctive, unique bearded appearance - earning references to the Old Testament prophet Elijah by certain relatives - would've definitely earned me a part upon the Lord of the Rings' film trilogy upon which he himself had had a part.
(x) Thus making or manufacturing 'a new, improved version' (as my trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary defines 'revise') of JRR's famous kids' adventure - not. Indeed, my reaction during and after my 'eureka' moment when the penny dropped within and I suddenly realized precisely what was going on was a good mixture of the various elements now commonly recognized as essential parts of the grief process, whether in the precise order normally gone through or otherwise. (I'm neither sure nor do I really care.) Alarm and sheer amazement that this was actually going on. A sinking feeling within, answering to the numbness that follows the initial shock. Incredulity (having always believed much better things of Jackson Et Al) - as in disbelief and denial. Depression - if in a majorly diminished form - that PJ & Co could have sunken so low. Anger, or at least a strong, if not overpowering, sense of annoyance and irritation, that they could have such audacious gall and sheer cheek. Yet - if in a highly muted form - an ultimate acceptance that this was the new level to which such (justly) popular movie-makers were evidently prepared to go to regain the plaudits (alongside the Academy Award/s) they felt they deserved and for which they were so unkindly - yet oh so predictably - denied for the first film.
(xi) A much in vogue prepositional phrase these days - so frequently employed indeed by Aotearoa's Prime Minister-in-waiting (for longer than he realizes!) Steven Joyce - with which I am ordinarily much annoyed. (But sometimes such overused and abused colloquialisms express matters more usefully than any others.)
(xii) Though I'll readily grant that the first Hobbit movie also, and prominently at that, featured and greatly expanded the action scenes (with their accompanying violence) of the first third of Tolkien's Hobbit. Though naturally it could easily be argued that this (first) part of the tale - like the last (third) part still to come to an even greater extent - does actually have quite an emphasis upon and inclusion of battle scenes of various kinds.
(xiii) Though, as mentioned earlier, I quickly fell in love with all three
Rings' films, having been especially taken with the first,
Fellowship of the Ring. Just as I've since experienced with An Unexpected
Journey, the characterization in all three Rings' movies impressed me hugely - an 'element' of course usually central and critical to any even halfway decent, worthwhile
movie adaptation of a popular novel. But my esteem for PJ & Co's seminal work has ever included certain serious reservations, to discuss which this obviously isn't the place (even were there the space). Suffice to say certain criticisms I've here (and elsewhere) made of Desolation, and even of Unexpected Journey (such as in (xii) immediately above) will do for the present. And here it's with PJ Et Al's 'mocking-up' of the two rather distinctive overall story lines into (xiv)one grand, overarching design and framework as it were, evidenced nowhere clearer that in The Desolation of Smaug.
(xiv) Hardly for a moment denying that Tolkien himself undoubtedly had such a 'meta-narrative' in the background of and to all his writings upon Middle Earth - including of course his other famed tome entitled The Silmarillion. Nevertheless my argument in regards to this second Hobbit film is of a different and much more particular, even nuanced and subtle - but none less important - character.
No comments:
Post a Comment