I saw the new Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug, yesterday and I, unsurprisingly, have opinions. I’m a huge fan of Tolkien’s books and I
think when you’re a fan of a book you can have two responses when that
book is then adapted into a film: either you hate it irrespective of quality
because no film can ever compare to the film that played out in your head when
you were reading OR you love it despite its flaws because you’re just so
pleased to return to a world that engrossed you for hours. I suspect that I
probably fall into the latter category because I could tell that the film was flawed (so very, very flawed)
but I still found myself enjoying it.
The first Hobbit film was infamous for
making people sick with its super high definition, frenetic camera work and its
frantically paced action scenes. This film is definitely an improvement in this
regard but Peter Jackson still makes some odd choices with the shooting of
certain scenes.
The constantly moving camera in some
sections is disorientating. The camera will sweep, while pivoting, over characters
as they move through scenes, making it virtually impossible to follow the
characters or the action. I don’t remember this being a problem for the Lord of
the Things trilogy but the swooshing, swirling camera is frustratingly
persistent here. Why has Peter Jackson suddenly decided that dizzying camera
movements are the way forward?
And when did Peter Jackson get so keen on
close-ups? There are so many shots of people’s faces really, really up close
and I can’t quite figure out what these shots are supposed to show except that
Peter Jackson has a really nifty camera.
Cinematographic criticism aside, what about
the actual story? After the first Hobbit, I don’t think anyone was really
surprised that this second film is not particularly faithful to the book. I
personally don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The 1999 film adaptation
of Mansfield Park, starring Frances O’Connor and Jonny Lee Miller, is such a
poor adaptation of Jane Austen's novel that I tend to think of it as ‘inspired by’ the
novel rather than an actual adaptation. I can still enjoy it as an
Austen-inspired, regency romp, just not as a book adaptation.
I think it’s best to view the Hobbit films
in the same way. The original book is pretty short so by making the decision to
turn it into three films, it is inevitable that there’s going to be a lot of
additional stuff thrown in there. Most obviously, a lot of characters that were
not in the original book have been added to the films, like Radagast the Brown,
Galadriel and Legolas. But for the Desolution of Smaug they have not only added
Tolkein characters where they don’t belong, they’ve invented a whole new
character! A lady elf!
The introduction of a new female character
was a welcome move to me. As much as I love Tolkien’s books, they are woefully
devoid of female characters. I was really surprised while reading an interview
with Hobbit screenwriter, Philippa Boyens, when she said that, “Tolkien writes
brilliantly for women.” Really?! Has Philippa Boyens actually read Tolkien?
When the Lord of the Rings books were made
into a film trilogy, the female characters of the books were all substantially
bolstered. This makes sense because modern audiences and critics expect the
inclusion of female characters, even if they are often rather shallow. A lot of time and energy is spent dissecting the portrayal of women in films and Swedish cinemas have just introduced a film rating that judges a film on its gender bias. So Peter
Jackson wisely took the virtually non-existent female characters from the books
and made them into actual characters.
Out of all the female characters, Arwen is
the one that is altered the most from books to films. That epic horse chase
with Arwen carrying an ailing Frodo away from the Nazgul? Not in the book.
Arwen’s internal conflict over whether she should go with her fellow elves to
Valinor or stay in Middle Earth? Also no. Arwen is a complete non-entity in the
books. Other characters mention her and how beautiful she is but that’s pretty
much it. So I have no problem with Peter Jackson plonking her in an action sequence
and giving her an internal conflict over her future.
Galadriel’s role is essentially the same in
the books and the film. Galadriel is adored because she’s beautiful – that’s
pretty much it.
And then of course we have Eowyn. Eowyn is a
sword wielding, Witch-King killing badass in both the books and the films, it’s
just that her part is obviously bolstered in the films. Eowyn feels stifled by
the gender expectations of her society, she’s good with a sword, and she defies
her father to go to battle. So you could perhaps argue that Eowyn shows that
Tolkein can write feminist characters but you would be wrong. At the end of
Return of the King, Eowyn meets Faramir, they fall hastily in love, and Eowyn
declares that her days of shield maiden-ing are over. The book makes it sound
like being a badass is just a phase that women go through while waiting for the
perfect man to turn up.
Peter Jackson made the right choices in the
Lord of the Rings films in bolstering the roles of the female characters and I
think the introduction of the female elf character, Tauriel, in the Desolation
of Smaug was a good idea as well. And they haven’t just added a token female
character; she’s actually quite interesting. She’s a competent fighter who can
hold her own like any of the male characters and she’s conflicted in her
responsibility to her people vs her desire to help the people beyond the borders
of her home. Since the Hobbit films have A LOT of characters, she’s about as
developed as she could be. I just hope she’s developed through the next film
and not just sidelined and forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment