The only element of any real interest in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the question “What went wrong?” and even that is a pretty dull question because the answer is clear enough: the money people wrapped their fingers around the neck of this movie and strangled it to death.
By saying this, I am not trying to absolve Jackson of his responsibility. He signed the contract, cashed the check, and put his name on the film.
But Jackson was faced with formidable challenges in making Smaug. The biggest challenge was how to manage the legacy brand that he had created through Lord of the Rings, in which the safest route to profit was to deliver basically the same goods in basically the same package, even if those goods had grown a bit stale (ie, the preferred approach of the money people).
Jackson also had to keep his eye on the huge non-English-speaking and/or non-Western audiences for The Desolation of Smaug, since spectacle translates more easily than dialogue, and since special effects are less likely to cause cultural offense than stories or characters.
Jackson decided (or was asked) to pad out a book that would have potentially made one good film into three movies, with a total running time pushing eight hours. And while we’re at it, let’s note Smaug is the middle of the three films, with no natural beginning or end to help give shape to the story.
But with all that said, I’m surprised by how badly Jackson flubbed Smaug considering how well he managed the earlier Lord of the Rings films, in which he balanced character with action, drove the story through both internal and external conflicts, and gave shape to the overall plot.
The Desolation of Smaug is a plodding, tedious, frantic mess. I think the main culprit is the decision to expand the book’s story rather than edit it down. All the padding – particularly filming events that occur off the page in the book – destroys whatever dynamic tension the story arc in the Desolation of Smaug might have achieved and gives us a jumbled collection of scenes instead.
These scenes are not driven by situation, since the situations in Smaug are so many and so various that the connections among them quickly become lost; and these scenes are certainly not driven by character or emotion, which means the talents of at least two very good actors – Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Ian McKellan as Gandalf – go entirely to waste, with what moments of real human feeling they sometimes find soon swept away in the general noise and hubbub.
The result is a whole-movie version of what happens when actors find themselves stuck in a play that really doesn’t work. They fall back on acting bigger, louder, faster to cover up a lack of sense.
In the case of Smaug, this bigger-louder-faster extends to the action sequences and special effects, which are fine as far as they go, but they turn the film into just a roller-coaster ride: viscerally thrilling at times but empty of meaning.
I don’t have a problem with entertainment being entertainment, and businesses working to cash in big by selling to big audiences, but films don’t have to be as desultory as The Hobbit is to earn money for their investors. Joss Whedon’s The Avengers demonstrated that last year. Peter Jackson proved it with his Lord of the Rings movies. Entertainment can excel as high craft, without aspiring to or needing to achieve the goals of art. Craft is a worthy goal. Unfortunately, Smaug isn’t craft. It’s crap.
I’ve haven’t seen this yet – and now you’ve intrigued me, and I’ll have to… That’s the trouble with box-office hits, the follow-ons are never up to scratch.
I’m not sure you’ll thank me for intriguing you. I did take my ten-year-old son, who liked it fine and made me feel better for going. I believe I can wish you happy New Year now … have I done my international date line calculations correctly?
Sure have…
Yeah, I have this whole mixed feeling ‘thing’ (how very articulate) going on with these movies. On the one hand I recognise that they’re good films – although the first was ridiculously over long and sentimental. On the other they’ve totally changed the nature of the story and that’s something that just annoys me (and I’m not a book snob- just to be clear). I preferred the second movie to the first which I thought really overly long but come on – three films – out of a book that’s about 200 pages long. I like the addition of the the external happenings of what’s taking place in middle earth but I still think at the most this could have been 2 films. It’s not LoTR – end of. The Hobbit was supposed to be an adventure, not a world saving epic and that’s what naffs me off. Also, on a totally frivolous note – why is Thorin’s hair always blowing in the breeze while he stands majestically to one side and everyone else discusses him – even when he’s down the mines – where is that breeze coming from!!!!!! Little mini rant over. (If you watch it again I guarantee you’ll now have to smother a laugh whenever Thorin comes onto the screen).
Sorry, but you had to go and post it! No doubt a lot of people will break out the pitchforks and torches now so…..LOL
Happy New Year though and all the best for 2014.
Lynn 😀
Thanks and happy New Year to you. I saw the first Hobbit, too, and thought it was fine. Maybe the difficulty for me was that the reviews of the first Hobbit were so bad, that when I went (cold wet day, young son bored) I didn’t have any expectations at all and so they were easily exceeded. The reviews I saw of Smaug were better, and since I remembered thinking the first okay, I went in with higher but still modest expectations, and obviously that was not good for me. I can see what you mean about Thorin. The movie does seem to have a little man crush on him, which is fine, and one of the things that bothered me was that there is something there in Thorin. He could have been really interesting, but instead gets lost in all the whiz-bang. Haven’t been poked by any pitchforks yet. If some angry farmers show up, I’ll let you know. P.
Haven’t seen this film. As you can guess, probably won’t. But these words so captured my attention that I read your review: “the money people wrapped their fingers around the neck of the movie and strangled it to death.”
Thanks. My reviews do tend toward commentary and analysis, because by the time I get around to seeing anything, the need for a “should I see this film” review is largely gone.