16 December 2013

THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE DRAWING NEAR TO THE END OF THEIR JOURNEY, AND THAT IT MIGHT BE A VERY HORRIBLE END

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug had every reason on Earth to be clearly and significantly better than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but it's much closer to being a dead heat. This ends up being far, far more depressing than An Unexpected Journey was in isolation, for there was still hope after that movie. Now there is not, for the dragon bits have been mostly used up with this film, and we've all known all along that the dragon bits would be the best part of the trilogy or tetralogy or septet or however many films Peter Jackson and company figured they could extract from a slender, brightly-paced children's book.

What isn't the case, to a shocking degree is that The Desolation of Smaug is variably weak and strong in the same general ways that A Long-Protracted Journey was. For two films made by the same crew and as part of the same production schedule, they are wildly different. They have, in fact, almost precisely opposite flaws: where the last film inched by with a slavish devotion to J.R.R. Tolkien's 1937 novel that crushed any sense of imagination or pacing, The Desolation of Smaug runs screaming from one plot point to the next, barely stopping to let anything sit and simmer and become rich and good. It invents huge swaths of totally new material, leaving even the plot points that Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens kept intact from the book feeling totally different because the context is so different; and where An Unendurable Journey needed, desperately, to break free a bit from the shackles of the book, The Desolation of Smaug is absolutely at its best when it's hewing closest to Tolkien and vividly, even objectively, at its worst when it is furthest away.

For also unlike its predecessor, it's spectacularly uneven. The opening 30 minutes and much of the last 30 are all pretty fantastic, far better than anything in the first movie save for its wonderful Gollum scene; but the middle of the film is a godawful wreck, as is the wildly inconsequential, jammed-in action setpiece that closes the thing. Moreover, the whole thing suffers, badly from a strange decision to refocus attention from the hobbit of the title to literally any other possible source: Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is still very much the best performance in the film, and at his best moments still reaches the highest heights that any actor in any of Jackson's five (so far) Middle Earth epics have reached, but there are literally 20 minute chunks of the film where he barely even appears in the background of shots, and if someone were to tell me that he has less than 30 lines in the entire 160-minute feature, I wouldn't doubt them for a moment. That leaves us with no protagonist, but just a collection of ensemble-driven vignettes, and since The Hobbit across two films has only really bothered to establish four characters, most of those vignettes hang around people we have no reason to care about.

The plot, anyway, opens with a prologue that establishes Gandalf the wizard's (Ian McKellen) secret reason for wishing the exiled dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) should retrieve his kingdom at Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, from the dragon Smaug (voiced and mo-capped by Benedict Cumberbatch), and this leads into Gandalf's very own B-plot, in which he leaves Thorin's band of 13 dwarves and one hobbit to go hunting in the ruins of Dol Guldur, where a malevolent being naming itself the Necromancer (Cumberbatch also) is working to build an army to conquer Middle Earth. Meanwhile, that same band, after a dodgy, ill-expressed layover with a were-bear named Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), enters the foreboding forest of Mirkwood, hoping to arrive at Erebor more quickly than a circuitous route could provide, eventually falling afoul of the insular wood elves led by King Thranduil (Lee Pace) who live in the last relatively clean part of the woods. One thrilling escape later, the dwarf band arrives at the town Esgaroth, built on a lake at the foot of Erebor, where a local named Bard (Luke Evans) helps them to hide from the vain, tyrannical Burgomaster (Stephen Fry). Eventually, once Thorin's goal comes out, the people of Esgaroth are thrilled to put their lot in with the dwarves, convinced that this is the arrival of a prophesied king who will defeat the evil Smaug and bring peace and prosperity back to their village. Thus does the party, slightly reduced from sickness, journey all the way to the Lonely Mountain, where Bilbo is obliged to go deep into the depths of the former dwarf empire and parlay directly with the great dragon, whose amusement at the mewling size of this burglar is the only thing that keeps him from eating the hobbit outright.

That, hectically-expressed, is the whole plot of Peter Jackson's The Desolation of Smaug, which is not exactly the same as the plot of the middle third of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, but the point is the largely the same in either case: was there a need for a love triangle between an elf woman, an elf man, and a dwarf? Absolutely fucking not, and yet that is something present in the film regardless, and while it takes up only a little bit of screentime - 15 or 20 minutes all told, about the same length as any other individual plot in this overstuffed, jaggedly-paced, slurry - it is a deadly dull stretch that exemplifies the weirdest thing about this movie. Allegedly, the reason there are three Hobbits, instead of a nice sane two (we'll agree that one was just too damn much to hope for), was because of the amount of material to fit into it. Fine and dandy, but then why does The Desolation of Smaug consist to such a degree of material either changed to the point of being unrecognisable (the Beorn scene), augmented far beyond what Tolkien ever needed to get the same plot across (the political thriller that unfolds in Esgaroth), or straight-up invented? I get the need for even a single female character, and thus Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly); I get that it makes narrative sense for Legolas (Orlando Bloom), the character from The Lord of the Rings beloved by virtually nobody including the book's author, to show up; I don't get at all that the way to make this happen was by resorting to such a lazy, sexist notion as the girl who really loves this one guy - the designated "sexy dwarf", Kili (Aidan Turner) - while the other guy who loves her just rubs her the wrong way. Particularly in the overwhelmingly sexless universe Tolkien created.

Anyway, the film is insanely full of such pointless inventions that I would say distract from the plot, except that the secret is that The Desolation of Smaug lacks a plot: the book was already largely episodic, but An Unexpected Journey sidestepped this by giving itself an overriding villain and a character arc for both Bilbo and Thorin that was, unfortunately, largely resolved by the end. The Desolation of Smaug practically brags about how little flow there is between events, and the only reason it has any shape at all is because we know that this is a trilogy, and getting to the dragon's lair is a major point in that trilogy. But there is absolutely nothing that resembles a self-contained narrative (I suspect, with horror, that the Tauriel-Kili story was meant to provide that spine), and the film ends on an outright cliffhanger with nothing resolved. It should be pointed out that in the book, this same point is actually more of a narrative pause that makes sense, since Tolkien didn't throw in a spurious action scene that actually makes the film less coherent, and leaves Smaug's final actions in the film not just unmotivated, but completely irrational (indeed, the whole action sequence suggests that this ancient, ingenious monster is a big dumb animal who can be buffaloed as easily as the antagonist in a Bugs Bunny cartoon).

The film lives and dies, then, on the strength of its individual sequences, and these live and die almost entirely based on how closely they drift towards outright horror. For horror was the genre in which Jackson first made his name, and it is still the genre that he does best (in all three Lord of the Rings films, but especially The Return of the King, as well as in King Kong, the most vitally-directed sequences are the most horrific), and two of the three most successful sequences in The Desolation of Smaug are among the most explicitly horror-like scenes he's directed since the 1990s. One of these is the trek through Mirkwood, where outstandingly spooky production design and perfectly-chosen camera angles to create maximum disorientation and fear combine to make one of the best haunted woods I've ever seen in a movie (and the culminating fight against giant spiders is the film's best setpiece, anchored in mood and character rather than CGI choreography); the other is Gandalf's hunt through a haunted place called the High Fells, the one time in either Hobbit film that feels like it reaches the same terrible grandeur of the more epic moments in The Fellowship of the Ring, and I am here primarily thinking of the mines of Moria.

The third great sequence is the chat between Bilbo and Smaug (making this twice in two films that the highlight is a conversation between Freeman and a CGI effect), which also happens to be the scene most identical to Tolkien's book. This is in part because of two great performances, in part because of the cat-and-mouse thriller choreography, and in huge part because Smaug is such a fantastic visual effect: easily the best-looking movie dragon that I can think of, both in design and execution. It comes at exactly the right moment to redeem a flagging movie and almost leave it on a high note (that climactic chase scene is a movie-killer), and that would be the most irritating thing of all: no matter how much The Desolation of Smaug gets wrong, its successes are terrific. The effects are good if not great (better across the board than An Unexpected Journey, though the presence of CG, rather than practical orcs is still a problem), Howard Shore's increasingly derivative score gets the pulse quickening, cinematographer Andrew Lesnie once again makes New Zealand look so beautiful that it's sickening. We cannot write The Desolation of Smaug off as quickly as its predecessor, this is all to say. But for the exact same reasons, we can be even more frustrated by how much of it simply doesn't work at the levels of plot, character, or imaginative filmmaking.

6/10

18 comments:

  1. I much preferred A Terribly Long Journey, whose last 60 minutes was some of the best, most exuberant filmmaking I'd seen.

    The main problem is, as you pointed out, there's no character arc for anybody. So all the feelings and warm fuzzies that I associate with this franchise aren't there.

    So what's left? A lot of firsts for me in a Jackson film. First time I've ever considered his editing too busy and too rapid. First I've ever felt like he is repeating himself (after Shelob and the Face-Suckers in King Kong, do we really need another giant insect scene from him?). First, I've ever just gotten the hell sick of his whirling dervish camera, and would give all the lembas in the world if he would just bloody plant it somewhere and keep still.

    I'm a sucker for his vision, so I was still entertained. But I didn't feel any of the high's of the previous four middle-earth adventures.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I figured this trilogy peaked with the Riddles in the Dark scene, so I have no interest in seeing this, especially with so much else to catch this season. I do wonder what I would think of it, though, since you and I seem to have opposite opinions of An Unexpected Journey. I thought that the material that came straight from the book in that film was fine to great; it was all the extraneous crap that Jackson threw in that bogged everything down. It sounds like that's the case here too, albeit with 'middle chapter' issues that make the pacing even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eventually, once Thorin's goal comes out, the people of Esgaroth are thrilled to put their lot in with the dwarves, convinced that this is the arrival of a prophesied king who will defeat the evil Smaug and bring peach and prosperity back to their village.

    I know this is just a garden-variety typo, but all I could think was "Thank you Bilbo! But our plot resolution is in another movie!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hayley- The spider scene didn't bother me all that much; a fella knows how to do a giant killer insect scene well, I says let him keep doing them. And it was just about the only place where Bilbo actually got to have a really interesting character moment in the first two hours, so that was good too.

    Benjamin- I should definitely clarify: I certainly didn't care much for the newly-invented material in AUJ. My problem with the stuff taken directly from the book was that there was SO much of it, and it was presented without any kind of editorial choices whatsoever.

    But definitely, the big problem here is that the new material is uninteresting in and of itself, and forced into a narrative that absolutely cannot make any use of such things as an elf-elf-dwarf love triangle.

    Not Fenimore: :P

    ReplyDelete
  5. Huge disappointment, I mean the Smaug sequence was almost ruined because of the constant cutting to the dwarf/elf story that was a total waste! If the movie had been trimmed it could have been a great flick but no, it has to be ridiculously long and I just don´t understand why, there´s simply not enough story. Also, it´s getting more and more clear that Jackson is repeating himself, the movie feels a bit lazy despite the frenzied editing. Hopefully he´ll do a low budget horror movie again…but wait, there´s Tintin:(

    ReplyDelete
  6. I enjoyed this installment far more than the first one, but it is heavily flawed. I didn't mind most of the changes from the book, though I don't think they were necessary as this is still a good 30 minutes longer than it needs to be.

    While I think the Kili/Tauriel/Legolas subplot was pretty stupid, I'm still willing to take it on the grounds that it is meant to give one of the interchangeable dwarves a personality and something to do. Anything to establish personalities (as opposed to visual designs) for the company is welcome. That it fails is disappointing, but at least it tried.

    I don't think that the chase through Erebor is film-killing (though just barely) I can see where you're coming from. I can buy some of the logic from Thorin's plan, in that the heroes are both numerous and small, and Smaug is too big to chase them all at once. That said, the whole bit felt like a Scooby Doo chase, and there were several points where everyone would have died if Smaug had done anything other than stand around and sneer.

    The ending to that sequence though...that bugs me. I don't mind that Smaug was dumbstruck by the giant statue; he's a greedy dragon, and that was several metric shit-tons of gold. What bothers me is that instead of just killing the dwarves after no-selling the molten gold, Smaug decides to bail and go after Laketown. The whole sequence would have worked better if it were shorter and Smaug had left immediately after taunting Bilbo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Augh. While I won'T say that the film was bad, I just don't understand why the whole thing has to be so incredibly long, especially that PJ&Co. had to make up completely new material (with Tauriel) to fill the time slot! Why?
    Also, yes, while the first movie felt stretched out and sluggish, this one jumps merrily from one scene to another, regardless of importance or atmosphere. Beorn's character is completely wasted, and poor Bilbo gets to play second fiddle to Kili (or Fili, that dwarf that gets shot in the leg). This could have been so much better.
    But the biggest problem is, in my opinion, is that by including the pre-LOTR subplot with the orcs, Radagast and Sauron, the whole main plot with the dwarfs/Smaug seems unsignificant. 'Yeah, we have to slay this dragon and re-claim some throne or whatever. OMG Sauron is coming back!' Everyone in the audience knows that Sauron is the greater threat, and from this perspective, the whole plot of the original novel becomes... little. What a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another thing: the whole affair starts to remind me of Star Wars, where the prequels also suffered from the fanboyish need to include everything from the original trilogy, at the expense of plot/character development.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jackson seems to have taken a leaf from old Lucas's book. He's made an unnecessary prequel trilogy utilizing new technology that makes everything look fake. I wonder if we will see a J.J. Abrams "Children of Hurin."

    However, I have not seen this latest Hobbit. Did you see it at 48fps and if so was it as shitty as the first time?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I saw it in 48 fps, and I loved it as much as I did the first time, but I'm in the minority of HFR lovers on this blog.

    Overall, I really enjoyed DoS, though - slightly - less so than UJ. It's closer to an 8 than a 6 in my book. I get all the criticism, but I just like spending time in that world. Plus, the action scenes were badass and Jackson even made Legolas legitimately fun to watch, which is not something I ever thought I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are you trying to make me sad about my plans to see this next week? :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The saddest part is how wasteful the whole exercise has been, especially given Freeman's perfect Bilbo. I'm convinced a good editor could cut together a phenomenal 120-minute Hobbit film out of the best scenes of these two and whatever need be thrown in from the third. There's a lot of gold glittering beneath all of Jackson's dross.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To be fair, Tim, I was making fun of Jackson, not you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Matticus- That's exactly what I meant by film-killing. The ending makes no sense the way it's presented here: why in the hell does he zip off to Laketown. And all to cram in a useless setpiece.

    GeoX & zimnomel- Between the two of you, I think you've perfectly described the problem here: Jackson isn't interested in making a movie of The Hobbit, but a Hobbit-shaped LOTR prequel, and the implicit contempt for the source material is starting to be a chore.

    Nathan- I didn't even see it in 3-D! Which may explain why I generally liked the CGI more this time.

    Caleb- I'd be shocked if there's not a 2.5 to 3-hour fan edit within a week of the third movie hitting DVD. 120 minutes might be on the short side, but not by much; Rankin & Bass were able to make a decent adaptation in just 78 minutes, after all.

    Not Fenimore- Oh, I got that, and I liked the joke. The typo is fixed, at any rate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The only justification for Smaug bailing that I can think of is that he couldn't see the dwarves and was in intense pain due to being covered in molten gold. As much as he wants to kill the dwarves, he needs to get out of the golden badness and somehow shake it off and he knows that the door is right behind him. Plus he was going to destroy Laketown just to torment Bilbo anyway.

    I know it's not very good reasoning, but it's all I've got. The entire sequence does go on far too long and would have made much more sense if Smaug had left immediately after taunting Bilbo. That at least would have made sense--Smaug is frustrated and realizes that this chasing isn't getting him anywhere. He knows the "hero" type well enough to know that destroying a town full of innocents would break them.

    I might also be going too easy on the film simply because Thorin's plan was something straight out of some D&D games I've seen. It's actually a pretty good trap for a dragon when you think about it. Too bad they'd already foreshadowed the Black Arrows as being the only thing that could harm a dragon, so even people who had never read the books would know that the plan wasn't going to work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now I've seen it and I'm with you.

    How many times can someone be saved by a sudden arrow strike before I groan?

    How many times can they stab me in the heart by cutting from a real-life close-up to a wide shot of poorly rendered CG characters running across a beautiful landscape.

    How many useless characters with no arc can they introduce?

    How often can they show an awesome orc with practical effects, immediately followed by a group of crappy CG orcs?

    Why does a metal shield not conduct heat from molten mother-fuckin' lava?!

    Are orcs the LotR equivalent of completely useless laser droids from star wars, easily dispatched by even a non-fighting hobbit?

    These are the questions I was asking myself during The Desolation of Smaug.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @zimnomel - I couldn't agree more about the subversion of this story to the LotR. The Hobbit should be a one off and if there are subtle cues as to what's to come in a few years, well...I'm good with that. Too bad the cues aren't subtle but rather repeated beatings over the head...for example, the countless Bilbo long stares at the golden doom in his palm.

    But my biggest complaints are for the action set pieces. Interesting pieces of comic/action mayhem that would work well in a different film. Too bad they are out of place - not quite as bad as the cave chase in the first Hobbit but still just tipped me right out of the movie. It almost feels like the whole pesky story is just a means to allow Jackson to stage these cartoonish sequences.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm writing this as a person who read the books and love them... I found most of changes Jackson made honest improvements. I enjoy the first movie A LOT, and I enjoy the second one enought to see it twice and...

    ...don't kill me...

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.