Postscript vis-a-vis Tony Benn: Not Alone in Letting his personal political bent get in the way of the cold, hard political realities

For those who maintain that we all see only those things, those 'facts' that we want to see, I believe this was true in the life of that socialist standard-bearer Tony Benn, equal longest-serving M.P., apparently, in Great Britain's House of Commons, and accordingly granted a privilege the Queen of England and the British Commonwealth has evidently accorded to only one other, ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher herself. Yes, like that esteemed lady Benn was allowed to lie in state (if for but a night) in (I believe) Winchester Cathedral.

But onto less symbolically significant and yet more essentially important matters. Confession time being upon me, I am forced to admit I suspect I've been way too generous towards Mr Benn. For it greatly stretches credulity, indeed it literally beggars belief, to believe that TB didn't, like so very many of his left-wing fellow-travellers - indeed as with my own parents, I strongly (and have every good reason) to suspect - realize that much worse things were actually 'going down' in at least the Chinese segment of the communist 'world' that he personally, publicly visited than were then being admitted by his political compatriots back home. To wit, how can I possibly, as I attested in my previous rather glowing eulogy to Wedgwood Benn's life and times, maintain that his publicly-expressed views upon Mao Tse-Tung and Marxism represent some merely minor, marginal, inconsequential blind spot upon his part to realities he sought vainly to hide from his own eyes?

For indeed that Tony Benn, in this regard, not only harboured a major - and arguably fatal - blind spot, nay, even paraded this quite openly as if he had absolute blinkers on, is hard to get away from. Quite apart from his ardent defence of the very theory of Marxism 'to the bitter end', far more tellingly, in my view, upon a visit to China while serving in the Government of Harold Wilson's Labour Party, he was said to have proclaimed Mao Tse-Tung "the greatest man of the 20th Century". And yet it is more than well-established these days that under Mao Zedung's bloodthirsty rule between 40 to 50 million people were killed, even more than Josef Stalin's 30-40 million victims and way more than those (six-some million) long since attributed to that justifiably-execrated mass murderer Adolf Hitler. And surely even 'way back then', i.e. in the 50s, 60s and 70s especially (let alone the 80s and 90s), sufficient of these facts had well and truly more than trickled out to give 'politicians incorporated' enough of an inkling that something foul and festering was indeed afoot in these 'marxist' lands.

As for defending Marx's own special theorem of social-political-economic life in post-feudal, capitalist societies, i.e. Marxism, one perceptive novelist, whose olden tome, Marjorie Morningstar, I happened to open at random just the other day (to clear our garage of a decades-long accumulated barracks of literary hoardings), reckoned, among other profundities therein (at least as represented by one of her protagonist's utterances), the theory would've and should've been known as Engelism. The reason? According to this account anyway, Friedrich Engels himself contributed as much of the 'quality' (if not sheer quantity) of the theory popularly known as Marxism today - but the title simply wouldn't have sounded as good and caught on. Anyhow, a varsity (that's kiwi, i.e. New Zealand, idiom for a university, 'higher centre of learning' or tertiary education provider) I myself attended - both in the early-to-mid 1980s and then again in the early-to-mid 2000s - had one particular Political Studies (Science) professor who had a quite different view from that normally associated with such modern-day bastions of liberality and 'leftism'.

This Jindra Tichy - not all that long ago voted in an international poll of her fellow ex-Czechoslovakians (the former Eastern Bloc nation now of course commonly known as the two nations of Slovakia and the Czech Republic) as among its (ten) most renowned former citizens - herself taught a university paper upon this selfsame subject entitled 'Marx and Nietzsche'. In this course she postulated her belief, nay heartfelt conviction, that the so-called 'Marxism' that was put into effect in the former U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), or Soviet Union, across the former Eastern Bloc nations of Europe (also) comprising Albania (effectively if not in strict actuality), Bulgaria, (the then) Eastern Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the then Yugoslavia 'et al'(!), and later circulating throughout South-east Asia from China, through North Korea and Vietnam, Cambodia (now Kampuchea), Laos 'et al'(!), was indeed exactly what it (i.e. its self-anointed leadership) declared itself to be: i.e. Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Communism. And not some bastardized, distorted, hand-me-down version of the same - as so many of Tichy's erstwhile colleagues so persistently seemed to assert and affirm. No ifs, buts or even maybes.

And to say that she was amazed at finding this 'logical' 'illogic' when she arrived in the West is quite an understatement. Leaving her native land of Czechoslovakia in fear for her life and that of her family, the then Communist leader of the land having evidently made it clear that they, or at least she, was under suspicion and accordingly might soon be up for some rather significant repercussions if she/they remained, after arrival in God's Own, i.e. Aotearoa-New Zealand, Ms Tichy was dumbfounded in what she discovered. It was that many of her (at least Political Studies and/or Humanities) professional colleagues were not only subscribers to that (barbarous) political ethic, in order to justify this they even maintained - incomprehensibly to her, and understandably so, for obvious reasons - that the actual sort of communism, or Marxism, practiced 'back home' (and throughout the Eastern Bloc etc) was simply not the genuine version: it was a sad parody of it. And therefore was not even fit to be classed alongside it much less cited in the selfsame breath.

And though Yours Truly on one or two occasions recalls - in some typical sort of grandstanding, self-righteous, self-important, student know-it-all expertise upon the matter - challenging Ms Tichy in relation to her own hearty and bona fide defence of capitalism (I imagine not far removed from the Act Party version thereof), while I somehow defended on some grounds some much-watered down version of 'socialism', it was probably more based upon personal pique at my inability to effectively critique her own arguments. If I'm honest enough to engage in some real self-reflection.

Which is perhaps the most important point of this entire discussion vis-a-vis Tony Benn's most conspicuous blind spot. Which is simply this - and I'd argue it applies to most if not all of us (at some time or other in our political life journey), if we're truly honest: what we end up eventually 'seeing' (whether literally or metaphorically) is often, yea usually (if not always) precisely what we want to see - or what serves or caters to our own deep-seated - if often subconscious - personal biases and leanings and even prejudices. Much like that fabled elephant whose blindfolded human 'inspectors' imagined or presumed they were touching just what their own impressions suggested - and yet incredibly, in some perverse realization of the maxim that impressions are the reality, they were each and every one - in their own way - right. What they saw was indeed precisely what they 'got', or a reflection of their view (however limited and obscured).

And - will wonders never cease? - the oft-berated field of modern sociological-psychological research now backs up this idea. As was revealed on yesterday's (Tuesday the 8th of April's) 'What the World Thinks' pre-Panel discussion upon New Zealand National's 'Afternoons with Jim Mora', with guest Michael Moynihan, politicians, in trying to convince 'unbelievers' of their own especial take upon the political landscape, so often waste the precious time of most of us (and themselves). For, as was expressed in much better, more articulate fashion upon selfsame show, "no matter how good [i.e. persuasive and ultimately correct] the information politicians give us, we [the great majority if not indeed all of us] don't really listen to it unless it [already] agrees with our own [pre-existing/ predetermined] views". However much we might seek to convince ourselves otherwise. 

So - I'll readily and freely concede - Tony Benn wore major blinkers when and where it suited him...and indeed in an area where he really had little if any excuse. For Benn throughout his political career championed liberty, democracy and equality - for everyone - and so it was no small failing on his part to have overlooked/glossed over/disregarded/looked the other way - much like the infamous priest and levite in the famous parable of the Good Samaritan - when it came to Mao and his bloody butchery. Especially for someone who, among his famous witticisms, once remarked that he had only contempt for anyone who publicly expressed [political etc] views he didn't really personally subscribe to. And it seems unlikely (if also understandable as a consequence) that questions of personal safety didn't have a major influence upon what he said upon meeting China's renowned, infamous leader Mao, and yet it seems utterly inconceivable that he could've been uninformed upon the real state of play on what was going down under his despotic rule.

But then, perhaps one cannot help but add: there, but for the grace of God, go all of us essentially. Or to use the words of a truly great moral revolutionary who wielded no actual political power as such but tonnes, nay tons (it sounds so much better) of world-transforming spiritual influence and authority: let him who is without [such] sin [or moral blindness, in this case] cast the first stone. And as happened then, one would hope we all have enough personal honesty to take up our own collection of stones and wander away without further comment. For however much decried by one and all (at least among church folk) the Pharisees in His day invariably are, at least those religious hypocrites in Jesus Christ's own time had sufficient honesty to do as much.

Likewise I would suggest that those who today set themselves up as some sort of  'moral guardians', especially the likes of talkback hosts whose pronouncements upon 'each and every' issue of our own day carry all the gravity and seeming authority of those societal leaders of yesteryear, would do well, as that selfsame 'Leader of Men' suggested at the end of his aforementioned famous parable, to themselves henceforth 'go and do likewise'.Unless that is they actually happen to see themselves as modern-day popes, as those whose every utterance serves their fellows as some sort of inerrant, infallible moral compass and guide. That is, if they do actually see themselves as verily mini-gods and goddesses. If so, God help us all.

All Out for 88: Good-bye to an UnYellow-bellied Trail-Blazer who most certainly was not just 'another Brick in the [political] wall' of his day and age

A Tribute to Tony Benn, M.P. and 'man of the people': Apostle of the British Left, bent but unbowed with age, who departed us without all the usual fanfare, glare and blare of publicity, hoop-la and hullabaloo. A man moreover, unlike the (original) scarecrow, tinman, and lion of the land of *Oz, possessed with acuity of mind, a noble and generous heart of concern, and the undaunted courage and indomitableness of the king of the animal kingdom.

As the classic (late 70s'/early 80s') British sitcom, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin - now available on dvd for all those like-hearted enthusiasts - terms him in making its endearingly affectionate, backhandedly complimentary and infamously hilarious reference, when one of its cast, Reggie's son-in-law I think, arrives with a placard calling upon him to be appointed and installed as Pope, Wedgwood Benn left his mark on the British/U.K. political scene in no uncertain, equivocal fashion; bestriding the political stage with his quixotic, unorthodox personality and value system as few of his ideological bent did or ever could have.

A man of the masses, apparently passed over as deputy leader of his party in the early 80s, and who would've, surely, proven a much more formidable, even if ultimately vanquishable opponent, to his lifetime bete noire 'Maggie' Thatcher - certainly than his left-wing fellow (Labour Party) traveller - the academic and thus understandably far less streetwise and politically savvy Michael Foot(e). A would-be leader truly 'of, by and for the people' unlike so many of his apparently elitist colleagues both in his heyday and ever since.

But like all great spiritual leaders without due recognition and public credentials, Mr Benn needed no such external honours to make him any more the natural leader of men he indisputably was. Someone with a natural charisma who didn't need or employ fancy gimmicks to attract or garner support (either among his political colleagues or the general public-at-large). No, spin doctors, political consultants and public relations firms and 'makeovers', and of course those ever bungling, oh-so-officious bureaucrats - as so wonderfully spoofed in that other classic British comedy 'Yes Minister' - were not in his vocabulary, excepting in his undisguised scorn thereof.

Yes, none of these were his 'deal'. Benn neither desired much less needed such vanities in pursuing his political objectives, which were simply, as in the immortal slogan of the French Republic: liberty, fraternity and equality. In equal portions and simultaneously.

Some would say that actually 'walking the walk', not just 'talking the talk', or of being more occupied in practical 'do-ey' than mere hui, as New Zealand's one-time maverick M.P. and likewise much-touted potential (first Maori) prime minister John Tamihere has been known to put things; practising what one preaches, in other words: is rather a superfluous adjunct, an unnecessary extra, in today's soundbitten, media-driven, -dominated and -determined Western political landscape. Hey, why bother, when just winging it on the proverbial song and a (secular) prayer will - apparently - do the job well enough?

Thankfully, a few politicians, such as Tony Benn, thought, and, more's to the point, acted and lived differently. And that, as they say, made all the difference. 

Methinks like New Zealand's popular, beloved and now immortalized early 1970s' Prime Minister Norman Kirk - who shared, by phone, a word or more of heartfelt congratulations to the Studio One musical grouping, The September All-Time Bulldog Band, as they sang (what would prove Mr Kirk's earthly send-off) the memorable lyrics of their tuneful classic hit, Big Norm, on the very eve of his death in a hospital bed - Tony Wedgwood Benn likewise caught the very spirit of Tom's placard and himself shared a wry smile thereabouts, perhaps realizing that for many of his own party (and public) faithful (followers) his own pronouncements carried a deeper sense of significance than many actual popes.

Indeed, apparently, besides being someone with an unashamedly Christian ethic and a deep spirituality marked by thoughtful reflection and a consistent lifestyle, and quite surprisingly in this day and age of undercover and rather shamefaced Christianity, to his enduring credit and perfectly in line with his unpolitically correct disposition, Benn made a number of unambiguously positive references to the 10 Commandments (of Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism).

Among other things, Tony Benn declared the superiority - for those seeking guidance and happiness - of those (what many such as the writer regard as actual God-given) declarations over the Dow Jones [Industrial Average]. He also suggested 'there are values, which, if you like, are laid down loosely in the Ten Commandments', shared by other religions, undergirding the universality of the fraternity of all humanity. Moreover he was 'true to the fourth Socialist Sunday School commandment: 'Honour good people, be courteous to all, bow down to none.' ' And last but certainly not least, he declared his relief that 'they haven't moderni[z]ed the Ten Commandments', adding: 'I can imagine what they [would] be like [if they were] - thou shall not kill unless [ex-U.S. President George W] Bush tells you to; thou shalt not commit adultery unless she's very attractive; and thou shalt not steal unless you need the money.'

Yes, Tony Benn was ever the supreme master of the understatement. And as regards his views upon the immutability of what a few of us still regard as God's holy, unchanging, good, perfect and spiritual Law - written by the very finger of God, even, upon tables or tablets of stone - in his own shy, inimitable and self-deprecating fashion he, quite inadvertently of course but nevertheless, in his own entirely naive but simultaneously ever perceptive, deeply insightful way, pointed out - again, I'll freely concede, entirely by chance - something that popes themselves and the so-called 'Holy See' of Rome, throughout the centuries and indeed millennia, have been conspicuous in treating somewhat differently.

Indeed it could well be argued that the modern-day movement to re-jig said 'eternal' commandments began long ago, when said papal leaders felt sufficient in themselves to 'upgrade' and improvise upon selfsame 10 divine Laws by reworking (if apparently on a small scale) commandments two, four, nine and ten, thus effectively placing a seal of contempt thereupon, something the large body of evangelical as well as mainstream Protestants have rather unquestioningly simply gone along with over recent centuries. But enough of my propaganda, such religious 'diatribes' being something Mr Benn would himself, no doubt, have heartily disapproved of - especially in defence of his own person -  in light of his having been known to have declared, among his numerous recorded memorable, profound and simple sayings: 'A faith is something you die for; a doctrine is something you kill for. There is all the difference in the world' (emphasis entirely my own).  

So, in the words of the 70s' kiwi chart-topper Big Norm, just as Aotearoa-New Zealand's 'man of big Labour was our big Norm[an Kirk]', and England's man of New Labour was Tony Blair, Great Britain's, indeed the United Kingdom's man of old (and real deal) Labour was Tony Benn. End of story.

But did 'the better man' [i.e. Tony] win? That is, the 'heroic failure' that was Tony Benn as opposed to the ever-charismatic, smile-a-while-and-give-your-face-a-lift (as the silly latter-day church ditty goes) Tony Blair. Maybe not in the short-term, but I've a sneaking feeling the never-lying pages of history may well one day tell a different story. Quite a different tale, in fact. Unembellished by any spin, empty media hype or propaganda, let alone PR-driven focus groups and opinion polling.  

So adieu Tony, British politician extraordinaire - though no Churchill, you were truly in a class of your own, beyond mere 'class' (as in the system thereof), the great Prime Minister who was not to be. Yes, your understanding was certainly not perfect - as one somewhat critical but nonetheless fair-minded and balanced journalist, a Tom Doran whose blogpost 'Tony Benn: Heroic Failure', recently appeared on the British Independent's online edition, as regards China's bloodthirsty dictator Mao Zedong (and his communist ideology, and indeed Marxism per se) you definitely seemed to have major blinkers on. But ultimately you stood unflinchingly in defence of fairness, decency and goodwill toward each and every one of your fellow earth-travellers, and much more than merely preached or advocated such, you lived what you believed...no matter how unpopular or spurned by the masses in their own temporary capture by the media elites and conventional standard-bearers of society.

*Yet like the writer, methinks Mr Benn also immediately recollected and so shared another wry smile at the spontaneous public remembrance and instantaneous bursting forth of that classic Wizard of Oz song of celebration (at the recent passing of his lifelong political adversary and bete noire, long-serving British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher): 'Ding dong, the witch is dead, the wic-ked witch, the wic-ked witch; ding dong, the wic-ked witch is dead' (without being in any way spiteful or mean-spirited thereabouts, you understand!) But hey, I'm sure he simply enjoyed the fact he outlasted even she - if not quite, as it eventually transpired, by a country mile.

And I'm personally intrigued that one of the few issues I ever saw eye to eye with Maggie upon was one that Tony Benn himself might well have done, at least insofar as the sentiments he expressed back in December 1974 held through the following decades. He is recorded as then saying: 'Britain's continuing membership of the [European Economic] Community would mean the end of Britain as  a completely self-governing nation.' Something that the present incumbent British Prime Minister, David Cameron, apparently himself schooled in democracy in his youth by one of Tony Benn's books, is perhaps now, if rather late in the piece, coming to realize himself. Yes, Mr Benn's legacy has and looks set to continue to cast a rather long shadow over succeeding generations of public and politicians alike. Which speaks for itself, doesn't it. No I mean really.

The (PJ version) Hobbit film #2: Part 3: But It's Not All Bad, Though Much Is Indeed Decidedly Below Par; or Damning PJ Et Al's Second Hobbit Film With Faint Praise, Admittedly

(Written underneath an oldish oak tree in the grounds of St Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin, New Zealand.) Bullet-point reflections after my second viewing of The Desolation of Smaug.

On the positive side, the film from start to finish is power-packed, verily brimming over with energy. Noteworthy are such new characterizations as Bard, who is well rendered, and his Lake-town fellow travellers - especially his own family and the local officialdom; although Beorn, if satisfactorily depicted - a Gandalf of (and for) the common people, as it were - somehow lacks his sense of gravitas (and irritability). As if he'd have tolerated his own home being gatecrashed/effectively wrested off him (however temporarily). And a great opportunity is thus missed of showcasing his (cf Radagast's) intimate relationship with the (i)bee swarms in (what should be) his huge, lovely garden; though the other animals, i.e. the livestock under his jurisdiction, are, as far as they go, well enough enacted. While Tauriel is portrayed more than adequately, the much underrated Thranduil is superbly cast, displaying all that aforementioned gravitas yet also finely-tuned sensitivity befitting a (Woodland) Elvenking of (equally) querulous temper. His elegance, graceful majesty and self-conscious dignity are effectively juxtaposed alongside and perfectly complement his self-assured sense of superiority, leaving a sense of thinly-disguised condescension (and despotic high-handedness) towards all he deems beneath him in the hierarchical order of things.

Smaug is quite up to the humongous expectations elicited by the glimpse given in An Unexpected Journey, with a couple significant reservations (see earlier blogposts). Bolg comes across every bit as nasty 'a piece of goods' as Azog, but still a foe of considerably less stature, conscious authority and might: Azog wrought smallish, so to speak, but certainly well up to the coming challenge, however discrepant with the original script, of heading the dwarf company off at the pass. Sauron for that matter is showcased well before his time, yet seems unable - despite the immense display of his firepower - to permanently eliminate Gandalf from the scene. Really? Likewise, if on a far more minor scale, note the Master of the Lake-town Esgaroth ramming Bard's chest, yet somehow failing to kill him instantly. C'mon now, at the least he'd have suffered cracked ribs!

Bard's 'pre-loading' of the dwarf-filled barrels with fish is a nice variation upon Tolkien, especially their coming up out of Bard's toilets! However the dwarfs' own fatigue (even partway through their bodily ordeal between Thranduil's palace and Lake-town) is not (remotely) evidenced, yet carries some significance in the book. Nevertheless the cascading river and roaring cataracts as the dwarfs exit the woodland elvenkingdom give appropriate 'oomph' and impetus to the action, helping set the story's fast and furious pace at this early juncture in 'the second leg' of the dwarfs' journey to Erebor. Something helping me to now fully understand the job (ii)requirements for being a good swimmer (for those, unlike myself, accepted onto the set for work as a human in (iii)Lake-town).

Bard's kids (girls and son, evidently Sigrid, Tilda and Bain) are beautifully and effectively cast, reminiscent of the Rohanite kids in PJ Et Al's The Two Towers. The Master of Lake-town is right on the mark, nay 'done to perfection', while his steward puts in an equally fine performance. As has been remarked elsewhere (in radio commentary, the only kind I get since our good 'ole TV went on the blink during an equinoctial wind gust), Esgaroth's Master (read: Mayor - in modern lingo) is an oily, unctuous (read: (iv) 'offensively suave and smug [self-complacent)' character/'gentleman' reeking of pomposity and grandiosity - in which 'performance' he is singularly unmatched by any save his Chief Bodyguard/Spokesman. The two take bureaucratization/'officialeze' (and sleaze) to a new low - probably unequalled since Billy Connolly's not-to-be-missed 'The Man Who Sued God' or Dave Henderson's 'Be Very Afraid'. Their discussion of the establishment of a committee of inquiry and the very possibility of an election and thus 'the dreaded scourge' (horror, horrors!) of democracy is a masterstroke (pun or not). Indeed (v)the two are arguably the deftest stroke in a movie elsewise lacking in gripping characterizations or cameos.

Greatly assisted by being every bit 'as ugly as sin' (as my beloved Grandma might have said), the orc deputy head honcho, Bolg, discharges his role well. But otherwise, apart from the Star Villain/ Attraction of this particular Show - i.e. the Inimitable, Incomparable Smaug the Terrible, the Calamity of Calamities - this second movie's evildoers are neither noteworthy nor especially memorable (unlike the three trolls or the Goblin-King Under The Mountain (let alone Smeagol/Gollum) of Part One. Certainly Azog reappears in all of his sheer malice and evil persona as well as intimidating physicality, but otherwise, all one can really say is that Desolation's (non-dragon) villainry is pretty well 'up to the job'. Yes, they adequately meet job specifications, functioning as they were intended, but aside from that they are largely expendable (as indeed so transpires on an ongoing basis above the River Running's Mirkwood Forest inflow) and so prove largely forgettable.

The scenery itself certainly doesn't let one down - but how could it? - approximating to all one now has come to expect from PJ & Co. But before we give Sir Peter too much credit for that (aside from his team's expert photography, that is), Aotearoa-New Zealand's picture postcard scenery tends to speak for itself, doesn't it, and can hardly fail, if simply left to itself, to unveil its rich and abundant (vi)charms and treasures for all to marvel at. That is, whether one is referring to the craggy hillsides and scattered waterfalls bedecking the various scenescapes, the mountains afar, or the forested hilltops - but not Mirkwood. This was an unexpected bonus, an oasis in a desert of dearth, incidentally a wonderful instance of manufactured landscapes, especially the unnerving and effectively wrought trees twisting every which way but in perfect unison as the company enters and quickly comes unstuck: a writhing mass of warped trunks and hefty branches with a life of their own pulsating and throbbing through them, only too aware of the potentially worrisome company wending and winding its increasingly confused and labyrinthine, extremely roundabout route through their naturally suspicious (anthropomorphic) foliage and undergrowth.

The spiders, for that matter, while much smaller than The Return's Shelob 'mother of all (vii)arachnids' - though evidently related in both nature and motive, and only lacking Shelob's girth and strength in the pursuit of their nefarious designs - did their jobs well and expeditiously enough. But, and its a pregnant but, without the brilliant 'bits 'n bobs' of primarily speech with which JRR invests them, such as Bilbo's teasing them to the point of distraction and beyond with poetic ditties playing upon their names, or his own rendition thereof. Note for a prime example Tolkien's summing up of their (collective) wrath, nay fury, as a consequence: 'They were frightfully angry. Quite apart from the stones [Bilbo had been chucking at or around them] no spider has ever liked being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course is insulting to anybody.' In thus effectively expunging from the newfangled Jacksonesque interpretation these characteristic and Tolkienesque touches, such delightful vignettes and insights into the spiders' modus operandi and personalities were completely sidestepped; not to mention the very contexts giving rise to such hilarious banter, i.e. the ingenious (and unintentionally quite entertaining) way in which Bilbo goes about seeking to rescue his helpless friends from the sticky cobwebs within which they are seemingly inextricably enveloped. Well-deserving, as in the book, of much greater attention and elaboration indeed.

The Elvenkingdom is effectively if none too plushly done, though not inappropriately so in light of the frugal lifestyle that these not unwealthy tree-dwellers implicitly subscribe to. Beorn's living quarters are equally well executed, as are the homes of Bard et al in Lake-town. Throughout the extended takes involving Bard I found myself being constantly reminded of some other (seemingly LOTR) personage though I still can't for the life of me identify him. Various scenic shots, e.g. the sky view as we arrived over Esgaroth towards sunset, Dol Guldur and its immediate surrounds, and the lower recesses of the Lonely Mountain, were strikingly well-enacted, almost surrealistically 'realistic', compelling and even occasionally awe-evoking.

But again - and sadly the buts in this second film seem to fly out at you from each and every direction - way too many scenes and subscenes and (mini-)speeches even are uncannily or rather boringly (and frankly I'm rather disheartened - with myself - that I'd use such terms in regards to any Jackson interpretation of Tolkien) reminiscent of Lord of the Rings (that is, the film trilogy version thereof). At times even as if they'd been literally copied and pasted - the similarities are so blatant and flagrant, I kid you not one whit - directly from that earlier (though chronologically later) set of films. Sure, I'll admit they worked - and did they ever - exceptionally well the first occasion, but the second time they just came over as rather tawdry and cliche-ridden, and, more's the point, evincing sheer, unadulterated laziness on the part of PJ & Co. Or, to be very charitable, sheer forgetfulness.

Well, despite myself, here I'll choose charity, or mercy (over judgment) as the theologians (and Tolkien himself for that matter) would put it, (as so memorably restated by Gandalf to Frodo in the Mines of Moria in the Fellowship film). Could PJ, in recent times, have simply been spending a little too much time with a certain prime minister, whose charming and oh so convenient 'brain fades' just happen to have a rather bewitching, mesmerizing effect upon anyone who comes within cooee of them (and him)? It isn't completely inconceivable, after all, when you've been working so closely with something for as long as PJ Et Al have - even if the two (movie trilogy) 'stints' have been removed by around a decade from each other - to have become so deeply involved and engrossed with the material you've been working with and constantly alongside as to simply not realize where your various bits and pieces have ultimately originated from. But surely PJ & Co had much more than sufficient time (and opportunity) to find or create some new lines? Certainly the exorbitant cinema fees now generally being levied for these films in particular suggest so.

But to briefly restate my main bones of contention with the Desolation of Smaug, beginning with a seemingly minor one, but one nonetheless quite illustrative of the others. Sir Peter's own rather predictable cameo appearance (cf the Return of the King movie) at the film's start (in Bree) is more than gratuitous, given the utter gratuitousness of the very inclusion of that (Fellowship of the Ring) town at all. If nothing else revealing The Hobbit's hijacking from an innocent kids' adventure by Tolkien to a vanity project by Sir Peter Jackson. Moreover the Lake-town scenario, its various personages and all their comings and goings (especially their 'goings') is far too long, not just as regards this section's relative proportion of the book itself, but moreover in terms of the story (supposedly) being told: i.e. the company's quest for the Lonely Mountain, specifically their attempt to reclaim the literal dragon horde of treasure therein.

Why is this so? Essentially due to PJ Et Al's attempt to conflate this, as with much else, with events going on behind the scenes generally...i.e. the growing spectre and menace of the forces of darkness reasserting their long-maintained claims for hegemony upon Middle Earth. And so the two wholly different and distinct story lines once again appear to get needlessly - and what's more, quite distractingly - confounded, leading to a sense (for this soul, anyhow) of being bogged down in lots of unnecessary clutter (not to mention chitter chatter). Take it from a lifelong clutterer and compulsive hoarder - my sister believes that, like her, I suffer from OCD, i.e. obsessive compulsive disorder - to paraphrase C.J. on the all-time brilliant 70s and 80s British sitcom, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, I didn't get to where I [ain't] today without knowing clutter whenever I encounter it!

(i) Incidentally my second viewing of Desolation, with large bees 'coming out at you' on the 3D screen, struck an extremely personal note, coming as it did close on the heels of a recent return from a gardening job working amidst numerous rosebushes, whereupon I found myself suddenly literally surrounded by such. But unlike Jane Clifton, thankfully they avoided crawling up my nasal passages.

(ii) Especially in view of the various major (medical) mishaps/misadventures with which the Rings' film trilogy was plagued, at times bringing some major characters rather a little too close (for comfort) with severe injury, even death.

(iii) Though of course the book places this part of the story way further forward in time, having given the visit with Beorn in his secluded homestead and the journey through Mirkwood Forest a sizeably more significant portion of the overall story. Indeed Yours Truly has carefully computed the relative shares of each section, frequently consulting his special timepiece throughout (at least his first viewing), discovering that, just three-tenths/30 percent  (45 minutes) on, film #2 had already traversed six-elevenths/55percent of the book, which wasn't so good for book aficionados, especially those (such as myself) deeply in love with Tolkien's own portrayal of his own story. In this regard chapter 10: 'A Warm Welcome', forming just 1-and-a-half pages (4% of the entire book) is here expanded to 13-and-a-third per cent of the entire film. (Still, the 3D element here (as with Smaug's lair, treasure hordes and home-under-the-mountain) is effectively carried through.)

(iv) See, for example, my trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary.

(v) No (twin) reference (intended or otherwise) to Newstalk ZB's infamous twosome, Tim Roxborogh and Pam Corkery, though it has to be admitted that Corkery and Roxborogh are virtually the best thing to come to New Zealand talkback radio since unsliced bread itself.

(vi) According to the latest studio planning filming Down Under (of 'Z for Zechariah'), a landscape (South Canterbury's in particular) notable for its characteristic 'lushness, vibrancy and diversity'.

(vii) Peter Jackson's especial phobia, as all possessors of the thoroughgoing behind-the-scenes Lord of the Rings' dvds well know. ("Some kind of 'Spawn of Ungoliant' ", to quote Radagast.)

The (PJ-Version) Hobbit Film #2: Part 2: Some other ideas and musings...

From my second viewing (3D HFR - i.e. three-dimensional high frame rate (48 frames per minute)) - notes scribbled immediately afterwards, and in the darkness of the film's last quarter-to-half hour.

NB The orc horde beseiging Lake-town (Esgaroth) would really have made mincemeat of Bard's kids (son and daughters) in no time flat, as undoubtedly would 'Smaug the Magnificant' with Bilbo and the dwarfs, i.e. (i)Bilbo's accomplices in crime, his skulking side-kicks in Smaug's own estimation.

Various nice touches: 2 pug dogs (reminiscent of our family's pet Teddy and other pugs of childhood acquaintance); literal (ii)'legions' of pigs - cf the gospel story of Jesus with the Gadarenes - and various other biblical allusions, as has likewise been commonly remarked about The Lord of the Rings (both book and film). For example the ongoing battle between (ethereal, incorporeal, spirit) forces of darkness seeking to displace the light; even an obscure, brief mention of the dragon (Smaug) descending from 'the serpent' from the North(ern regions whence the Witch-King of Angmar, Sauron's eventual right-hand man, proceeded), evoking images of the possession of and 'impersonation' of (iii)'that old serpent' in Eden by the 'Great Dragon Satan' (otherwise known as the devil). (For those, like me, with a biblical penchant, that is.) 

So much parallelism abounds between these Hobbit films and their Rings' 'predecessors' that it's hard to know where to begin, but how about this example: (iv)Kili's 'mortal (?Morgul blade) wound' (cf Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring), that sees him (much like Faramir (and Eowyn) in 'the Houses of Healing' in Return of the King) stay on in Lake-town to undergo recuperation. And in each instance (as again with Frodo) that healing coming about through special (medicinal) herbs (such as my Mum's potent (v)feverfew - ever good for a sound headache). Elsewhere Thorin on occasion (at Esgaroth) reminds one awfully much of Boromir in his vainglorious stance and fight-to-the-finish bravado.

Similar scenic parallelism, e.g. the senses-suspending, jaw-dropping portrayal of Gandalf ever so barely outwitting his voracious, mighty antagonists (such as Azog the Defiler and Sauron) and thus miraculously escaping with his very life in (and from) the Necromancer's lair, i.e. Dol Goldur. And in a much less fraught 'parallel', mark well the coveted dwarvish treasure of the Arkenstone in its unstoppable plummeting through Smaug's vast hoardings right before Bilbo's dazed gaze. But does he then snatch it up? It's hard to say/we're not really shown, but doubtless 'all will (soon enough) be revealed' when Hobbit film number three comes out, presumably mid-July. On that score Bilbo and the (in this version anyhow, accompanying) dwarfs' ever-precipitous evasion of Smaug on a similar ongoing basis seems just a little too far-fetched for belief, as this (vi)'Calamity of Calamities' was hardly christened such for no good reason, was he?

Smaug's chitchatty banter with Bilbo, engaging in some mutual back-scratching flattery, is quite 'cutesy', even charming and scintillatingly clever (in places), but even at its filmic best doesn't remotely come close to Tolkien's skill in portraying this subtle art form which Smaug, over aeons and aeons, has perfected to infinity and beyond; as befits any dragon (or 'great worm', as Tolkien styled Smaug's ilk) worth his weight in gold and silver. The dwarfs, having finally lost any remaining hope altogether and abandoned Bilbo atop the Lonely Mountain as Durin's Day seems to slip into legend, then instantaneously, miraculously reappear in a touch that effectively consigns Aladdin's Lamp to the realm of yesterday's slowcoach technologies...

The savage warg-riding orc hordes (all the way along the Forest River) ultimately laying seige to Esgaroth are quite unnecessary, but again perfectly in keeping with Lord of the Ring film trilogy linkages throughout, obliterating any meaningful semblance again to Tolkien's beloved kids' classic and replacing this with a no-holds-barred, fight to the finish, tooth-and-nail struggle 'from woe to go'. In other words, all action and intrigue, with precious little character development and el usual gripping, imaginative, Tolkienesque story line besides. As someone might characterize this Jacksonesque take on The Hobbit: 'It's the blood and guts, stupid!' Though methinks J.R.R himself, if softly from the sidelines, might be heard intoning: 'It's actually supposed to be a magical tale of a hobbit, a wizard, 13 dwarfs, a skin-changer, woodland elves, a sleepy town of cranks and crazies, one very stupendous Dragon and a heckuva lot of hidden treasure...(vii)plus an assortment of ferocious spiders, goblins (both under the mountain and over dale), wargs, eagles, and flora and fauna galore, and the exciting adventures that mark the places where these odd bedfellows cross paths.

So in thus effectively presupposing a definitive interlinkage between the two tales (of the lonely trek to Erebor for dragon gold, with the eventual quest for the one ring to rule Middle Earth), PJ Et Al have backed themselves into a corner. How then can one possibly account for the subsequent decades-long interval between the return of the dwarf company and Bilbo to Hobbiton and the arrival of the Ring-Wraiths there? When, according to this (movie) version - cut to the background events supposedly then taking place in Dol Goldur - Sauron has pretty well  resurrected and reformulated himself and is now virtually ready for the sustained onslaught he intends upon all of Middle Earth. Because following said events there'd certainly be (viii)no time to lose - much less 60-odd years or so. One really cannot have it both ways. 

I'm unsure Smaug would have participated, even inadvertently, in the elimination of his cherished home. But more importantly, Smaug's broiling lava torrent would have instantly incinerated anything and everything in its path except maybe another dragon, and certainly this relatively (if not literally) lightweight and motley crew, from Thorin down. Indeed I don't even believe Smaug could feasibly - not to mention so easily, like so much paper confetti - have shed his new molten hot golden covering, though I'll concede the image of him so doing as he ascended into the skies on his way toward Lake-town is a nice touch aesthetically.

(i) Drawing this comparison inevitably opens me up to ridicule, but the writer happens to share an unusual 'distinction' with Bilbo Baggins, acting the major part of thief in Owen Martel's video 'Given'.

(ii) As described in detail in the Holy Bible's three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

(iii) Likewise see especially the Book of Revelation chapter twelve, and Genesis chapter three.

(iv) But need I note such is completely absent both literally and metaphorically from Tolkien's Hobbit?

(v) My Chambers Concise Dictionary denotes feverfew  as 'a composite perennial closely allied to camomile, so called from its supposed power as a 'febrifuge', which itself is defined as 'that which drives off fever'. In Lord of the Rings, however, we have athelas or kingsfoil as the curative herb.

(vi) Yes, I well realize that here it's me, myself and I who'll be accused of fabricating things, so may I make the simple disclaimer that such a nickname, wholly my own admittedly (unless I'm inadvertently repeating a name I heard in one of the Hobbit films), itself does perfect justice to that ever so brilliant endearment of Bilbo Baggins: 'Smaug the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities'.

(vii) Though no orcs, much less the new and frightful variety concocted for this Hobbit trilogy.

(viii) And don't you tell me it'd take six-some decades for Sauron the Terrible to track down, interrogate and torture Smeagol-Gollum, then process and act upon the relevant doss. But then - if I'm being perfectly fair - perhaps that's Tolkien's issue, not Sir Peter Jackson & Company's.

The (PJ Version) Hobbit Film #2: Part 1c: Specifically Where This Second Film Falls Down

Additional Bits 'n Bobs of (generally more minor) note, observed by this Tolkien fan in said film:

Could anyone (familiar with PJ Et Al's take upon The Lord of the Rings) possibly have missed the initial stunt (i.e. another blatant, flagrant Peter Jackson cameo appearance: a boozer at the bar in Bree - juxtapose the swashbuckling but soon arrow-smitten pirate upon one of the ships from the South as part two of the Return of the King movie opens)? While well enough (if none too subtly) executed, the obvious parallels between what is being depicted in each respective scene are way too close for (my) comfort (anyway). And said (wholly unnecessary, redundant, superfluous - do I get my point across?) Bree scene smacks of mini-desperation, while again tying this film in inappropriately with the Rings' movie trilogy. Enough of a, if not indeed the major sin in my book to warrant much previous and subsequent comment on my other (Parts 1/1b/2/3) Hobbit film #2 postings. And note well the various (at least two I recall) shady, secretive, shifty and suspicious background figures squinting from the shadows - dittoing the appearance of Aragorn plus some far less savoury if low-level enemy bods in the Bree-scene in The Fellowship of the Ring (both versions).

But still more irksome to me, Tolkien's beautifully crafted build-up to the company's arrival at Beorn's country estate, and moreover the group's actual (and oh so arresting, (i)sidesplitting and memorable) entrance into his homely abode, is either absolutely omitted or unrecognizably altered in PJ & Co's version of events. Take your pick - but neither option is all that palatable. And thus and so Beorn is left looking like - no, not some [hard-bitten] Bracegirdle from Hardbottle, to quote Bilbo's memorable line uttered with utter exasperation in the Fellowship film, but rather - a two-bit excuse for an otherwise intimidating 'skin-changer' and terrifyingly huge and menacing bear.

Certainly 'Mother Nature' and, in particular, New Zealand's unparalleled and world-renowned scenery is captured powerfully and spectacularly throughout - as in An Unexpected Journey and the three Rings' movies. And an especially delightful and deft touch are the various leaf litter components of Radagast the Wizard's headpiece: a veritable nest of critters small and smaller still, all harmoniously inhabiting his head-top surface - to some, less flatteringly, the space between his ears (even if they are hardly visible). Though in this regard Beorn's own special and arguably unique relationship with 'all creatures large and small' is largely sidestepped, in deference to what are obviously perceived as much more pressing concerns around life - and looming death - upon Middle Earth.

Though again, truth be told - for those interested, that is, in an abiding faithfulness (or in this case the lack thereof) to JRR Tolkien and his tale; as with the much-commented upon omission of Tom Bombadil in the Fellowship movie, the fact is that Beorn, like both the Wood-elves of Mirkwood and moreover the (ii)'Shirelings'  in Hobbiton at (especially) the start of the Rings' film trilogy (and books), is blissfully ignorant of the nefarious proceedings well underway upon Middle Earth. That is, as Sauron literally 'regroups' - both on a personal level from pure spirit form into dualistic supernatural/ material entity, and in terms of rallying the disparate ethnicities and peoples of Middle Earth into a potent and unified fighting force to be reckoned with. Yet unlike 'the Shire folk' Beorn is no small menace in terms of physicality and supernormal prowess and so such an 'ignorance is bliss' approach to life is not altogether irrational for him. But far from this diminishing either his credibility or appeal, quite conceivably this makes his somewhat odd and isolationist persona (in the original text) all the more believable - revealing yet again the rich tapestry of races and ethnicities with which JRR realistically peopled his Middle Earth. Indeed it could be argued that Tolkien himself, as with so many in that momentous period just prior to World War II and especially the Holocaust, quite possibly had (iii)not the remotest (iv)inkling that such shameful and shameless events were even then taking shape in the shadows. But methinks I'm doing his memory a disservice while (quite unintentionally) thus impugning his 'smarts', for it's almost inconceivable that he, alongside other deep thinkers of the time, didn't have grave suspicions of what was then 'going down' in the surrounding world.

The (early) river-scene in Mirkwood Forest is wholly absent, supposedly seeming to add nothing to proceedings (and in particular the single-minded and wholehearted quest for dragon gold). Bombur's various 'odds 'n sods' from the moment of entering Mirkwood through to the company's arrival at Erebor also vanish in a puff of smoke. And The Hobbit's intricately labyrinthine depiction of Mirkwood's spider hordes and 'homesteads' is touched once-over lightly, and by just a third of the film we have already arrived at the Elvenking's castle fortress. A (v)speedy feat - the making of almost record physical progress by anyone's reckoning. But all in a day's filming for PJ & Co.

Such 'creative' touches are especially apparent in the (textually wrong, wholly superfluous and extremely unimaginative) continually reappearing Azog-led hordes above the river; which, moreover, distracts considerably from the proper flow of the (original) story-line. And which also is (vi)all too tiresomely reminiscent of the orcs abreast the river at the conclusion of the Fellowship film. Indeed these pursuing orc and goblin hordes so often inveigle themselves, yea wheedle their way into the various scenes throughout the film - in an entirely unwarranted fashion - that it becomes, again, rather predictable and tedious to behold. Once more, Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson-style, writ large over Tolkien's childhood tale, transforming a perfectly self-contained - if admittedly allusion-packed - innocent kids' classic into adult fantasy of the 'blood-splatter, let violence take centre stage', variety.

Sir Peter's poetic licence apparently knows no bounds, a classic case (or three) being the (vii)(viii)splitting of the company at Lake-town, the midnight attack of Azog Et Al, not to mention - but I will - The Town Master's (Mayor's) own wholly uncalled-for all-out assault upon Bard. Indeed so very much is missed out (quite aside from gratuitously added) that I feared even the heralding of the dwarves shortly after their arrival in Lake-town and the reciting of the ancient prophecy itself would be lost without trace. Thankfully the old prophecies do come into their own, even if the company's feting by one and all (the townsfolk) at the Town Hall doesn't happen, though they still receive a royal send-off. As for the company's ponies as Bilbo and the dwarves make rather short work of the usually long trek from Lake-town to Erebor, let's just say they are missing in action, having gone completely awol, presumably at the sight of Smaug's ominous mountain.

Chapter 13, 'Not at home', appears to have been skipped altogether, as if they've (i.e. Smaug and the dwarf company) already exited the Lonely Mountain's innermost, bottom-most recesses by the end of chapter 12 - though Smaug does indeed then fly south towards Lake-town. But more significant still - in PJ Et Al's version of events, that is - we have Smaug and Bilbo & Co having now seen quite enough of each other, thank you very much; and, even more incomprehensibly, the latter, if not quite victors over against Smaug the Magnificant & Terrible, have at the very least proven themselves his veritable equal! Rather a remarkable feat if a wholly unrealistic 'touch' quite unworthy of Tolkien's original; which retains both Smaug's virtual omnipotence and inaccessibility (as well as his inimitable subtlety), and yet Bilbo's own incredible - though admittedly near-miss - elusiveness of the foul beast (via his ring-endowed invisibility). Yes, the text itself does justice to both Smaug's unrivalled status as it simultaneously showcases Bilbo 'the Thief''s extraordinary 'providential' good fortune, while also not stretching credibility by somehow attempting to place - as Desolation most assuredly does - the dwarf company (and Bilbo to boot) upon an equal footing with the dragon.

This film has all the hallmarks of ye old, tried and true adage: 'Don't confuse me with the actual story - it's the action, stupid!' Nowhere is this better shown than in Desolation's post-Elvenkingdom scenes, wherein the dwarf company, escaping their Wood-elvish captors by the literal skin of their teeth, exposed to every element, suitably aerated and well-hydrated, bobbing up and down upon a foam-flecked, whirlpooling, cascading river, are hurled continually in all directions. And that while vast and gruesome goblin hordes spare no effort in seeing these interlopers are put a speedy and grim end to. And yet...are there subsequently signs of the obvious 'wear and tear' - not to put too fine a point on it - upon the clothes, bodies (un)beautiful, let alone the countenances of said dwarves (and Bilbo)? Or the faintest facade of fatigue? As Ned Kelly might have said: 'Not on your Nelly!'

The barely-concealed reason for the much-vaunted appearance of the snazzy Tauriel  - just like that of good 'ole Legolas for that matter - is evidently to spice up the story, link in once again with the Rings' trilogy 'to come', and to provide a side tangent with which viewers can easily relate and identify. This is not only quite unnecessary, but, far worse - yet unfortunately 'par for the (film's) course' as I've oft noted - it helps to 'positively' yet ever so effectively detract from the story's main focus. Unless of course one regards Desolation's raison d'etre as being the revelation or unveiling - to the dull-witted senses of all tribes and beings upon Middle Earth - of the soon-'coming attractions' of Sauron's rapidly-emerging machinations for re-conquering the planet. Yet this popularesque side story of romantic interest PJ & Co simply can't resist, just as Jackson himself never seems able to check his insatiable appetite for exorbitant scenes of violence, the latter weakness explaining why PJ has at times been rechristened (x)'Gore Jackson' (or some permutation thereof). Which surfeit of uncalled-for sideshows was something, by the bye, which PJ Et Al were successful in avoiding in the three Rings' films, an operative (and previously well-understood) point being: 'Keep the main thing the main thing!' Likewise Sauron certainly looks every bit as impressive as his well-earned reputation warrants, but again I simply ask: what need for such? It simply encumbers - yet again - an already well fleshed-out story with needless extra detail, wholly distracting from its core plot and theme.

This superimposing of the worldwide struggle for Middle Earth between the forces of Light and Darkness into this rather innocent kids' fantasy does it, I believe, a great injustice. It does so much as poor (inadequate, if we're being charitable) parents seek to prematurely, precociously make adults of kids long before their time, rather than (simply) leaving them as long as possible to maintain their innocent, if ultimately idyllic and unrealistic worldview...before they are - all too quickly - 'brought up to speed'  (on the harsh realities of life) and thrown - often unprepared - into 'the real world' with its maelstrom, especially 'these days', of adult trials and tribulations. I say: let the kids have their own age-appropriate fantasy (i.e. The Hobbit - in all its raw, unvarnished beauty and sheer delight), while we adults have our own adult fantasy, The Lord of the Rings, and its big screen counterparts, to fall back upon. But perhaps PJ & Co have trouble getting themselves into the shoes of such an (old-fashioned) 'innocent', less techno-savvy and better read pre-teen audience.

The 'wise' Gandalf's own extremely fraught escapade into the Necromancer's hideout in Dol Guldur - while retrospectively, in light of the Rings film trilogy, 'called for' in (thus) tying together both that 'earlier' movie triad and this new cinematic Hobbit epic - only adds to the unrealistic tenor of Desolation. As if Sauron, however (then) limited to mere 'spirit' form, is not - and quite evidently so - superior physically and in every which way to 'Gandalf the Grey'. A foolhardy sortie, for sure, but one also straining credulity. Again, neither necessary (for the elaboration of or development of the basic plot) nor really adding anything useful to Tolkien's self-sufficient classic. Which has ever been quite able - and willing, I'd add, if left well enough alone - to stand upon its own well-grounded feet.

So to reiterate my basic beef with The Desolation of Smaug: in turning the cinematic Hobbit into an adult fantasy by making it a natural complement to the Lord Of The Rings film trilogy, and accordingly super-imposing onto it the essential flavour and significant characteristics of those 'earlier' Rings' movies, Jackson & Co effectively transform Tolkien's wonderful kids' tale, The Hobbit, beyond recognition. Thus giving the impression (if incorrect) at least that Middle Earthians are (probably) somewhat conversant, even au fait with Sauron's reawakening, re-materializing and re-manifesting, and moreover his menacing machinations - whereas 'in reality', as with Hobbiton at the start of Fellowship (in both film and book versions), multitudes remain in blissful ignorance. Yes, Sauron does indeed, as Tolkien's LotR well attests - (xi)but at this very point in time? - re-emerge from spirit into material form, and with that reappearance rapidly reasserts all his old evil and resumes progressing his malevolent master plan. Yes, as is often said: timing is everything.

However, not content with that huge adaptational 'gaffe', Jackson & Co then turn insult to Tolkien's respected literary legacy into unqualified injury by - in a manner akin to plagiarism - stealing and borrowing (if not begging) from their own earlier Rings' trilogy adaptations virtually entire speeches and/or scenic episodes and willy-nilly transplanting them into this 'subsequent' epic. A small matter, some might say. It's hard to characterize something which completely transforms the very tenor and nature of the original text, and does so by copying and pasting significant portions of its 'sister text' (The Lord of the Rings)'s cinematic counterpart into this 'later' prequel, as such a merely trivial re-enactment and 'update'. No, Jackson & Co have unashamedly and radically rewritten JRR's classic kids' adventure, even making it unrecognizable to Tolkien himself, I suspect. No, really.

(i) Yes, I'll readily grant it's possible PJ & Co were wary of seeming to recreate what (to my mind at least) was a brilliant and singularly unforgettable re-enactment at the start of An Unexpected Journey of the similar home 'welcoming' of the dwarves by Bilbo Baggins in Bag End. However as an essential element of the Beorn story-line the matter could surely have been dealt with in such a way as to retain its essential comic flavour without too carefully replicating that previous memorable moment.

(ii) As the Ent Treebeard in the film Two Towers endearingly dubbed them.

(iii) And so I'll certainly not make the entirely futile yet often-advanced assertion that Tolkien's mythological backdrop, at least in his LotR trilogy, was somehow meant as an analogy of what was then taking place and about to break so cruelly upon an unwaiting world. Which attempt JRR invariably and unsparingly denounced, 'allegory' being to him, if a literary genre (apparently) somewhat beloved to his close friend, professional colleague and fellow renowned fantasy writer C. S. Lewis, tantamount to an anathema.

(iv) While constituting part of that coterie of literary fellow-travellers of the selfsame name, the Inklings, which group, including C S Lewis, used to meet regularly for fellowship and mutual uplift at the Green Dragon Bar in England.

(v) Rendering that fifth of the book devoted to Mirkwood Forest as well as the lengthy sojourn with Beorn - proportionately warranting one-and-a-half hours of the three films - in barely a fifth of that time.

(vi) Though I didn't regard those Fellowship orc-hordes as being especially tiresome.

(vii) Plus shades (again!) of LotR (both book and film). Remember the splitting of the fellowship (at the very end of Fellowship), plus all the variations thereof throughout the remaining books (and films)?

(viii) Though I would accept that upon the odd occasion Jackson Et Al's improvisations do make a certain sense (as an intrinsic part of film versions of Tolkien's tales that are themselves often quite divergent from the originals). And that they definitely add to the uniqueness of each of these wholly specific versions of Middle Earth, so that we are less in danger of confusing the two (textual vis-a-vis filmic) accounts in our own minds. (For those of us already conversant with the written texts, that is, naturally more usually the older among us.) Though sadly in my own case as no doubt in so many viewers' (and readers') experiences, the visual version ever seems to take on a life of its own, often effectively if not altogether replacing (in memory) some of the highlights that are most beloved to us from the written version. Itself a rather telling commentary upon the (ix)power of the image to mould and control our understanding ever since the advent of the movie, eventually followed by television, and later other complementary (video, dvd, and blue screen) technologies, and over recent years the dominating, almost domineering role of the internet and world wide web in our modern lives.

(ix) For this idea I am indebted to the Christian apologist and radio evangelist Dr Ravi Zacharias, whose especial insights into the way in which the visual 'image' has taken over 'all our lives' here in the West and replaced good old-fashioned imagination are well worth consideration..

(x) See for instance the cat fight, dog-eat-dog depiction of the various (generally initial and final) interactions between Smeagol/Gollum and Frodo and Sam in the LOTR movie trilogy, which type of 'up the ante' violence, Yours Truly heard first-hand from a very respectable source nine years ago, was chiefly egged on by none other than (the now Sir) Peter Jackson himself.

(xi) See my comments in an adjacent blogpost upon the exceptional time lag between Sauron's reappearance here and when he finally 'arrives', c/o his Ringwraith Black Rider henchmen, at Bag End in Hobbiton of the Shire. In terms of the twelve-some odd years apparently involved. If this were really the case - and we weren't simply being 'treated' here to some typically slipshod, slapdash, slaphappy excuse for proper time-keeping by PJ Et Al - not only is Sauron no primeval Speedy Gonzalez, but I'd wager on the turtle in Aesop's famous fable beating him by a country mile. If not several.

The (PJ version) Hobbit film #2: Part One: The Power of The One (Middle Earth) Interpretation: Crapping Crassly on JRR Tolkien's Legacy, or, Witnessing a Classic Kids' Caper Morph Into Adults Fantasy, Lord of the Rings-style

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.

The (PJ version) Hobbit Film #2: Part 1b: The Power of Wielding The One Cinematic Interpretation Sees Wonderful Childhood Hobbit Fantasy Morph Into Lord of the Rings Lookalike

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.

Postscript to Syria Revisited Postscript - with sober and saner reflection

Yet I'll readily admit that World War Three would be a pretty high price to pay even if one accepts that America is right, and that Assad was the one and only culprit.. and though it's no doubt been greeted with a fair bit of ridicule and scepticism, the suggestion of dropping gas masks from Syria's skies, while providing real assistance to innocent Syrians, would hardly lead to such a diabolical outcome, would it? Unfortunately, and perhaps cataclysmically for the region if not our world, lateral thinking has hardly ever been the strong point of the 'leaders' of our global community...and if it were, not only would such a plan have been actively and deadly seriously considered from the word go, but the brilliantly creative and out-of-left- field proposal by the internet campaign outfit Avaaz would have likewise received not only some press but moreover equally meaningful consideration. No, as I've ever said, dreams are ever free (or some would say a dime a dozen). P.S. For the Avaaz plan, yes, you guessed it, 'just Google' the same, and yes, you're right once more, it's both involved (though hardly really complicated), and again I've no time now to go through it, besides which I'm sure they explain themselves far better than I ever could...

Syria Revisited: Postscript

In view of all the commentary flying thick(ly) and furiously in light of the prospect of ever-imminent military action by the United States in response to the recent ghastly chemical onslaught upon Syrian innocents... All those now theorizing that Assad et al did not in fact do the dirty deed, in a letter-day reconstruction of Conspiracy School 101...do perhaps, admittedly, have half the story, so to speak - but only half - for indeed the truth is oftentimes a lot stranger than fiction. But methinks some are now becoming a little too big for their britches, yea, too wise by half (and all the rest). To wit: If no other single piece of evidence were needed/able to be cited, the simple yet all too telling and telltale and abject refusal of Syrian authorities to allow independent United Nations observers/inspectors in to ascertain/verify (or otherwise) the situation in the first instance - in the couple hours after the gruesome incident and dastardly deed - speaks volumes, surely belying all their self-righteous denials, protestations and refutations; to both the nth degree and well beyond. Yes, this surely proves their fingerprints were all over the nasty weapons involved...and yet I happen to believe a side-theory that's now been well-asserted - on both Leighton Smith's Newstalk ZB morning talkback show and BBC News to boot, thus combining conspiracy theorists anonymous and the liberal media establishment incorporated... Which is this: that Bashir's own kid brother, in order to pull one over his highly placed sibling, is indeed thus manoeuvering and manipulating events to gain an advantage, subtle, covert and underhand yet ever so effective, over him in the not-so-distant here-after.... As head of one of the major military subdivisions of Assad's army, he stands to gain from Bashir's being targeted and ultimately 'taken out' by whomever, whether foreign nations like the U.S., fellow Syrians or Al-Qaeda operatives within the land...it really matters not a lot. His desire thus to take over power from his brother can thus be effectively and ingeniously realized with no-one suspecting the real culprit in the chemical attack, and scapegoats (especially foreign and long-despised) be thus conveniently found to cop all the fallout and flak resulting from the horrific episode. Mission Accomplished - and no-one suspects a thing! (Or so he presumes.) Yes indeed, things are not always quite what they appear - though admittedly that remains just a theory, but a pretty good and convincing one in my book anyhow.

Syria Revisited

Yes, the U.N. is once more found conspicuously missing in action when and where it really matters..."So what else is new?" you ask. Which of course is why the good ole U S of A is once again expected to 'pick up the slack' and act as Global Cop/Enforcer (the World's Moral Policeman)...ever and mercilessly pilloried by all and sundry for just such interventionism... And so commendable if altogether predictable words today from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon that the U.N. may well (and none too) soon have a 'moral obligation' to act...i.e. against the Syrian leader's chemical assault upon his own people - whatever such action may actually happen to entail/necessitate...(naturally another matter entirely, but good luck to that vain hope, as it'll not happen, quite obviously, except in a fool's paradise). Meanwhile American Secretary of State (and one-time Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry has indeed addressed, and well, the issue - ever simmering on the back-burner - of 'unintended consequences', (e.g. and most worrisomely, no doubt, a spillover into a regional 'all out', and, through targeting of Israel, potentially a far wider and world-engulfing conflagration). But, however sure he may (at least claim to) be, I fear and suspect that the world's other (alongside America) favourite whipping boy Israel will once more be used/employed as the region's, and world's, fall-guy by the likes of Assad et al. Welcome one and all to International RealPolitik 101 in the 21st Century!

The Sad Story of Syria: A Scary, Shameful and Sorry Episode in the Tome of Human History

At Last!!! I can compose something again. Hurrah! But now need some shuteye, Folks! Accepting (i.e. hoping you do/will) my utter lack of technical expertise re this blogsite, even now...though suspicions of viral attacks from cyberspace are more and more seeming the reason, though naturally enough I'm hardly vainglorious enough to suspect that Yours Truly himself is especially being targeted! The situation, it can scarcely help being admitted, is becoming increasingly complicated and multifaceted/dimensional by the day and hour...to the everlasting shame and embarrassment of a growing multitude of world leaders...but despite this, and the many and various diabolical consequences allegedly resulting from taking the most-cited action/s being bandied about...there are any number of issues I'd like to take with some of the more popular (especially New Zealand's own TV3 Three60) media coverage of the situation, especially in regards to British (and soon American) political decision-making upon the matter... Why not rather - as is equally reasonable, surely - see/cite/frame this (parliamentary/congressional assent-seeking exercise) as a great/signal victory for democracy - unlike Obama's own (hitherto) undemocratic approach...For, unlike Tony Blair, not only did the (i.e. Britain's) Parliament decide, and so it wasn't merely yet another 'done deal', done-and-dusted type of all too familiar scenario...yes, not only did said parliament decide, and against, striking Syria's chemical weapons silos/facilities, but their current Prime Minister, David Cameron, unlike said Labour predecessor, actually - lo and behold, will miracles never cease? - gave them a choice in the matter. Yes indeed, he put the question to his nation's own political representatives, and that before committing himself/his nation's 'troops'. As he has also done, incidentally, vis-a-vis the European Union, again so unlike his ever-so-controversial, yea never-so-contentious, penultimate predecessor. Yes, in contrast to Mike McRoberts' et al's framing of the matter as a (supposed, but indeed technically-speaking it most certainly was) victory for (the once Great) Britain's 'loyal' Opposition, and likewise a political defeat for David Cameron personally...surely eco-terrorism by a state is/goes WAY BEYOND mere party politics... It is in fact a power vested in him (DC) - the so-called 'royal prerogative' - to declare (unilateral, British) war (in this case on Syria; as Margaret Thatcher did upon Argentina in the long ago on behalf of the Malvinas, or rather Falkland Islands) or at least precision missile strikes on its chemical weapons facilities/silos. So at least he has some legitimate 'cred' to his democratic credentials, accepting/acknowledging as he soon thereafter did: "I respect the British public's view [thus expressed by their parliamentary representatives] to not [strike] Syria. I get that, and so we won't be going. So sure, said 'incident' may well be characterized as a signal defeat for the British P.M., but that's a little like ye old glass half full, or half empty scenario - it all depends upon one's attitude/perspective upon such matters, one's preconceptions and presuppositions so to speak... But where oh where are these selfsame voices when it somes to the all too deafening silence coming out of the two organizations whose involvement is not only altogether relevant to the situation but moreover has never been more needed, i.e. the Arab League and the United Nations. Yes, both, as ever, mouthing all the right and proper sentiments one would expect to be expressed in such circumstances, but, in the final analysis, doing diddly squat...and sadly, that will not help one solitary child or adult (male or female), in Syria today...and, as I say, in the final analysis, what else really matters? No, really? P.S. And please don't give me ye ole Rwanda situation...as the old saying goes, two wrongs have never made a single right...and no, we do indeed learn not a whit from history's lesson book, and so are doomed to endlessly repeat its mistakes, nay tragic 'missteps'...but come again now, folks, surely only a rather pathetic apologist for Germany's infamous Nazi Regime could possibly characterize such historical blindness as mere technical faux pas...there used to be such a thing as moral outrage and indignation, but sadly that now seems a rather lost cause P.P.S. And the good ole US of A, and moreover its present hapless Commander-In-Chief, on this matter anyhow, simply cannot win. Yes, whatever it does - or in this case (perhaps) doesn't do, it simply cannot win...either way...no, it's damned if it does indeed do something/anything, and it's damned if it doesn't. P.P>P>S> But if America ever does revert to ye old and much-maligned 'isolationist' stance in world affairs, please, oh please, oh mainstream media, don't give us the usual cant of America dare not do so...for if, for a change, you examine your own never-ending critique of the States - over decades past - whenever it does do so you damn it anyway...hey, but due (and way overdue) self-reflection and self-awareness was never ever one of said media's strong points, was it?Hey, but if you ever and only and always blame ye good ole US of A for each and every and any problem the world suffers, has suffered or ever might suffer, methinks you'll thus be able to hide from giving ye selves a pretty good look in the mirror...and perhaps, just for once, not really liking - very much - what you happen to see. But, hey, welcome to the real world! (To be perfectly kind about the matter... .)

Yes, I didn't like the last bunch (very much), but this lot I don't trust...AT ALL

And for that matter New Zealand's political leaders, as they come to decide upon sweeping new security surveillance powers, aka 'the GSCB': May they back away from this Orwellian 'vision' (i.e. nightmare), before it is 'forever' too late...

And (the residents of Sichuan Province,) China, for that matter...

Let's Keep the U S of A in our prayers at this time: she needs it more than ever...