Dwarves, Dragon Fire and Desolation (of source material)

Okay, film blog, round two. And for my second critique I go after the second part of a(n ill-conceived) trilogy.

OBLIGATORY SPOILER ALERT. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE GO NO FURTHER LEST YE BE EATEN BY DRAGONS.

The Exposition

In 1937, J.R.R. Tolkien introduced readers to the realm of Middle-earth with the sentence "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." Though it was ultimately overshadowed by it's follow-up The Lord of the Rings it nevertheless helped firmly establish Tolkien's place as a literary master.

Jump forward 75 years. New Line Cinema releases the first film of a movie trilogy (originally meant be a two-parter) based on Tolkien's work entitled The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, directed by Peter Jackson, who took over after Guillermo Del Toro dropped out to pursue other projects involving giant monsters. Everyone thought this would be a good move seeing as Jackson had previously adapted the Lord of the Rings into a ridiculously successful three part cinematic epic, surpassing even Star Wars in the minds of the masses as the seminal film trilogy. Die hard Tolkien fans (myself included though I can't speak elvish worth a rhaich) were largely pleased and were eager to see how Jackson chose to interpret the original Middle-earth adventure story.

For my part I thought An Unexpected Journey was a good effort, but it took too long to get anywhere. Y'see, the Hobbit isn't that long a book, but the filmmakers in their (not-so) infinite wisdom decided to stretch out the story for two films. Their reasoning? Why the appendices of the Lord of the Rings of course, where Tolkien explains what was going on elsewhere while things were happening in the main story. In the text, Gandalf abruptly leaves the Company of Thirteen at the edge of Mirkwood saying he has business in the South, and the reader is never told why. In the appendices it is revealed that Gandalf traveled to the fortress of Dol Guldur to investigate a being known as the Necromancer. Fans everywhere assumed these events would be depicted in the first film, with the confrontation with the dragon Smaug and the subsequent Battle of Five Armies making up the bulk of the second part.

But then the decision was made to make not two but three Hobbit films. Which meant more material had to be produced. The problem however is that even if material from the appendices is included it isn't enough to justify making three films. Essentially the reverse problem from adapting Lord of the Rings. With the first trilogy there was too much material to cram into three films, with this new trilogy there was not enough. Thus, what material was available was stretched out and...AND...Jackson and Co decided to CREATE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL not based on anything Tolkien wrote.

What does this mean for The Desolation of Smaug you ask? Well, precious, you're about to find out...

The Gist of It

The first problem of DoS (aren't acronyms fun?) is continued from AUJ (the first film, it's tiring writing the titles over and over). Our heroes find themselves being hunted by orcs who have a hate-on for Thorin Oakenshield, led by Azog the pale orc. Why is this a problem? According to the first chapter of the Hobbit, Azog is dead and NOT at the hands of Thorin but by Dain Ironfoot. Worse still, the orcs in these films are CGI, as opposed to LoTR where they were mostly done via makeup, making them more real and frightening. Guess it was cheaper to put a bunch of tiny dots on the actors instead of covering them head to toe in latex but still something gets lost onscreen in terms of authenticity.

The preoccupation with CGI is a problem that recurs throughout the entire movie. Most notably during the escape from the elvish prisons by riding in barrels down the river. Whereas the fight scenes in the LoTR films were well-coordinated with some digital effects for the grander battle scenes, this scene (which was altered from the book as it involves the non-present orc pack) felt so completely fake. When I think back about the battles depicted in the LoTR films, especially the incredible sequence at Helm's Deep, I remember feeling like I was really in the thick of it, terrified of the enemy onslaught and fearful for our heroes' well-being. With this escape I felt so far removed. I didn't feel the stakes at all.

And speaking of elves, really Jackson and friends? You have a hobbit, a wizard and thirteen dwarfs, more than enough characters for a single film, and you decide not only to include characters that don't appear in the book (hey look, ma! It's Legolas!) but you also make up a female elf for the sole purpose of potentially having a romance with a dwarf? You do realize Tolkien's pipe stem would snap off inside his mouth if he saw this right?

Meanwhile, Gandalf heads off to meet Radagast (the hippie wizard apparently, who also doesn't feature in the text of the book) unwisely goes into a big dark scary fortress, has an absurd fight with a bunch of orcs and in so doing displays powers we never saw him use before only to be captured by the Necromancer, who reveals himself to be Sauron, the Dark Lord, the Big Bad, the nastiest person in all Middle-earth. While this is consistent with his later writings, at the time he wrote The Hobbit Tolkien had no idea who the Necromancer truly was. While he later expounded upon it in the appendices of LoTR, the Necromancer was meant to be some mysterious nameless dark force. Revealing him as Sauron in this way is problematic for Jackson and the producers because it negates the whole "we had no idea it was Sauron until now" reaction everyone has in the LoTR film trilogy. Furthermore, if Sauron had Gandalf as his prisoner, he would kill him outright. Another example of pointless peril that plagues this film series.

Okay, I'll take a break from harping on what I didn't like about DoS (more to come unfortunately) and talk about what was actually good about it. With AUJ, there was one scene I wanted to see done right, and that was the Riddles in the Dark scene, where Bilbo meets Gollum and engages in a game of wits and happens upon a certain shiny gold ring that may or may not be important. With this film I was eager to see Bilbo's interaction with another frightening character. Namely, the title character, the only instance in the film where CGI actually enhanced the film instead of detracted from it. Holy Durin. Smaug was utterly fantastic and terrifying. Jackson smartly kept us from seeing all of him during any previews or adverts, and man did that pay off. When you see Smaug emerge from his hoard of gold, you instantly feel the terror along with Bilbo, which Martin Freeman masterfully portrays. What ensues is an epic game of cat-and-mouse, and perhaps the scene in the movie that best reflects the book. Smaug knows he is superior in every way but is impressed enough with a halfling's boldness to enter his lair he decides to have some fun before he turns him into fricasseed hobbit. Benedict Cumberbatch is quickly becoming the go-to bad guy for sci-fi/fantasy franchises (we need someone British with a deep scary voice. Quick, light the Cumberbatch signal!), but unlike his turn as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness, here he plays an utterly remorseless force of evil. Smaug is pure id; he does what he wants when he wants and anyone who doesn't like it can burn.

Of course the tension gives way to yet another pointless deviation from the source material, wherein Smaug chases Bilbo, Thorin and company up and down through Erebor. What's Thorin's genius plan to thwart the fire-breathing wyrm? Why melt down all his gold and turn it into a giant dwarf statue that will suddenly melt on him. Really? That's your plan for defeating the big red beastie? Not so sure you ought to be king now.

The Anti-Climax

The film ends with Smaug flying off to burn Lake-town and Bilbo asking "What have we done?" I think Peter Jackson should ask himself the same question. The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings. Same universe, some of the same characters but it is not the same story. Trying to make it so only causes it to suffer. Now I can understand why he's trying to do this. More films means more money for his greedy producers plus he hasn't had a massive worldwide hit since the original trilogy (King Kong and The Lovely Bones did not fare well box-officely speaking). Unfortunately the result is something akin to what happened to Star Wars: a much-loved, well-crafted trilogy is being followed up by a much weaker trilogy with an over reliance on CGI. Peter Jackson now truly is the George Lucas of our time. Two middling thumbs sideways.

Answers to Burning Questions

Best scene in the movie? The Smaug/Bilbo face off without question. I held my breath almost the entire time.

Best performance? A tie between Cumberbatch as the beast under the mountain and Freeman as the half-ling far from home. Those two have uncanny chemistry, even if one of them is playing a computer-generated monster (they totally need to make jokes about it on the new series of Sherlock).

If there's a sequel will you see it? Part three, There and Back Again, is scheduled for December this year, and though I am dreading whatever future alterations Jackson has in store, I am eager to see how he handles the Battle of Five Armies. If nothing else that will be spectacular, providing it's anything like the battle scenes in The Two Towers or The Return of the King.

What's up next? Not sure. My next film will either be American Hustle or Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. We'll see.

I Come From a Land of Ice and Snow

HELLO! Welcome to my new blog I've created at the behest of certain people to give my two cents about cinema, so hopefully they'll stop bugging me about it. Anyway, let's get started. Since it is a new year I decided it would be fitting to give my thoughts about the last film I saw in 2013, which was none other than (drumroll please...)

What? Surprised? To be fair I only saw it because I was spending time with my cousins from out of town over the holidays. I went to see it with them and my brother and much to my surprise...I actually enjoyed it. But more on that later.

OBLIGATORY SPOILER ALERT. READ NO FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM IN QUESTION.

The Exposition

Going in, Frozen (at least for me anyway) had two things working against it. As most people know, is based on (well more like inspired by) a fairy-tale by Hans Christian Anderson, called "The Snow Queen." What most people don't know is that technically it is a short story which Anderson wrote in the style of a fairy-tale, which is true of his other famous stories "The Ugly Duckling," "The Little Mermaid," and "The Emperor's New Clothes." These tales are not descended from ancient folklore, unlike the stories written down by the Brothers Grimm, such as Sleeping Beauty which can be traced all the way back to Norse mythology. I never really cared much for Anderson's tales as a result because, to me at least, they weren't genuine fairy-tales as much as they were popular children's stories that became classified as fairy-tales. Yes, I know that sounds incredibly pretentious but it's just how I'm wired. I like mythology, A LOT. If you've ever met me in person I've probably talked your ear off about the subject.

Which brings us to the second thing I was uneasy about going to see Frozen: the fact that it was a Disney movie. You could say I have a love hate relationship with The Walt Disney Co. Sure as a kid I was enthralled to Disney like everyone else. But at some point it just started become so gosh-darned cliche. The maudlin love story, the naive princess who is somehow perfectly normal despite enduring some kind of trauma, the musical numbers that interrupt the story. It just got to be too predictable, too much sameness.

Also they made Hercules, in which they completely hacked and butchered the Greek myths and my childhood hero into a buffoon. I was not pleased to say the least.

The point is I am wary of Disney. That's not to say I don't enjoy some of their movies. The Lion King is the gold standard by which all animation should be judged even today, and I have a great love for Lilo & Stitch, most un-Disney Disney movie ever made (which is precisely why I loved it so much. C'mon, who wouldn't want an indestructible mutant alien for a friend?) Even in recent years they've made films that I enjoyed. Wreck-it-Ralph was a treat for those of us who grew up on old-school videogames.

All that said, I went into the theater expecting not to enjoy Frozen. I was less than impressed with their last fairy-tale inspired (and past participle titled) effort Tangled for many of the reasons listed above and fully expected to feel the same way about Frozen.

Boy was I surprised.

The Gist of It

The only thing that Frozen has in common with "The Snow Queen" is that it features a monarch with the power of winter. Beyond that the two stories barely have anything in common.

And that's a good thing.

Frozen takes many age-old cliches found in Disney films and turns them on their heads. While the obligatory romance element is there, it is more of a subplot. The heart of the film is the relationship between two sisters, Elsa, the aforementioned Snow Queen, and Anna, the spunky little sister. I had assumed from the trailers that the elder sister would take on something of a villainess role, trapping the kingdom in ice as vengeance for some past transgression. Instead, Elsa is arguably the most sympathetic character and the one I most identified with. She is the older sibling, admonished by her parents, the king and queen, to be responsible and control her powers which as we find out she was born with instead of cursed. She did not ask for them, but nonetheless she has them and has a difficult time suppressing them. So not only does she have to be the responsible older child who will one day rule the kingdom, she also has to keep from unleashing unending winter.

And you thought your childhood was rough.

Elsa's affliction drives a wedge between her and Anna who doesn't understand why her sister chooses to keep her at arms length, even after their parents pass away (in the middle of a musical montage no less. Cheery, huh?) Anna yearns to let the outside world in, while Elsa is bent on keeping it out, lest her secret be revealed and she be branded as a sorceress...which is exactly what happens at her coronation, when Anna unintentionally pushes her too far as younger siblings often do. And so the Snow Queen runs away, her powers running amok trapping the kingdom in ice. This is the chief conflict of the story, not of a good princess versus a bad one, but of two sisters trying to understand one another. Who just happen to be royalty...and one of them can control the weather. In other words it's a very real, very relatable scenario heightened by extraordinary circumstances.

The other cliche upended by this movie is the naive princess falling in love with the first man she meets. Anna meets Hans, who proposes to her a few hours after meeting her. Elsa objects, but Anna will not listen, her trust in her sister damaged by years of distance. Turns out Hans is a jerk, an outright sociopath who spends the first two thirds of the film convincing everyone including the audience that he's a nice guy. Only when he sees an opportunity to get rid of both the sisters at once do his true colors come out as he seeks to seize the throne for himself. I know this is going to sound horrible but I'm glad this particular plot twist played out the way it did. I am beyond tired of Disney sending out the message that it's okay to be naive when it comes to relationships. Too many female protagonists end up getting rewarded for their naivete, instead of learning to be discerning about who they can trust. Fortunately, Anna spends the second act of the movie building relationships with people she can trust, namely a peasant named Kristoff, his dog-like reindeer Sven, and a talking snowman named Olaf (who easily had the best lines in the movie). 

The the final cliche Frozen decides to do away with is the love conquers all idea. As it turns out the damage caused by Elsa's powers isn't just harming the kingdom; it is also freezing Anna's heart, threatening to leave her frozen solid forever. According to a troll king (it's a fairy tale, just go with it) only an act of true love will warm Anna's heart, which hearkens back to Anderson's original story while setting the audience up for what they think will be the resolution, namely a kiss from Anna's true love. Only it doesn't happen that way at all. When Hans attempts to dispatch Elsa once and for all, Anna steps in front of his blade, saving her sister's life but turning to ice in the process.

I should pause and relate this little anecdote. When this scene played in the theater I was in, a boy of about four years old or so started crying, loudly. His mother tried to comfort him but he proclaimed, "But it's too late! She's already frozen!" The entire theater went "awwwwwwwwwe." 

Thankfully, tears were not needed. Anna became unfrozen and embraced her sister who in turn was able to end the winter she herself had unleashed. It was the mending of their relationship, not finding romance, that broke the curse and saved the day. I can only imagine the looks on the studio execs faces when they heard this idea pitched to them. "B-b-but the kiss is supposed to solve everything! You're messing with the classic Disney formula!" To which the directors are now no doubt responding "Yes, and as a result we have the most successful movie you've had since The Lion King. So there!"

The Anti-Climax

In short, Frozen may be one of the five best films Disney has ever made. Yes it featured a lot of the typical elements you'd find in such a movie, but done in such a way that it felt new and different. Two frigid thumbs up from a guy normally rolls his eyes at this sort of thing (gimme a break, I'm a dude).

Answers to Burning Questions

Best scene in the movie?

The musical number "Let it Go," Elsa's solo where she unleashes her powers to build an ice castle on the side of a mountain. Fantastic animation paired with incredible vocals, no surprise considering Elsa is voiced by Idina Menzel, an award-winning Broadway actress with a serious set of pipes.

Best performance? A tie between Menzel and Josh Gad who voices the cheerful Olaf.

Will you see it again?

I suspect I will at some point, though not by myself given the weird looks I'd get.

If there's a sequel will you see it?

Maybe, if the next movie focuses on where exactly Elsa's powers came from and why she has them and if there are other people like here. I have no idea what they'd call it though. Frozen 2: Below Zero? Frozen: The Ice People Cometh? Sorry I can't think of any good puns about ice. Oh, I know! Frozen: A Rock and a Cold Place. Yeah? No? Fine whatever.

What's up next?

From frozen to fire, I journey through The Desolation of Smaug, the second part of Peter Jackson's not-well-thought-out plan to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy. For Tolkien fans, it's enough to make you angrier than a dragon whose treasure gets stolen. See ya next time.