I imagine that
most of you arrived here only to compare notes with me and see how your opinion
of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five
Armies differed from mine.
I don’t figure you
came here to determine whether or not you should see the movie.
You either saw the
first five Lord of the Ring movies
(in which case you would almost certainly close the deal with the sixth and
final chapter), or you did not see
the other movies (in which case you wouldn’t likely start at the end).
I would first
address the issue that most Lord of the
Rings fans mention, that the movies added many new scenes and deleted
several others in between the novel and films.
There exists
little reason to tell the same story twice. Furthermore, what worked in the
novel won’t necessarily work on screen. I consider it a safe bet, given his
record, that Peter Jackson understands his craft, and that he added (or omitted) each applicable scene for respectable reasons.
People often
suggest that Jackson added so much to his movies in an effort to draw three
movies out of one book (The Hobbit),
much as filmmakers did with the recently released Mockingjay: Part One (and shame on those filmmakers for it) just to
squeeze more money from the franchise.
This suggestion
proves ridiculous in regards to the Hobbit movies. Not a single scene in them comes
across as quick, cheap, unnecessary, or lazy: a cash-grab's four symptoms.
(Some would argue the necessity of every scene in Five Armies, but I felt far removed from filler scenes).
Consider the
lengths of the three Hobbit movies. If money motivated Jackson’s desire to
stretch this story into three movies, why would he make each so damn long?
I hope that puts
this issue to bed. Whether or not those extra scenes did anything to you as an
individual viewer remains a debatable subject, but you can’t sensibly argue
that the filmmakers only sought more money.
The plot of Five Armies surrounds a massive
cluster-fu . . . um, cluster-mess
that results when several nations decide they want access to the same
mountain-perched city.
The dwarves want the city because it serves as the homeland from which they once faced eviction via a
dragon.
The elves want it
because some of the vast treasure inside the city belonged to them prior to the
dragon’s thefts.
The humans need
the shelter and treasure to survive and rebuild their lives after the dragon
destroyed their village.
The orcs want it
because the mountain offers a strategic position for the war they
plan against everyone else.
The fifth army . .
. you know, I stand uncertain who serves as the fifth army.
The shape-shifter
and his eagles that eventually show up? The goblins who eventually show up? The
orcs’ air force of giant bats that eventually shows up? The dwarves and hobbit
hidden inside the mountain, who watch the war rage outside before they decide to show up?
These armies make
and break alliances at the drop of a hat. Everyone turns on everyone else to
get what he or she wants, though most of them can walk away with exactly
what they want, given a little cooperation.
That sounds like a
war to me. Chaos controlled by a select few who squabble and act in jealous
haste, their citizenry forced to butcher each other until someone realizes the
needlessness of it.
The dwarves don’t
want the elves’ jewels. The elves don’t want the dwarves’ home. The mountain
city and its treasures prove large enough to satisfy the needs (and wants)
of the dwarves and humans.
The dragon
represents a power vacuum. The beast spent years in its duties to terrorizes
everyone around him and guard the mountain and its stolen treasures.
The dragon dies,
and all that land and gold grow ripe for the taking. This could serve as a time
of prosperity and healing for all parties—if they work together. Greed rears
its ugly head, and the armies profitlessly clash.
Those who love war
for the stench of blood (represented by the orcs) always exist. However, those
people can only thrive in a divided world.
Once the other
armies of Middle Earth (the movie’s setting) join forces, they quickly chase
away those orcs.
I suppose one grievance
remains noteworthy. I found—as I often do with fantasy—a suspicious lack
of female characters. We see a few in the background, but only one, an elf,
earns any legitimate screen time.
One man (the
eventual leader of the human army) faces multiple dangers with the (unwelcome)
aid of his young son. A few daughters belong to this same man. Imagine if one
of those daughters took the son’s place in those scenes. I see no reason
why not.
I always loved Bilbo
Baggins as a character. He stands smaller and physically weaker than those
around him, yet he rises to the occasion for all the right reasons. I consider his
character arc perfect.
Actor, Martin
Freeman plays a wonderful, believable version of Bilbo.
A scene that
involves Bilbo, the dwarves’ holy stone, and what one does with the other (I
won’t spoil the event here), makes me love Bilbo all the more.
Even if you don’t
agree with Bilbo’s actions in the abovementioned scene, you must respect the
logic, ethics, and bravery that fueled it.
The movie stays
true to the book with regards to Bilbo’s actions (or lack thereof) while the
final showdowns (and what magnificent, over-the-top showdowns they prove)
occur.
Given my love of
this character, though, I wanted to see something more happen with him at that
time.
I hope that the
orcs merely embody evil and do not serve to suggest that an entire race fits so
easily into a single box.
The orcs exist as
horrible, ugly, disfigured creatures. Again, I hope that this serves only to
illustrate the ugliness of war and greed—not that someone’s looks define her or his character.
I would feel better
about the orcs if I had watched the orcs suffer from birth in a world
that trains, brainwashes, and abuses them into the killing machines they
become, a suggestion that nurture shaped them, not nature.
I want evidence
that the orcs’ environment (interchangeable between races), and not their DNA,
define them and mold their behavior.
Yes, I split hairs
and grasp at straws, but I want to offer more than a simple song of The Five
Armies’s praises. I want to dig deeper into the property from a literary
and political viewpoint.
Bottom line: Five Armies offers great fun, the
product of hard work performed by filmmakers who care desperately about their
product.
I approve. I recommend. I stand grateful for the experience.
Next week ought to usher in the return of the usual schedule for my blogs.
Tuesdays: A look at the politics of the entertainment world at EntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com.
Wednesdays: An inside look at my novels (such as Daughters of Darkwana, which you can now find on Kindle at Darkwana.blogspot.com
Fridays: Tips to improve your fiction at FictionFormula.blogspot.com
Sundays: Movie reviews at moviesmartinwolt.blogspot.com
Thanks for reading! See you next time <wink>.
No comments:
Post a Comment