Film Review: The Hobbit – The Desolation of Smaug

Posted on:

Are We There Yet?

“What have we done?” mewls Bilbo Baggins when, at long last, The Desolation of Smaug deigns to end. As well he might, you may think. After a crushing five and a half hours of film, Peter Jackson and company have only managed to adapt a mere 216 pages of The Ooh Tray’s Tolkien: that’s 216 of a 263 page novel. Economic storytelling has gone the way of twenty four frames per second; this is a movie informed by obnoxious, brazen economics. Middle Earth fans, slack jawed at the sight of Smaug sleeping in a sea of Dwarf gold, may imagine they’re witness to some kind of digital wizardry, but this is mere location filming at Warner Bros. The suits wanted to triple their return on this beast and they were perfectly prepared to kill the average moviegoer to do it.

So if Peter Jackson doesn’t have a story to tell, what’s his strategy for filling a trilogy’s running time? Based on two movies we can now say that it’s one act of story per flick with two phantom acts added, each constituted of padding. Jackson’s substitutes for a tale well told are scale and stuff: the two working together in tandem to create the illusion of total immersion; languid pacing allowing wide eyed audience members to take in both. We luxuriate in Tolkien’s world unburdened by wearisome distractions like plot complications and character conflict.

As the long, long journey continues, the custodian of the sacred scroll may use his virtual camera to swoop in on a meandering procession of characters, as though tethered to a dragon’s nose, or wait for them to stumble, cutting to a wide shot of a vast edifice, panoramic ruin or Kiwi vista. ‘Look!’ cries Peter, ‘this is Middle Earth! Are you not entertained?’ and when, like the ungrateful bastards we are, the reply comes, ‘well it’s all very pretty but couldn’t this story have been told in a third of the time?’, the great beard shakes his head and bellows, ‘but look at all this stuff’, and indeed it’s a feast for the eyes; to story what methadone is to smack.

Indeed one hardly needs any momentum, any urgency at all, when you’ve got, and I quote the production, 14 tonnes of silicone for weapons and armor, 91 wigs, 263 beards, 100 hobbit feet, 400 costumes, 1,200 extras, 2000 hand-spun goblets and 170,000 punched aluminum gold plated coins. What, you may think, is the point of all that craft if you don’t have time, oodles of time, to sit back and breathe it in?

But Jackson and his co-conspirators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens know that good as scale and stuff is, some attempt must be made to placate those dinosaurs wedded to storytelling and that, in keeping with Warners’ decree that every last dollar, pound and florin be wrung from the world’s adolescents, any pretence must be demographically aware, because J.R.R. Tolkien, genius though he was, cared little for women or those of non-white origin; both being anathema to his vision of a new/old English myth. Consequently there’s a love triangle, featuring returnee Orlando Bloom, Aidan Turner and sexy bowstress and she-Elf, Evangeline Lilly and a couple of black faces awkwardly inserted into the crowd at Laketown. There’s also added violence and jeopardy to stop older kid’s heads dropping, the notion that this should remain a story for young children being for the birds when such vast sums of money are involved.

If one’s prepared to trawl though the mountain of fool’s gold on offer, The Desolation of Smaug does yield a few genuine nuggets of value. The setpieces may be there to fill time but when they’re well-orchestrated, as when Mirkwood’s spiders attack and the troop escape in barrels on a rushing river, they’re worthy sequences. It’s an impressive spectacle, effectively combining those vast locations with pixelated extensions, and all concerned are suitably earnest in their respective wigs and mo-cap suits; Ian McKellen providing the gravitas, Benedict Cumberbatch, the menace. Only Martin Freeman as Bilbo looks out of sorts; the star of the show whose role is almost peripheral, thanks to the lack of discipline in the editing suite.

Ultimately with one full movie remaining but just 47 pages of story to film, we’re left lamenting the Dwarf-like greed of those behind the scenes, wishing they’d consented to one great movie based on Tolkien’s short book, rather than three bloated blockbusters. The length of The Lord of the Rings forced Peter Jackson to cut back and privilege pace over tangential plotting; a decision that worked well cinematically. Here the reverse is true and the result is a movie that takes an age to watch while barely advancing the story. This maestro should use his wealth to buy himself a pair of scissors.

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Country: US/UK/NZ

Year: 2013

Running Time: 161 mins

Certificate: 12A for fat, James Nesbitt and wasting food.

 

6 Responses

  1. Douglas Deru says:

    **SIGH**

    Look, I am in agreement with the consensus that the first Hobbit film was ponderous and slight, and of course haven’t seen the second one.

    Nevertheless, I am beyond tired of strident assertions that the length of the films compared to the size of “the book” is inherently a problem. It’s been known ever since these movies were in the planning stages that Jackson (and Del Toro, at the time) would be drawing heavily from other Tolkien writings involving Middle Earth and creating scenarios to put them on screen. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Now, whether you think it was a good idea to pull ideas and scraps of information from Book A & B and insert them into a film ostensibly about Book C is open to debate. But the moaning about a 260 page book becoming 8-9 hours of movie is born of some combination of disingenuousness and willful ignorance.

    The fact that they’re titling all three films “The Hobbit: Something Something” might be confusing you. Hey, they had to call it something familiar. “The Hobbit: There and Back Again Plus Bits From the Lord of the Rings Appendices, the Silmarillion and Various Handwritten Notes in the Margins of JRR Tolkien’s Personal Journals” doesn’t fit on most marquis or Happy Meal boxes.

    • Ed Whitfield says:

      Who said it was a surprise? The assertion that it isn’t inherently a problem, because you’re importing new material from other sources, is Jackson’s fallacy. Whether it’s Tolkien sourced padding or filmmaker invention, it’s still padding. Not for nothing were these appendices, footnotes. Tolkien, love him or loathe him was a storyteller so he knew better than to burden his tale with tangential fat. He waited until LOTR for that. The extra material deadens the narrative because what it isn’t doing, and this is the point, is helping to drive the central story, the one we care about, forward. These movies feel tediously long because so much is superfluous and even if you don’t know the production history (which I do), you feel that instinctively as you watch it – unless, that is, all you ever really wanted was a Middle Earth travelogue.

      That pertinent stuff aside, I don’t think expecting the an adaptation of a novel to stick to the story at hand is unreasonable. Particularly when nothing’s happening in its stead.

      Anyway, let’s see how you feel after a further 161 minutes of not much.

      • mark tornits says:

        memento as based from a short story…

        12 monkeys was based from a short film…

        both of those are awesome…

        just sayin…

  2. Jerry Bowyer says:

    You’ve accused Tolkien of not caring for non-white people, would you care to prove this assertion?

    • Paulo says:

      And women too. In either case, it’s a simplistic way of looking at it. Read The Silmarillion, then come back and say that Tolkien didn’t care for women.

  3. tim earnshaw says:

    A hundred hobbit feet? If my calculations are correct, we’re looking at around fifty hobbits here. Barely enough to stage a rolicking inn scene. I am disappoint.