The first entry in this bloated trilogy (more on that
momentarily), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), served as an entertaining, if
very uneven, prologue. With all the particulars out of the way, Desolation
moves at an almost frantic, though uneven, pace. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman)
is still journeys with Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) and The Company of
Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) to enter the Lonely Mountain and reclaim
their kingdom from the terrifying dragon, Smaug (a sublimely evil,
motion-captured Benedict Cumberbatch). Along the way, Gandalf separates from
the companions in order to investigate a familiar, growing evil and the troupe
must overcome obstacles, including escaping imprisonment from wood elves, and
skulking about the city of Lake-Town which lies at the edge of the Lonely
Mountain, to attempt to regain the Arkenstone, which would cement Oakenshield’s
claim to rule.
The film is sumptuous to look at. While the film's vision is
distinctly Jackson’s, it is somewhat filtered through the unique lens of
Guillermo Del Toro, who brought his Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy sensibilities to
the film particularly in the setting of Lake-town (and quite possibly Erebor
itself). Whereas the previous film returned to locations first seen in the
original trilogy, cinematographer Andrew Lesnie and conceptual designer (and noted Tolkien artist) Alan
Lee, the world of Middle-Earth is expanded and feels like a real world in and of itself. The
visuals do capture the mythological epic nature of Tolkien's fantasy world...
...that is, if Tolkien's world was fully represented.
Jackson's Tolkien-based films have always been a source of
division among the fans of the source material, mostly due to his penchant for
embellishing upon, or outright straying from, said works. Of all these films,
The Desolation of Smaug may be the most divisive to date. Jackson’s additions
not only give new motivations and angst for existing characters where
originally there were none, he goes so far as to create a completely new and
prominent new character that never existed in Tolkien’s books. Before 2001, one
of the arguments against a film adaptation was the belief that the books were,
as written, "unfilm-able". In order to make the original LOTR film
trilogy, many liberties were taken to entertain and attract the non-Tolkien
masses. Some of those changes were controversial, but on the whole, the essence
of Tolkien's work, if not the details, remained relatively intact. In this
film…not so much.
The question becomes how much does one change the source
material before it becomes virtually divorced from it? For example, “The
Hobbit” is presented from the point of view of Bilbo Baggins. However, in this
film Bilbo is the focus for part of the first third and is practically
invisible until it is time for him to enter Erebor. The problem with inserting
material from corresponding tales from "The Silmarillion" and
"Unfinished Tales" is that Bilbo is no longer the story’s focal point and,
as such, is relegated to background. This lack of one
cohesive protagonist confuses as well as diffuses the power of the film's narrative. It's not to say that the other characters are uninteresting. In fact,
nothing could be further from the truth. All of the actors acquit themselves
rather well with on one performer being a standout (including newcomers Lee
Pace, Luke Evans and Stephen Fry as “King Thandruil”, “Bard the Bowman” and
“The Master of Lake-town”, respectively, among others). However, this film is
titled The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug; one would expect to follow the
events from that character’s point of view for the majority of the film.
Further, without going into spoiler-ish details, there are
instances of scenes where Jackson contradicts the first trilogy, particularly
where the elves are concerned. Then there's the problem of Evangeline Lilly's
"Meredith"...er… "Tauriel", a character created by Peter
Jackson and Fran Walsh. She exists because (since as far as I remember, there
were no female characters in “The Hobbit”) modern day storytelling practically
necessitates a female presence (which is not a chauvinistic judgment call, but
merely a statement of fact). Her character is Middle-Earth's Katniss Everdeen;
sure of bow, strong of character and stout of heart. Her presence, however
pleasing to the eye or sympathetic to the viewer, is virtually unnecessary as
she neither detracts nor adds to the proceedings. Due to studio decree, a
romantic triangle was added after completion of principle photography in order
to create a love triangle between her, Legolas (Orlando Bloom, reprising a character
who, like Frodo Baggins, Galadriel and Saruman, was not in the book) and the
dwarven Kili (a soulful Aidan Turner). This romance poses a problem in the fact
that both the LOTR books and films establish that the first rekindling of peace
between the dwarves and elves came about from the friendship forged between
Legolas and Gimli (John Rhys Davis). However, the portions of Howard Shore's
moving score that pertain to Tauriel hint that all may not end well for anyone
involved in this triangle. Nevertheless, her inclusion does add some added context for Legolas' behavior in the LOTR film trilogy but, again, it isn't a necessary addition to begin with.
Is this addition emotionally moving? Yes. Is it necessary?
Perhaps for the film, if one were to take these films as their own separate
entity from the books. And it has to be, for Peter Jackson takes liberties that
changes not only whole climatic sequences in order to enhance dramatic effect,
but completely changes the motivations of some characters to have them resonate
to a 21st century audience. In many ways, he rewrites Tolkien (and not always
for the better). As previously asserted in other reviews on this blog, changes
deemed necessary for cinematic translation of literary works are acceptable
so long as the filmmakers get the essence of the characters and story right. In
many ways, this time Jackson doesn't. One of the most egregious (and most
likely to incite ire amongst the purists) is during Bilbo's fateful
confrontation with Smaug, practically changing the antagonist's character and
thus transforming the entire dynamic of the scene. Unfortunately, it doesn't improve
matters.
Despite the fact that in terms of pacing and action this
film far surpasses its predecessor, it is filled with bloat. Some action
sequences take far longer than required and it is painfully obvious that it is for the purpose of stretching the running time. On the whole, the film tries too hard to add gravitas to such an extent it almost calls attention to the fact that this film is mostly padding to get to The Hobbit: There and Back Again. Of all the
films thus far, this may be the weakest of composer Howard Shore's offerings. His music
is still powerfully evocative, but it is as uneven as the film itself. He eschews use of the dwarves'
theme, so prominent in the previous film, favoring a recurring elvish motif
that is not quite as distinct. The "One Ring" theme does present
itself in this film, albeit in short bursts. In terms of music, this is Shore's
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.
Unfortunately, the CGI is also
uneven. A sequence involving the dwarves
escape from the elven kingdom is almost no better than an Xbox game. The main focus of the digital special effects must have been
Smaug the Dragon, who is rendered so realistically he almost seems too real. Never has a dragon been so beautifully
represented in terms of size, scope, and menace.
The film is extremely, though frustratingly, enjoyable; in some
ways, more so than the first. However, it pales next to The Lord of the Rings:
The Two Towers, which is generally considered to be the weakest entry of the previous
trilogy. It also ends in a very visceral cliffhanger, making one very
frustrated in having to wait an entire year for the finale.
Essentially, this film is a mixed bag. It tries too hard to
have the same weight and import as The Lord of the Rings. For people who haven’t read the book(s), the inconsistent characterization might be overlooked and the ride enjoyed for what it is. For Tolkien purists,
just roll with it. The film is based on
the book(s), and should be taken for what it is…Tolkien-lite. Just remember
going in that this is Peter Jackson's house; we're simply guests in it.
>Chomp<
