"Inside Information"Bilbo's discussion with Smaug is more direct in Jackson's film, person-to-dragon. The
ring is only partly effectual, which makes sense IF Smaug is one of
Sauron's minions or at least sympathetic to his cause. Sauron--the Necromancer--is waking up/drawing to
himself orcs and wargs and spiders and other bad stuff. Consequently, the ring works around Smaug only to a limited extent.
The "rules" here are consistent within Jackson's universe. (The use of
the ring in the book also makes sense since the Necromancer is occupied with
returning to power and Smaug is more of an independent villain; however, in truth, Tolkien was likely still figuring
out the ring's "rules" in The Hobbit.)
I do regret that Bilbo doesn't play a stronger role in bringing
down Smaug. In the book, Bilbo spots the gap in Smaug's underarmor. He reports the
event to the dwarfs. A thrush overhears and tells Bard.
However, again, regarding rules--Jackson does a decent job creating
a background/set-up for Bard and the arrow that will bring down Smaug (whilst
throwing in a William Tell moment). In a playwriting course in college, I learned that one of the
primary rules of play and movie scripts is pay-offs: pay-off your set-ups. Jackson
understands this rule. If Bard matters, then Bard knows the story of his
ancestor. If Bard knows the story of his ancestor, then Bard feels an
obligation to finish that ancestor's job. If Bard is going to finish the
ancestor's job, he needs a way to do it: an arrow and knowledge.
Back to Bilbo and Smaug, Smaug is the supreme example of "the devil lies by speaking half-truths." His conversations with Bilbo are excellently used by Jackson. Bilbo has good reason in book and movie to distrust that the dwarfs will keep their word. They have sent him alone into danger on more than one occasion. Thorin is becoming increasingly self-serving. Smaug's words increase his distrust, which unfortunately dovetails with his own observations.
Inherent hobbit toughness and indifference to power give Bilbo an objectivity that only the late-arriving dwarfs retain. Thorin is increasingly not himself.
"Not At Home"
The difference between movie and book here reminds me of the book
War of the Worlds, where a great change has occurred but the narrator does not yet know why. Bilbo and the dwarfs explore the mountain before they realize Smaug is dead.
I like the chapter and the limited perspective. However, very
few action movies can handle such narrow points of view effectively.
Even War of the Worlds (1953) opts for an aerial, omniscient point of view near the end.
Independence Day resolves the problem in a clever way by having the
Big Bad looked at by several limited points of view. Die Hard gives several perspectives but never forgets exactly what John McClane knows and doesn't
know at any given moment (fantastic movie!). Bourne Supremacy keeps the
points of view narrow so that Bourne's knowledge mostly runs the
narrative (by necessity).
So, the narrow perspective can be done. World fantasy and a narrow third-person perspective is far more difficult.
One huge difference between book and Jackson's movies, of course, is that in the
book, the dwarfs and Bilbo inadvertently send Smaug to
Lake-Town--they don't first try to outwit and contain him. (As Tolkien
says, Smaug has a rather "overwhelming personality").
 |
Smaug at the forges.
|
Their efforts to fight him make them more heroic in the movie than in the book--and indicate that Thorin's noble and warrior nature lurks beneath all the self-justifications--but the
outcome is the same.
The book is so strong, I would argue, because it is realistic about
human nature and politics. Any action--however justified--will have inadvertent
consequences. Smaug needed to be handled. There was simply
no way that Smaug could be handled without fairly devastating fallout.
Tolkien doesn't retreat to "but it's the heroes--they can't do anything
wrong!" territory, and neither does Jackson, though Jackson has them try a
little harder not to force the problem elsewhere.
The Treasure in General
One great thing about Jackson's sets, especially the dragon hoard, is that they look as impressive as they ought to look.
While watching Treasure Island with Christian Bale, a movie I
otherwise quite like, I was disappointed that the treasure when
discovered seemed...kind of lame. In truth, it is realistically
impressive. BUT it doesn't live up to all that waiting and wondering.
Jackson gives viewers what a movie and a half has prepared them for--the visual does equal the anticipation.
Visual = anticipation is a difficult problem in film,
in part because, well, money! Humans can always imagine bigger than what
can be delivered. The good movie attempts to deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment