Well I finally decided to go and watch The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and now I know why I took
so long to finally watch it. My instincts told me not to go and while I was
watching it on the big screen I realized that you must not go against your
instincts. It’s not that it is a bad film, because it was good while it lasted,
but there was not much of an impact. No matter how much money these hobbit
films make they still rest in the shadow of the LOTR Mountain. I do believe that Jackson should have found a
different way to tell this particular story. He applied the same techniques
that he used in his great 3 part LOTR
trilogy but by this conclusion the story still just felt like a storm in a tea
cup. You can blow it up with special effects, action and great production
design but the core of the story still remains the same. When people go around
saying that the visuals in The Hobbit
are more spectacular than those in the LOTR that rings like hollow praise because
that is to be expected in 2014 as opposed to 2003.
This final film in The
Hobbit trilogy, chronicles how the band of dwarves and the hobbit , Bilbo
Baggins, led by Thorin adjust to life in
the mountain vacated by the dragon Smaug. With the mountain’s treasure hoard
now in their possession this leads to conflict with the men from Lake Town and
the elves as each wants to claim their share.
While they bicker amongst themselves the shadow in the north makes its
move as an army f trolls and orcs advance in order to wage war.
Positives
While this film is still in the shadow of the LOTR it still manages to hold its own
as a good fantasy film. It is much better than the other fantasy films out
there today and that is testament to the huge impact of the source material and
the LOTR films. Jackson also has his own way of telling
Tolkien’s stories about Middle Earth and it is quite clear in The Hobbit as it
was in the LOTR films. Jackson seems
to be interested in the tragic elements at the core of our existence regardless
of the good times on the surface. Things are never what they seem and this is
one of my favourite themes. This is the
element he makes an effort to add to these hobbit films which were not present
in the book. In the book the affliction known as dragon sickness is more or
less brushed aside but there are moments when Jackson seeks to add some element
of visual appeal to this affliction. This notion of the dragon sickness would
appeal to someone like Jackson because of its tragic element and how the person
responds positively to emerge triumphant even if they are at death’s door.
Jackson does not shy from the tragic element and that gives his films about
Middle Earth a significant edge over other fantasy films; even the Harry Potter films. Other fantasy
films acknowledge tragedy as some sort of back story or some big reveal but
Jackson carries it along throughout always reminding us of how much these
tragic elements at the core of humankind can effect even the presentation of
the physical structures that are supposed to keep them secure. Tragic elements
always manage themselves physically as a decaying element and for it to be
exorcised it will require great effort and upheaval. In the Hobbit films this can be seen with
presence of Smaug, the shadow of sauron in the North, the massive treasure
hoard that comes with dragon sickness etc.
All of these elements require some significant effort to be removed and
removing them comes at a cost. You can’t
get away from the cost that comes with upheaval. This was ever present in the LOTR and Jackson tries to reintroduce
these themes here although there is not much impact. It does not feel like the
end of an era like the LOTR but the
elements are there and I could recognize them. The LOTR the doom of man was a
theme was ever present and the redemption near the end (with the help of the
hobbits) made it a truly moving, epochal
experience.
While there is no doom of man episode, that could makes it
relatable to human beings, the story of The Hobbit is really the story about
this gold hoard in the lonely mountain. It also represents its own form of doom
for those involved. By the end however it is not clear about what becomes of
the treasure and how things are rebuilt. This is where Jackson could have
improved on the book.
Jackson’s emphasis on fleshing out the story of the hobbit,
over three films of considerable length, can be seen as admirable for all of
the work put in to make these films have more of an impact than a cartoon. The
Hobbit was written by Tolkien as a children’s story and so it seemed more akin to
fable than a very detailed story. Jackson tries to add detail here to make the
adventure seem more complete and some of his own additions misfire but it’s
still hard to argue with his decision to add some detail to the story. Instead
of a mention there is an attempt to give a lot of elements from the source material some
dramatic heft including the introduction of characters that were not in the
book. The only thing wrong with adding all of this detail is that it will
misfire if it does not have the impact and this happened a lot in these series
of films.
The visuals in this film are, not surprisingly, great. The
major difference here is that in some moments the visuals really do convey the
tragic side particularly Thorin’s dragon sickness.
I also liked how they documented how a leader was born in
lake town. The man that slew the dragon is risen to the status of a king and it
goes to show that you have to prove yourself as a leader because the previous
leader seemed to be afflicted by dragon sickness as well.
At the end of the film when the lights came back I saw a
woman seated in the same row about 2 or 3 seats down crying. If she was crying
as a result of the film then that must be achievement particularly if others
have a similar reaction. This goes to show that the techniques that Jackson
applied to the LOTR can still reach some members of an audience when applied to
story of The Hobbit which is much smaller in scope.
Negatives
The primary negative of this film is the lack of an impact.
Most of the spectacle you come to expect, that was also present in the LOTR, is there as well as a lot of romantic
moments and a lot of tragic episodes. Even with all of that the impact near the
end was still not as effecting. Jackson seemed to be trying to recreate the
effect of the battle of the pelennor fields especially as 5 armies are involved
in this grand clash but even when you see all the CGI numbers on the screen it
rings hollow. The spectacle is nothing without the dramatic heft. In The Two Towers & The Return of the King when people saw
those massive numbers on screen there was a lot of awe there. Jackson benefitted
from the element of surprise. If anyone remembers how Saruman’s army was
revealed in The Two Towers you get what I’m saying. When people saw all
those numbers on screen it did not matter that it was CGI. This was 2002-2003
and so it was very impressive and visionary in its intent. Now people are long
past that and so the awe is no longer there. Jackson can no longer surprise
with his massive numbers. Even the swarming killer bats seem pasted on. Trolls are taken down pretty easily in battle.
With all those numbers it’s a wonder that the orcs lost. In the LOTR
Jackson had the benefit of theme associated with the doom of man. In this case
the spectacle of war resonated. The charge of the Rohirrim in The Return of the King was a clash of
massive numbers but it was emotionally charged because you understood what was
at stake, the doom of man. You wondered how they would rise to the challenge
and by did they rise against all the odds. The buildup was just as important. In
this current release there is not much at stake. In some cases they are
protecting a lonely desolate mountain from being a mere strategic point for the
enemy. Jackson did attempt to make it seem that something was at stake and
those that understand Tolkien’s world will understand it but how do you get it
to resonate emotionally with those not so familiar. Where is the universal appeal? What is the
theme that will resonate for years to come and will bring The Hobbit to mind? When I was actively promoting the LOTR while at
high school the one thing that got people charged was the theme related to the
doom of man and how the overwhelming odds were overcome. They didn’t care for the history of middle
earth or the intricacies of the Tolkien culture but they could identify with
that theme related to the doom of man. The
Hobbit does not have such a universal appeal and seems to be piggy backing
on the greatness of the LOTR. There is even a reference to Aragorn in this film and that was not necessary for
the story of the hobbit unless there is some piggy backing going on.
Other elements that seemed tack on is the lovers triangle
with legolas, the female elf and a dwarf. It was all unnecessary because it
achieved nothing. It has no resonance and I was livid while watching it and was
asking for a move on. If dwarf was supposed to become a king and then she would
be his Queen then…wait that would be like Aragorn and Arwen. If Jackson cut out
such useless romantic elements he could have streamlined this series of films
better. He could have mentioned but not dwell on it as much as he does
throughout his trilogy. Maybe it’s a good thing the dwarf died. Even the
Aragorn and Arwen romance took place within the context of the doom of man
which made it even more effective at the end.
At least we now know why Jackson introduced Legolas (apart from giving Orlando
Bloom a job) when he performs his ridiculous stunts in the heat of battle. It seems
great but it would have been more effective it was in the context of something
much bigger which was the case in the LOTR.
Instead of the doom of man the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, only
helps to thwart the doom of thorin. In the LOTR the hobbits saved the world of
man from destruction. It just goes to
show how thin the story of the hobbit is and why it didn’t need to be a three
part movie. Another element that supports this is the dragon Smaug who is featured in this film
when he should have only been featured in the second film. Why is he even in
this third film? By trying to apply his storytelling techniques from the LOTR
to this Hobbit series he has condemned the latter as a inferior project. He
could have found a new way to tell the story of the Hobbit which would make it
more distinctive as a standalone series. One alternative approach would have
been to remove many of the action and romantic scenes from the previous films and have an
older Bilbo Baggins as a narrator which would unify the narrative. Jackson could
have made two very good films here by
only focusing on the important elements such as Smaug’s control over the hoard,
thorin’s dragon sickness, the finding of
the ring of power and of course the final battle. How much more effective it
would have been if he followed Tolkien by having Bilbo knocked out and there be
a black out for the movie as well. Just like that it would remain Bilbo’s
story. Instead of being a spectator it would remain his story because he was
knocked out and for us the screen would have to go black as well. We would have
to imagine for ourselves or as he told it because in reality the battle of the
five armies was not all that. There is a lot of sword slashing but it is not momentous
or memorable hence why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.
In the end I believe that for Jackson to have had the same
impact he did with the LOTR he should
have told the story of the hobbit in a
different way in order to make it seem like it could stand on it’s own
especially as it preceded the story of the LOTR.
No comments:
Post a Comment