Skip to main content

I'm not the same hobbit I once was.

The HobbitExtended Editions 
An Unexpected Journey (2012)
The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

(SPOILERS) I waited to “savour” the extended Hobbitses until they were all released, anticipating the experience would probably be just as it turned out; where The Lord of the Rings is, for the most part, enriched by its additions and expansions, the reverse is true of The Hobbit. Undeservedly foisted with trilogy status, it resisted the weight of such epic trappings, saddled with ill-fitting character detours that detracted from the relative neat- and sprightliness of Tolkien’s text, and left a three-piece in which its central character felt at times superfluous. The extra material merely compounds these issues. Too frequently, The Hobbit is an ordeal, a slog, even from the comfort of an armchair, Peter Jackson having missed the Mirk-wood for the trees. Yet there are points in each of the three where he succeeds in reminding us why he walked off with an Oscar for the first trilogy; edited down, rather than up, it might even be possible to distil something pretty good from what he has over-done, although divesting the trilogy of its over-abundant CGI might prove an impossible task.


Jackson’s willingness to go off the leash with cartoonish, mood-destroying special effects can probably be traced back to his cheerfully undisciplined early splatter excursions, but there the results were off a piece and integrated. The first signs of the wrongheadedness with resources could be seen as far back as the first Lord of the Rings, helicopter tracking shots taking in vast landscapes populated by virtual characters and structures, or the never quite tangible CGI cave troll. By the third movie, no one was very surprised at the knockabout dwarf tossing and Legolas surfing an oliphant’s trunk. None of this was enough to spoil the movies, but it was an indulgence that came from misjudging the material; responding to perceived popular reactions rather than showing continued respectfulness. This virtual blundering was further highlighted in King Kong’s subsequent goofy, unreal dinosaur stampede.


With The Hobbit, the tail is finally wagging the dog. Jackson, thrust into directing when he never intended to, was ill-prepared (he essentially needed the third film just to give himself enough space to decide what to do with the ending) and required trinkets such as the experimentation with frame rates to pique his interest. Guillermo Del Toro, meanwhile, would have been much better to have remained on board and fashioned his two movies with due care and craft, rather than settling on material none but his acolytes really cared for.


It wouldn’t be fair to accuse The Hobbit of wall-to-wall CG-indulgence, although it feels like it at times. Rather, it’s the combination of elements, realising the artifice is in your face to an extent that wasn’t the case with Lord of the Rings. Orlando Bloom, other than keeping his agent in deep-fried Mars bars, has no business showing up here (or further Pirates of the Caribbean, come to that) but Jackson shoehorns Legolas in anyway, for reasons best known to himself, and the results are waxily, age-regressingly unimpressive. Added to which, the director equips the character with the usual acrobatic elf antics, reaching their ridiculous nadir in The Battle of the Five Armies when he flies a bat upside down, taking down an army of Orcs along the way.


CGI orcs, of course, taking a foolish leaf out of Lucas’ prequel book. These movies never quite plumb those depths – there’s usually a semblance of a tangible world somewhere in the frame – but they don’t appear to have learnt any lessons from such mistakes. Having a lead villain threaded through the three films realised by CGI is fundamentally an error, and a case of hubris to think it would work (brought on no doubt by Gollum, the exception that proves the rule). It adds to the sense that Jackson isn’t really there, getting dirty on the ground, that he’s slackened his grip and not just in the editing suite. The biggest offender in An Unexpected Journey is the sojourn in the goblin kingdom, something Barry Humphries’ spirited performance can’t rescue; it ends up feeling like we’re watching Super Mario Dwarves. Ironically, this is intercut with one of the best scenes in the trilogy, Bilbo’s encounter with Gollum.


Offenders in The Desolation of Smaug include the barrel escape from the Elvish realm and the Alien 3 antics as the dwarves attempt to trap Smaug, while The Battle of the Five Armies encourages Jackson’s battlefield excesses and the aforementioned Legolas business. We get Billy Connolly riding a CGI pig, dwarves riding CGI goats, a CGI bear freefalling onto a (CGI) battle field. But, while I could well recall the CG-overload, I had forgotten quite how tarnishing other intrusions are. Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel is certainly a preferable addition to the return of Legolas, but her dwarf romance is spectacularly awful, and Aidan Turner’s Kili is actively offensive; Jackson’s message appears to be that love is skin deep, as the only way for this inter-species love to blossom is if he looks nothing like a dwarf at all. Most damningly, of course, is that the entire affair is utterly banal. It’s a blessed relief when Kili finally gets killied off.


Jackson, like Lucas, seems bound to make his prequel cosy up to and anticipate his main work in a frequently annoying fashion, such that at times The Hobbit translates as an over extended build-up rather than its own thing (see also the Bilbo problem). There’s no good reason to have Saruman there, except as a kind of Emperor/Palpatine “Look at me, ain’t I dubious?” distraction. The anticipation of events 70 years hence reaches the daftest of points when Lee Pace tells Legolas to go looking for Strider. At other times, it’s merely a chance for Jackson to indulge some greatest hits moment; see Galadriel getting her anger on.


On the other hand, every time Howard Shore’s rousing theme comes in, he’s instantly able to win the viewer over emotionally, much the same as John Williams could do with Star Wars. Which is fortunate, as Martin Freeman’s Bilbo, as roundly celebrated as he has been, isn’t as inspired a choice as Elijah Wood was, and certainly can’t compare with Ian Holm. Mainly because all he’s doing is being Martin Freeman, and if you know his tics and mannerisms well enough they can grow old very quickly.


Part of the problem is also that Bilbo just doesn’t have the emotional beats to engage us, and we’re left with a tell, don’t show, feeling when Gandalf waxes lyrical about the bravery of Hobbits for the umpteenth time. Meanwhile, the amount of time invested in the dwarves entirely fails to justify their indulgence. Thorin’s role, good as Richard Armitage is, would have been better served more economically. That said, on balance his obsession, and gruffness, is well observed with and his confrontation with Azog at least is an aspect of The Battle of the Five Armies that very much succeeds.


So too Luke Evans as Bowman, Sylvester McCoy’s endearing Radaghast (most surprrrrrisingly, as I didn’t rate his Doctor Who, of which Jackson is clearly a fan, right down to Bilbo’s Colin Baker dressing gown), and Lee Pace’s glacial Thranduil. Jackson may have been playing things by ear, but enough of his essential choices here are strong, such that it makes the failures appear even more unnecessary. 


Certainly, each of the episodes has at least one classic scene; the riddles in the dark with Gollum is superbly realised, as is the woozy, tripped-out Mirkwood sequence (before the elves show up), and Bilbo’s confrontation with Smaugerbatch (a good villain should always enjoy their villainy), Bard’s slaying of Smaug and Thorin’s madness. Jackson gets the scenes that no doubt fuelled his passion to make The Lord of the Rings in the first place just right. It’s elsewhere, where he’s at a loose end or willing to go overboard, that he comes a cropper.


There’s very little garnish in the Extended Editions that feels essential, though some seuqences are at least worthwhile. The extended prologue is okay, if trying too much to mirror Lord of the Rings for epic portend, but it also means it’s a whole 40 minutes before Bilbo leaves the shire, with the addition of a Dwarvish ditty. Additional bear fellow at the beginning of Desolation of Smaug works reasonably well, though, providing engrossing exposition rather than the equivalent part of its predecessor at Bilbo’s. 


The added Lake-town scenes rather drag, however, and there’s the sense of dawdling to save the dragon for as long as possible (Stephen Fry’s Master of Lake-town and Ryan Gage’s Alfrid are okay, but over-serviced). Gandalf meets Thrain, a Dwarf equivalent of Michael Palin’s “It’s…” but to little consequence other than beefing up Gandalf’s role. I’m in two minds about this, as McKellen is masterful in all his scenes, but anything with him requires a veer to the epic, rather than the more localised affair this should be. Alfrid’s death is quite amusing in The Battle of the Five Armies, and Bilbo’s has a strong scene with James Nesbitt’s Bofur.


The Lord of the Rings, seen in its entirety, back-to-back, is a satisfying and affecting experience. The Hobbit is plain exhausting (I found it a stretch to sit through any single one of them on one sitting, so consumed them over three nights). These don’t besmirch The Lord of the Rings the way the prequel trilogy does the original Star Wars, but there’s so much unnecessary or misconceived material included that they’re roundly inferior. No doubt there are reduced fan edits out there already; it will be interesting to see if Jackson is possessed by the urge to hone down his unloved progeny at some point. More likely, he’s fed up to the back teeth with Hobbitses.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.