So, I'd been apprehensive about seeing the new HOBBIT movie, based on early reviews which praised the film for having jettisoned all the acting bits for one long spectacular special effects sequence of battle scenes (not being terribly impressed by special effects myself, however well done; I prefer plot and dialogue and acting).
I've now seen the film, and liked it better than I expected, and liked it better yet on a second viewing. I don't know how well it'll hold up to repeated viewings, but there's enough of what I like in a Tolkien movie to keep me coming back for more. And, contrary to my expectation, the battle scenes and long set pieces of one-on-one combats didn't pall on rewatching, as I expected them to.
I'll want to see it again (and soon!), but I suspect in the end this trilogy of movies will be like the LotR films: My favorite will be the first one, which sets up the scene and story, introduces the major characters, and relies heavily on the interaction between them. Then the second introduces a lot of new characters and delivers several of the most satisfying scenes and performances. Then the third has to both follow-up and pull together all the ongoing plot threads and at the same time deliver on a climax worthy of all those hours of set-up. Inevitably, the third film in each series draws more on Jackson's innovations (as opposed to Tolkien's original text) than the previous two have done,* meaning there's less for the purist in the final films of each set than in the ones that preceded them.
Even so, 'less' is a relative term, and luckily the claim (as criticism or praise) that it was one long roller-coaster ride turns out not to be true. The character interaction bits that Jackson does so well (and with such an impressive cast to do it with) are still there, with Martin F's Bilbo and McKellan's Gandalf** and Armitage's Thorin all given a chance to shine. It's quite touching how, as Thorin descends into madness, his friendship with Bilbo (one of the high points of the second film) endures -- which makes Bilbo's betrayal all the harder on him when it comes. The minor roles are also well-done: Galadriel and Saruman and Elrond and even Radagast all shine. The wizard-fu is much better done this time than in the Gandalf-Saruman duel way back in 2001*** and we get a clear sense of just how powerful Galadriel is (despite some regrettable makeup choices). And while he can hardly be called a 'minor role' despite his relatively brief amount of screen time in this third film, Cumberbatch's Smaug is now firmly established as the greatest, bar none, of all the movie dragon's I've ever seen.
Of the other continuing roles, most (Thranduil, Legolas, Tauriel, Azog, Bolg) are just the same here as in the previous film. Frye's Master of Laketown is just as bad, but luckily his performance is soon cut short. Sadly to say, his lackey Alfrid lingers on and on and on with his cringeworthy antics for most of the film's running time. Bard is much better than in the previous film, mainly because they keep him busy so there's less moping around. Pretty much the only new character of note is Dain, here portrayed as a mad-eyed Scot.
The film's greatest departure from the original is the rather baffling omission of any wargs from the Battle of Five Armies. Given that they were one of the five armies from which the conflict gets its name, this seemed an odd omission (for the record, the 'five armies' of the book are the dwarves, elves, men, goblins, and wargs; those of the film are the dwarves, elves, men, orcs of Dol Guldor, and orcs of Mt Gundabad). Its greatest continuity gap is the presence of multiple trolls in the attack on Dale, all moving about in the sunlight with no explanation of how they manage this feat (it cd be rationalized that the book describes the bats as forming a cloud that darkens the day, but that's not the case in the movie, where they just flap around menacingly).
Ironically, the one thing which Jackson did to make this third movie more like the book than the previous two was to the film's detriment. Tolkien does not individualize all the dwarves of Thorin & Company much, whereas Jackson went out of his way in the first film to make each a distinct personality. There was less of that in the second film but it was still present. Now with the third and final film Jackson has reverted to Tolkien's example: of Thorin's companions Kili gets his own subplot, Fili gets enough development to prove he wd have been a good and worthy King under the Mountain, and Balin and Dwalin get a line or two apiece, while the rest fade into anonymity. A pity, given what a good job he'd done with them before. Let's hope the extended edition goes some way to fixing this shortcoming -- and I'm curious to see if, as seems to be the case in that quick glimpse of all the surviving dwarves near the end, Bifur finally gets that stone axe removed from his forehead.
Speaking of proportion, one thing I've seen over and over among the nay-sayers who hated the film (not all of whom have bothered to see it) is the whole argument that these shd have been two movies instead of three, or even a single one-shot film. Some go so far as to try to figure out how many pages of Tolkien's book correspond to how many minutes of film time, trying to quantify the qualitative -- a vain task if ever there was one. I don't understand this argument at all; it seems to me wholly specious. Let me put it this way: if someone told me I could visit one of my favorite places in the world once, or twice, or three times, the idea that three times was too many and I ought to be satisfied with fewer doesn't, all other factors being equal, make sense. The same applies if they asked if I wanted a cup of my favorite tea -- why wdn't I want a second or third cup, if they were offered and I was still thirsty? I love Tolkien's works, and I'm glad to see more of them, not less. Tolkien himself said the chief flaw of THE LORD OF THE RINGS was that it was too short. I'm glad the original book wasn't abridged before publication as his potential publishers wanted. I'm happy there have been so many posthumous publications, and that the HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH SERIES ran to a full twelve volumes. I'm glad Peter Jackson got to do THE LORD OF THE RINGS as three movies, not two or one, and I'm glad he got to do THE HOBBIT as well. Those who hate Tolkien or the Jackson films or both think less is more. For the rest of us more is more, and less is less.
The parallel argument, that if the films were shorter there'd be more Tolkien in them, is demonstrably false. In the extended editions, which are longer than the theatrical releases, there are scenes from the book that don't appear in the shorter version of the film. A good case in point is the recently released extended edition of THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG, which includes the scene were Gandalf introduces the party of dwarves two-by-two to Beorn -- an iconic moment in the book that didn't make it on screen in the theatrical release. So there's good evidence that the longer the films, the more Tolkien Jackson gets on screen.
The strongest criticism I can make of this film is that a movie named THE HOBBIT needs more scenes in it starring Bilbo,
the Hobbit. When Bilbo's there, my interest is riveted on the screen in a way it's not when Azog, Bolg, Legolas, Tauriel, Bard, or special effects dominate. It's Bilbo, and Gandalf and Thorin, and the White Council and Necromancer, and Smaug and the other twelve dwarves of Thorin & Company, who made this a film I wanted to watch (and, now, rewatch).
So, in the end: a good film. Not as great as the first and second that preceded it, but with enough memorable scenes to be worth watching and re-watching for years to come. And a satisfying conclusion to the series as a whole.
As for Jackson's legacy, I think he's proven to us that Tolkien can be filmed, something a lot of people thought impossible until he proved them wrong. For all the things in them that drive purists mad,**** they do capture the essence of Tolkien's books to a degree I wd have thought impossible. And they've now established themselves as classics -- at least, the first (LotR) series has, and it seems likely the second (HOBBIT) one will follow in its footsteps in this, as in so much else. As such, I think it's inevitable that someday these movies will be remade, with a whole new cast and script and director, now that Jackson has proved it possible. Just as we get a new film version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE each generation or so, so too I think with Tolkien. In any case, it'll be interesting to see. And, if I may make a prediction, I strongly suspect the people who hate Jackson now will hate his successor all the more, and will hold up the Jackson as examples of what he (or she) shd have done, just as some of Jackson's biggest critics began to praise the wretched Rankin-Bass HOBBIT (which they had preciously disparaged) once the Jackson films came out.
But for now, this is the end of the line. And I must say it's been quite a journey. I think Jackson can be proud of what he's accomplished.
--John R.
current reading: THE HOBBIT AND HISTORY (slowly)
current music: Big Star (1st and 2nd albums)
current anime: TOKYO ESP
* just as Tolkien himself started out imitating Morris and Dunsany et al and over the years came to draw less on outside sources and more and more on his own earlier works, so too Jackson tends to became his own main source as each series extends: the great imperative at the end of this movie is to make it both wrap up Tolkien's story and sync up as much as possible with the first of the LotR movies (some of the opening dialogue of which actually plays just before the closing credits).
** it's ironic that McKellan actually comes first in the credits, rather than Martin F., the Hobbit of the title.
***I've decided that my favorite use of all that special effects technology in the film was its enabling a ninety-two years old man (Sir Christopher Lee) to engage in a swordfight
****the dwarven battle pig now has to be added to that list, alongside all the trolls attacking Dale in daylight
