The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies has nothing much to say, but it takes an awfully long time to say it.

This, the conclusion of the three Hobbit films, tells us, once again, that a cursed object can turn everyday greed into  megalomania.  It tells us that love triangles are a cheap way to generate dramatic tension.  It tells us that somewhere between The Lord of the Rings: The Returnof the King and today, Peter Jackson forgot how to present massive battles in a way that made geographical, military, character, and thematic sense.

Either that, or I really am getting too old for this stuff.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I am the target demographic for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  I still have a 35-year-old copy of the source novel that has followed me from move to move.  I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I bought the extended editions of all three of those films on DVD.  Heck, I even loved the generally unappreciated first ‘Hobbit’ film, An Unexpected Journey.

Desolation of Smaug is different.  I fell asleep during the climax.

By the time the film got our titular hobbit to the treasure-laden lair of the dragon Smaug, it had taken so many detours that I’d lost interest.  A love triangle featuring two elves and a dwarf?  That idea never should have escaped the world of slash fiction.  A tedious backstory about a heroic ferryman and his family’s legacy of dragonfighting?  Meh.  Gandalf and Radagast investigating the possible appearance of the villain from The Lord of the Rings?  At least it wasn’t trade negotiations. 

And on and on and on and on.  The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug felt so bloated and meandering that it failed to generate any propulsive energy.  I began the film caring about our Hobbit’s quest to find Smaug’s mountain, but by the time the last MacGuffin showed up (some kind of glowing gem that the dwarves want), I’d lost interest and felt the need to rest my eyes.

All this means that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, failed in its core mission: entertaining its audience.  I didn’t actively hate it, but I grew so bored I don’t even know whether I’ll queue up its final sequel, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.  It’ll take one heck of a critical reception to make me change my mind.

Coriolanus

You don't see Coriolanus at many Shakespeare repertory theaters. It's a tough play about a hard man, the fickle masses, and one woman's insatiable drive for glory in a culture that will allow her to achieve it only through the men she controls.

Caius Martius is a patrician and a General of the Roman Republic. At home in the (relative) meritocracy of the Roman Army and a formidable battler, he wins a great victory over the hated Volscians at the Battle of Coriolae. Lauded in Rome and awarded the honorific "Coriolanus," his family sees this as his moment to stand for Consul.  But he can't do the things that politicians do. He can't pretend to be one of the people, whom he sees as a fickle, unwashed mass - there to be led or bullied. He has so completely absorbed the martial virtues that he can't stand to trumpet his victories or show his battle scars for the approval of the citizenry. In short, he's unfit to be Consul. When the entrenched politicians who see him as a threat perceive this, they mercilessly destroy his political career. The rest, well, it's tragedy for some and triumph for others. But it isn't nice and it isn't funny and it isn't pretty - not the stuff to pull in the fickle, unwashed masses who only turn up for yet another production of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

So bravo to Ralph Fiennes for tackling one of the more challenging plays in this, his directorial debut. Taking a page from the theatrical tradition of transposing Shakespeare's plays to any number of historical and cultural settings, he sets his Coriolanus in the Balkans of not so very long ago. He casts 300's Gerard Butler as the Volscian leader, the omnipresent (and best-ever Hannibal Lecter) Brian Cox as Senator and family friend Menenius, James Nesbitt (delightful in the BBC's Jekyll and a standout in the first Hobbit movie) as an enemy politician, and the ubiquitous Jessica Chastain (who took my breath away in Tree of Life) as his wife. Most critically and successfully of all, he landed Vanessa Redgrave to play Volumnia, his mother and a woman so hungry for glory that she'll chew through every man in her family to get it and call it love.

Redgrave is Coriolanus's secret weapon, delivering the definitive performance of the role in modern film. In a cast filled with actors varying from promising to respectable to noted to outstanding, Redgrave is great. By "great," I mean Great. Her Volumnia is a masterpiece of ambition and calculation, Roman virtue and matronly control. And, yes, even of love. Fiennes, to his credit, lets her run. He demonstrates the self-confidence to embrace a performance that outshines his own very good one and, in the process, creates something magical.

Is Coriolanus perfect? Nothing is. The film's battles and knife fights are incomprehensible and could have benefitted from the touch of an editor with more experience in the action genre (An IMdB search tells me that editor Nicolas Gaster did the outstanding Moon and the indulgent MirrorMask, among many other credits stretching back to 1977, but he appears to have no major action credits to his name.). But that's about the only glove I can lay on it. When that's all I've got, you're doing ok.

I've always respected Ralph Fiennes as an actor. With Coriolanus, he debuts as a director and interpreter of Shakespeare worthy of note. I look forward to his next effort.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I took my wife and oldest child to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I loved it, which isn't saying much. I'm wedded to the source material, you see. The book was my early-adolescent gateway drug to the world of fantasy, and I loved Peter Jackson's film simply for the opportunity it gave me to spend time in its world.

This is the paragraph where I tease the plot, to help you decide whether it interests you. But this is The Hobbit we're talking about. If you don't know the plot, just go read the book. If you're a reasonably fast reader, you can plow through it in about as much time as it'd take you to get in the car, drive to the theater, see the film, and drive home.

That said, the film is a prequel done right. Yes, it puts pieces in place for the LOTR movies (discussed here, here, and here), but it tells its own story, with its own dangers and its own heroes and villains. I cared about Bilbo qua Bilbo, and not just because of the effect his actions might have on other people in other movies down the storyline. Sherlock's Martin Freeman does great work in the role, giving us the very much settled adult hobbit, as opposed to Elijah Woods's young adult Frodo. James Nesbitt, alternately chilling and charming in BBC's Jekyll, shows a whole different side as a particularly cheerful and resourceful dwarf (whose names I never could keep strait, in print or on film). And it's always nice to see 7th Doctor Sylvester McCoy getting work, this time as nature wizard Radagast the Brown.

When I inevitably purchase this film, I'll be particularly interested in watching the special features about the technical aspects of its creation.  With as much care as Peter Jackson and his team put into creating Middle Earth for The Lord of the Rings, they had to work even harder here. See, Jackson chose to film in 48 fps, the kind of super-high definition you may associate with sporting events on an HDTV. That means that spray paint over styrofoam wasn't going cut it, this time around. This stuff needed to look better that low-def real: it had to look real real. In this, Jackson succeeds perhaps too well. His vision, at 48fps 3-D, is so clear and detailed that we find ourselves moving into the uncanny valley, where our brains shift from willing suspension of disbelief to unwillingly noticing that things are not quite right. While the film's hyperreality works to breathtaking effect in sequences like the battle of the stone giants, I had to consciously suspend my disbelief when it returns to a bunch of actors on a stage who look just like a bunch of actors on a stage.

Nevertheless, I was happy to keep on believing. I cared about Bilbo, I loved the action set-pieces, and I just plain enjoyed spending 2 hours and 45 minutes in Middle Earth. I look forward to going back again.