We seem to have entered a new age of cinema, and its not necessarily for the better. Instead of figuring out how to adapt books for feature length movies by reducing content, we are now at a time when books are being chopped up into multiple parts to "give the story the most attention" when really its at the service of maximizing profits. I was a big supporter of Harry Potter doing this with its seventh book; one movie would have felt slight and rushed, but two gave ample time for the whole story to be told. Granted, Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a much slower pic then Part 2, where the final battle comes to a head, but there was enough content to justify the split.
Twilight followed suit with its final two parts, and Hunger Games will do the same with its final book, though if you've read Mockingjay you'll understand what a punishing time we're all in for, as that book is slow, boring, and pretty awful compared to the other, more exciting Hunger Games novels. But I digress.
Peter Jackson now has enough clout that he can demand what he wants from the studios because his Middle-Earth films deliver the returns. Hell, when he made the highly debated decision to make Hobbit three movies instead of two, I bet the studios wet themselves with joy since he upped their potential profits that much more, and only had to stretch the budget a bit to accomodate extra shooting, post-production, and marketing for a third film.
So how does Part 1, An Unexpected Journey, hold up? Well, for Middle Earth enthusiasts, this is everything they could have hoped for and more. Jackson dives right back into Middle Earth and adds lengthy scenes explaining the backstory of Smaug's takeover of the Lonely Mountain, and fleshing out Thorin's (Richard Armitage) character more thoroughly then the book does.
The film is framed by an old Bilbo (Ian Holm) committing to paper his various travels, addressing them directly to Frodo (Elijah Wood), who is shoehorned in to establish why he's sitting under that tree at the opening of Fellowship of the Ring. We finally launch into The Hobbit proper with Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo being greeted by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, returning from his LOTR days). Gandalf chooses Bilbo to join his company of dwarves, led by Thorin, on a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug, and Bilbo initially refuses. But soon he's off with the 13 dwarves on an epic adventure filled with many perilous dangers.
The Hobbit is a short book, running barely over 300 pages, whereas The Fellowship of the Ring is nearly 400. So why does The Hobbit get the trilogy treatment when the 1,000 page LOTR saga was condensed into three movies instead of six or nine? Well, Jackson adds a lot of new material found in The Silmarillion and the Appendices to Return of the King, which explain where Gandalf runs off to all those times he goes missing. With all this material, Jackson is aiming to complement his LOTR films with the most comprehensive set of films he could make. So does it work?
Yes and no. While the embellishments help to paint the world of Middle Earth, all the added stuff grinds the forward momentum of the narrative to a halt. There's so much set-up and exposition going on in the first half of the film that you're head is literally spinning from the vast amount of plot being thrown your way. There's the addition of Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard more in tune to nature's creatures, to the point where he comes across as a Disney Princess. Some have been going so far as to call the character the Jar-Jar Binks of the series, and while I found the character vexing, I wouldn't go that far. He does serve a purpose (to introduce the Necromancer that we'll get more of in the coming films), though its a slight one.
What's really missing from this film, though, is an epic sense of purpose to the quest. The Hobbit is about Bilbo coming to terms with his adventuresome spirit, and proving that Hobbits and indeed all creatures can be more cunning then originally conceived. The quest to reclaim the treasure doesn't carry the same weight as the quest to destroy Sauron and his minions. Try as Jackson might, the whole thing doesn't ring with the same epic sweep the original trilogy seemed to manage so effortlessly. Even now I can go back to those films and become engulfed in the story.
The film's best scenes come when the gang is swept into the Goblin's lair and Bilbo is separated from the group and his infamous run-in with Gollum (Andy Serkis). This character is classic now, and to see him again filled me with excitement. The game of riddles is wonderfully rendered, and is the only section of this film I can find no fault in. Its perfect, and worth sitting through the rest of the film. The mo-cap has never been better. The dwarves also do battle with the Goblins with Gandalf, which serves as the film's one truly exciting action scene.
On top of all this is another story involving an orc who has a thorn up his ass about Thorin and is determined to kill him at all costs. This character is fairly boring, and while it offers an explanation for all the roaming orcs, and sets up an emotional payoff between Bilbo and Thorin, the character itself is little more then a lazy plot device to give this film some semblance of a three-act structure. I guess its good to have an enemy to fight against, but this one inspires no sense of fear or dread like the Urukhai managed to do.
Much has also been made by Jackson's controversial decision to shoot in 48 fps, doubling the frame rate that has been standard for nearly 120 years. Many have complained that the higher frame rate gives the film a daytime soap opera aesthetic, and makes the sets look fake and CGI worse. I cannot weigh in on this debate, having seen the film displayed in good ol' 2D 24 fps. In certain sweeping wide shots the characters seemed to be moving at a remarkable speed that didn't match their Close-ups, like those badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy. But overall the film looked fine, though the term film can't really apply because this was shot on the Red EPIC. If I do see the HFR 3D for some reason, I'll add a footnote.
Much has also been made by Jackson's controversial decision to shoot in 48 fps, doubling the frame rate that has been standard for nearly 120 years. Many have complained that the higher frame rate gives the film a daytime soap opera aesthetic, and makes the sets look fake and CGI worse. I cannot weigh in on this debate, having seen the film displayed in good ol' 2D 24 fps. In certain sweeping wide shots the characters seemed to be moving at a remarkable speed that didn't match their Close-ups, like those badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy. But overall the film looked fine, though the term film can't really apply because this was shot on the Red EPIC. If I do see the HFR 3D for some reason, I'll add a footnote.
For purists, this film is heaven. For the rest of us, this is an exercise in self-indulgent gratification, as we realize its going to be at least another year and two or so hours before we get to meet Smaug (here only seen flashing by). The Prologue to LOTR effectively establishes the menace that is Sauron, but Smaug's prologue does little service to him. I understand what Jackson is trying to achieve: the sense of an evil force returning is given a little notice here. But this isn't Sauron's story, this is Bilbo's. I've barely talked about the title character this whole time, and when you think about it, Bilbo is relegated to the background through most of the middle until the Gollum scene and his pivotal character shift at the end. Delicious teasers, hints, and name dropping would have been more satisfying then all the padding given to this movie. Jackson tries to give this small little story about a company of dwarves and a Hobbit deeper significance to Middle Earth at large, but sadly he falls well short of the mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment