I have a love/hate relationship with the Omaha Beach invasion scene from Saving Private Ryan. On one hand, it's arguably the best, most brutal, realistic, and unflinching battle scenes in the history of war films. On the other hand, it began countless trends in Hollywood that are now so common that it's getting f**king annoying. But while these trends are overused and stagnant in most Hollywood films nowadays, at the time Saving Private Ryan was made these advancements and tricks were flat out groundbreaking, paving the way for countless directors to take these tricks and try to pass them off as their own. Sadly, it's a trend in Hollywood that will never go away (just think of all the movies that featured "bullet time" after The Matrix was released).
When Saving Private Ryan was released, Hollywood had more or less perfected camera technology. Specialized lenses eliminated the most stubborn of lens flare, internal servos and gyros allowed steady-cams to collect a perfectly level picture despite constant jostling, and digital film cameras allowed a much broader spectrum of colors to permeate the screen. So when Steven Spielberg wanted to recreate a scene from war without the use of any of these camera features, a lot of people thought he had lost his mind.
But the gambit paid off, and in the end we received a scene that is just as gut-punchingly brutal to watch today as it was when it was released. Not eliminating the lens flare of the scene added a depth of realism to the battle, especially since it would be a common sight as soldiers were emerging from the freezing waters. The elimination of the steady-cam created an effect known today (for better or worse) as shaky-cam, conveying a frantic sense of confusion to the viewer which creates an emotional link with the scared, panicked soldier on D-Day without saying a word. Nowadays Hollywood uses this trick non-stop, even in places where it doesn't belong. The Hunger Games even uses this effect in the opening scene, when Katniss is just walking through a field!
But most daring of all was Spielberg's decision to de-saturate the color spectrum to create a film that had a sepia toned look and splashes of water and blood occasionally obscuring the shot. By doing so through the painstaking switching of lenses and cameras Spielberg was able to create a movie that looked half Hollywood, and half documentary, adding a level of realism never before scene in a movie. Nowadays you can see the same effect in every "stylized" Hollywood film through the use of computer effects labs, but back in the day it was innovative and unheard of, creating a scene that has aged as well and resounds as strongly with the audience as it did the day it was released.
The entire film is a work of art, but this scene in particular stands out in peoples' minds as the high point of the movie. And while apparently Saving Private Ryan lost the Oscar that year to Shakespeare in Love, the test of time (and common sense) reminds us that it is still the superior movie for countless reasons.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
There's really a lot to like about The Dark Knight. It's easily the best film in the Dark Knight trilogy, and features Heath Ledger in a role that has become legendary despite Jack Nicholson playing it decades earlier. One scene however, is so well shot, so well executed , and so all around perfect, that it rises to the top of all the great scenes featured in this trilogy... the interrogation.
Like Vader's redemption from last week, a lot of the greatness in this scene stems from the villain utterly stealing the show with his delivery of his lines. This is a big boon in itself, but what makes this aspect so important in this film is that in doing so Heath Ledger has also subconsciously let the audience know that the Joker is the one in charge of the situation despite his apparent seat of weakness in the scene. This is important because it subliminally allows the audience to still be threatened and intimidated by a clown in handcuffs, not an easy feat in any sort of film.
Notice how Christopher Nolan took a page from the Francis Ford Coppola and initially has the Joker hidden in the shadows like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now to convey how they are almost one with the darkness:
But then Nolan expands on this idea and has the light come on with the entrance of Batman, allowing the viewer to realize that Batman represents the light and order as opposed to Joker's darkness and chaos, a yin to his yang, a battle of symbolism if you will.
Next we have the brilliant dialogue between the two juggernauts on screen, and we begin to see how fractured Joker's psyche and sense of morality really is. But what really kicks this scene into high gear is when Batman finally snaps and begins beating him down, and this is the first time (and only time) that we see Batman truly powerless against someone. He has met someone who can beat him one way or another, and despite all his strength and skills we see him unable to save the people who need saving and forced into a choice he swore he would never make.
Finally, we have the score, a slowly building violin score that plays whenever the Joker comes on screen. Nolan has stated that he chose this score because it represented the growing madness inherent in the Joker's character, his growing wishes to simply see the world burn. It's a perfect piece for this character, and when coupled with this scenes' escalation of crisis it really places it over the top to get my number 8 scene of all time.
Return of the Jedi is a bit of a conundrum for me. On one hand, I consider it by far the weakest film in the Star Wars trilogy because of its' strange choices in film making such as replacing Wookies with Ewoks, the entire first act, and more of less neutering the awesomeness that is Han Solo. On the other, it contains most of my favorite scenes in the series, such as the best space battle in the series, any scene with Ian Mcdiarmid, and the final showdown between Luke and Vader. But while I could have probably comprised this entire list of scenes just from Star Wars films (Han Solo saving Luke at the Death Star, the Battle of Hoth, Darth Vader telling Luke he is his father, etc.), my favorite scene in the trilogy revolves around Darth Vader's redemption scene.
This scene is so emotional and there is so much going on in it that it's hard to even put into words how utterly brilliant it is, but I'll try. First of all, we have Ian Mcdiarmid completely stealing the show with every line of dialogue he utters. This scene has more memorable lines in it than most of the rest of the Star Wars trilogy combined, and his delivery is so evil and perfect that his brief appearance in the series has earned him a place as one of the greatest big screen villains of all time.
Next we have the music, and while last week I pointed out that the lack of real music amplified the power of the scene, in this case we have the opposite effect. The score is perfectly set to what is happening on screen, and punctuates every point with an appropriate pitch or tune. Just listen to that crescendo that follows "Now young Skywalker... you will die". For the life of me I seriously can't think of a more perfectly fitting score in the history of film.
Now it's hard to deny that the prequels have completely ruined the concept of the Emperor using lightning against Luke, but the first time I saw this film and saw that lightning shoot out of Palpatines' fingers I was in complete awe. Here I thought Luke and Vader were the epitome of what the force could accomplish, but now we have this new threat who is able to literally command the elements at his whim to torture our hero. I may have been seven at the time, but to this day I still remember that this was the first time I ever felt uncomfortable watching a movie. Lukes' torture went on so long that right before Vader gave the Emperor the old heave ho I just wanted Luke to die so he would be out of his misery. Whether you love or hate the Star Wars film, you can't deny that this scene really created a visceral reaction in the audience.
Finally we have Vader himself, filled with emotional conflict between the choice he is being forced to make: either side with a man who has been his friend and mentor for the last twenty years, or save the son he never knew he had and who represents everything he hated in his former life. Not being able to see his face underneath the mask makes the scene even more powerful, since we can only imagine the emotional struggle occurring on his face. and while the recent addition of a "No... NOOOO!" in recent editions has tarnished this silent moment, it still remains one of the greatest redemption scenes of one of the greatest big screen villains of all time.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
Quints' speech about the USS Indianapolis is (in my mind at least) the greatest monologue ever caught on film, but not for the reasons you may think. Yes, the scene is brilliant in the fact that the simple act of a guy talking manages to be mesmerizing, creepy, and legendary all at the same time, but it's the things you don't really notice about the scene that makes it stand out above all other monologues in film history.
As Quint delves into the ghosts that have haunted him since World War II, we begin to glimpse into the dark obsession that will eventually lead him to his demise, made even more terrifying by the fact that he knows this will likely be the outcome of his hunt. In doing so Spielberg makes Quints' obsession transform him into a modern day incarnation of Captain Ahab from Moby Dick, so whether you know it or not the film has just made a literary link that can resound quietly and effectively with the audience.
Not only is Shaws' delivery brilliant, but something that should be noted is that this scene is largely improvised. Everyone knows the nightmare that "Bruce" the shark caused the film, and filming this scene was just a way for Spielberg to buy time for the maintenance crew to get her up and running again. The fact that this man could pull this out and create a scene that will go down in history pretty much on a whim is a testament to the acting skills of Robert Shaw. The occasional shots back to Brody and Hooper show them just as transfixed and terrified by this dark story as we the audience are.
They say that a scene is 60% music and 40% what's happening on screen (we will further discuss this in next week's scene recap), but in this film the only music we hear is a soft, haunting classical that doesn't even enter until about halfway through the scene. This delivery is so brilliant, so well shot, and so timeless however, that I believe it would be just as effective and haunting if there had been no music at all!
There may be other, better monologues out there in film, but the combination of Spielberg's direction, Shaws' performance, and the overall tone of this scene places it as my personal favorite in film history.
Oh Hollywood, what has become of your greatest on screen bad
guys? Russians have lost all relevancy
since the end of the Cold War, terrorists are offensive, zombies have become
completely overused, and Russian terrorist zombies are just too high concept for
the likes of Hollywood. If only we could find a new villain for American and
world-wide audiences to pick on.
But wait! We have! Finally, a vile, despicable group of
people that Hollywood film producers and directors can rally behind, a monster
that surely all people must understand is the true villain in this world… this
asshole.
I really try to keep politics out of my film blog, but I’m
breaking this rule this one time because if you’re like me, you have probably
noticed a growing trend in Hollywood films and television shows of making
soldiers, marines, and the U.S. military in general the bad guys. Even worse,
this trend is exacerbated by the idea that the reasons for their dastardly
plans stem from either some form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, combat
experience, or insanity caused by a war they fought in. This trend has been
growing exponentially in the last few years, but one film in particular has
brought it to a head in such an over the top manner that I had to write about
it, Liam Neeson’s newest action film Non-Stop.
Now I’m a big Liam Neeson fan, but shortly after this film
came out I began to notice that a lot of people on Facebook were telling people
to stay clear of this film and not to support it. The most curious thing about
this however, was that the predominant group of people telling me to avoid this film were
friends of mine from the military. So out of curiosity I decided to look up the ending
to see what was so horrible about this film. After all, I had certainly seen my
share of films portraying the military in a negative light, so how bad could this
ending really be?
What... the... piss?!?
For those of you who haven’t seen the film, please scroll
down past the END SPOILERS section if you don’t want to have the film ruined
for you. Also, please note that while this is what I have found online, it's been substantiated by several friends of mine:
SPOILERS
The villains of the film are American soldiers, one of which
was the family member of a person who died in 9/11. After they joined the
military they were “disgusted and disillusioned
by the pointless wars they were forced to fight in, and the innocent people
they were forced to murder under orders”. To top this all off, the villains
then begin spouting off the importance of the Constitution in a psycho rant,
making anyone who believes in it look like a complete asshole in the eyes of
the audience.
END
SPOILERS
At least, that was the
intention…
I don’t know how much of this
is true, but people who saw the film said that viewers in their theaters
audibly groaned or booed when the villain was revealed, which makes me feel a
little better, but how the heck did Hollywood make this the growing norm of
films and television?
Now I would have to be blind
not to realize that Hollywood is liberal central, and that any films released
with a political agenda is guaranteed to be a liberal one. The problem is that
I’m not going to the movies to see liberal agenda laden films, especially ones
where people like me are made out to be the
bad guys. I’m jus going to see an action shlock film. Does Hollywood really feel it’s that
important to pound it into my face how much of an asshole I should feel like and how I should
be ashamed of myself for not feeling the same way they do?
Now that soldiers of every
branch are being persecuted and poorly portrayed on film, I tried to think of
why Hollywood would make this decision (other than the obvious political one).
I mean, they wouldn't have tried to get away with this in the months or years directly following 9/11, so why is it acceptable now? I've come up with three main
reasons why this is OK:
1.Worldwide Marketability-In the last
decade or so there has been a massive shift in film priorities to appeal to
worldwide audiences instead of just domestic ones. Theaters have become more
accessible in all countries, so the last thing we want to do is offer up
villains that the rest of the world can’t get behind. Make the bad guy a
Russian, and Russian audiences won’t go see the movie. It’s simple economics,
and the bottom line is always the winner.
A few years ago, when they were
making the Red Dawn, the villains were originally going to be the
Chinese. The story was supposed to be that America defaulted on its’ national
debt, so the Chinese invaded in order to settle the score. It was a plot that
actually made sense, but the problem was we wouldn’t want to offend China, oh
no! So now that we couldn’t release this blasphemous idea to the world, and we
wanted China’s money, how should we go about doing this? Simple! They made the
villains North Korea! They digitally changed the flags to North Korea, a
country that doesn’t pull in any revenue for American films, and hey! Who cares
if the actors are Chinese and not North Korean, they all look the same, right
Hollywood?
Remember G.I. Joe? A
childhood memory and toy with the tagline “A real American hero”? Well… not so
much anymore. To appeal to mass audiences, the heroes in the film were changed
from American soldiers to soldiers from all over the world. G.I. changed from
Government Issue to Global… something. There’s a Chinese soldier, a middle
eastern soldier, a Brit (I think), and every other country you could think of.
All they were missing was a kid in a wheelchair! But don’t worry America, we’ll
fill out the American roster by making COBRA (the faceless villain of the G.I.
Joe franchise) an American Special Forces soldier. That should make everyone
happy, right?
One final example was Hollywood’s
obsession with changing the name of Captain America to The First
Avenger, a move that Joe Johnston had to fight tooth and nail to overrule,
at the cost of removing pretty much every American flag from the film. Iron
Man 3 had a special edition released in China, where they filmed extra
scenes without Shane Black’s knowledge and featured none of the cast. The
scenes completely re-worked the plot where Iron Man was now fighting for China,
and the Chinese were the good guys! YAAAAAAAY! The list goes on and on for
worldwide audience pandering, and if the Chinese release of Iron Man 3 is any
indication, they aren’t buying it. Which is a good thing to happen to companies
selling out their pride in their country for a couple extra bucks.
2.The Rise of Special Interest Groups-Not
long ago, ESPN editor Anthony Federico was fired for describing a basketball
player’s nine turnovers as a “chink in the armor”. Why? Because said player was
Asian superstar Jeremy Lin. And even though Anthony had used the phrase
countless times in past columns and it was a very common phrase, it didn’t
matter once Asian special interest groups got involved and demanded his job.
What does this have to do with
soldiers as movie villains? Well in the last fifteen years or so special
interest groups have made it impossible to portray any race or creed that isn’t
white as the “bad guys”, even when it makes no sense not to do so. Nowadays all
villains are white guys with militaristic and Constitutional ideals, so much so
that the frequency of this has gotten freaking obnoxious. The terrorists in White
House Down? American white guys who worked in the pentagon. The terrorists
in Die Hard 4? American white guys who worked in the Pentagon.
Terrorists are all white in films, despite the fact that almost no terrorist
acts are perpetrated by white Americans.
Now listen, I understand Muslims
have just as much right to be the good guys in a film (non-Stop accomplished
this as well). They are a vital part of the American mixing pot, and a great
majority of them are peaceful American citizens. But when seventy percent of
worldwide terrorist attacks are committed by Sunni Muslims alone (I did NOT wing
that number, that is a real statistic from the National Counter-Terrorism Center), then you can’t act surprised if the
terrorists in a Hollywood movie are portrayed as Muslim. Muslim interest groups
were angry that the bad guys in Zero-Dark-Thirty were Muslim, even
though it is based on a true story!
Racial statistics are going to be
reflected in Hollywood films, it wouldn’t make any sense not to do so if you
are telling a story based on demographics and context. Do the Right Thing
isn’t going to have a predominately white cast in it, nor is Saving Private
Ryan going to have an African American army storming the beaches of
Normandy. And while I understand that the former example is a narration of
racial inequality and the latter is a historical recount of a war, the point
shouldn’t just end there. People need to stop being so offended if they see art
mimicking life.
But nah, we don’t want to rock the
boat or take any risks would we? So where can we get a group of militarily trained people who are white,
in country, and can appease all special interest groups? If you replied
“soldiers of course!” then YOU TOO can be a Hollywood film producer. Hollywood is not a fan of the
United States soldier, so if they can offensively write them into a script to
make them the bad guys then it’s win-win! And they do it out of cowardice for
the next reason.
3.We Make Easy Targets-If a director was
to grow a pair of balls and make a protected group of people the villains in a
film for statistical accuracy, I would have mad respect for them. I would also
quickly accept that their days in Hollywood were over because their job would
be gone in seconds. When upset, special interest groups love to resort to mob
tactics in order to get what they want, a move that usually works, but one
group of people can be labeled monsters by everyone and don’t have the ability to
fight back… the military.
You see, where most special
interest groups don’t believe in Freedom of Speech if it hurts their feelings,
almost everyone in the military has accepted this point as a necessary cost of
freedom. It’s why when people create Facebook pages like “F**k the Troops” you
will notice that a surprisingly small number of people demanding that the page
be taken down are military. It’s where you get the saying “While I don’t agree
with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it”, it’s
just a small part of a greater good.
So when Hollywood releases films
with stories and messages like “evil military are punished for things they did
in Iraq”, you never ever see military groups boycotting the picture or
demanding the director’s job. We understand that film is an art, and art is
protected under freedom of speech. The few who do actually protest the film are
often met with the cowardly response “Oh, I see you don’t believe in what you
fight for”, which is also the front contender in the field of “Quotes that make
me want to punch someone in the face until they look like Clint Howard.”
Ladies…
Now as if picking on the military isn’t bad enough, shows
and films have a tendency to make Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder the reason for
the soldier to be so evil the first place. It’s like a serious medical handicap
has given Hollywood Carte Blanche to make soldiers as vile as humanly possible,
all under the guise that they are doing it “to show how hard it is for veterans
to adjust”. Steven Hiller from Cracked.com probably worded this American conception
best.
“If First Blood,
The Deer Hunter, Jarhead,
and countless other films have taught us one thing, it’s that every serviceman
who has ever set foot in a war zone is just one flashback away from suicide,
homelessness, or violent murder. If we’re lucky, he will just quietly drink
himself to death. If we’re not, he’s gonna lay a beat down on your ass, because
he’s having a violent flashback and thinks you’re the ‘Cong. But while the public
understands that most trips to Vegas don’t end in wacky accidental marriages…
it’s somehow become general knowledge that the movie image of veterans is
pretty spot on.”
Now before you bombard this man for the comment in a
firestorm of angry emails, he’s actually writing a satirical observation of
American’s conceptions towards Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because he knows
it is BS. But that doesn’t change the fact that Hollywood’s newest trend is
beyond offensive. PTSD is a horrendous disorder that has affected countless
veterans and many of my friends. It’s a terrible disability that doesn’t get the attention it
deserves, but Hollywood thinks it is a great excuse to make veterans rampaging
Snidely Whiplash caliber villains.
How could anyone do this in respects to a disability and
think it is OK? Imagine if they made a film where the villains were a group of
kids affected with Down’s Syndrome? America would lose its’ collective mind.
But since the bad guys are just soldiers, well… bring on the Oscars at our
expense! As my fellow soldiers return home from multiple deployments we are
seeing support, benefits, and programs designed for us drying up at an alarming
rate in the last few years, but heaven forbid Hollywood make a film portraying
veterans dealing with THIS difficulty of civilian life because we wouldn’t want
to hurt the collective ideals of Hollywood and the current administration
behind it.
Now luckily we have a few directors in Hollywood who still
support us and our way of life, directors like Kathryn Bigelow, Peter Berg, and
I can’t believe I’m going to say this, Michael Bay. Yep, the director I rail
against more than anyone is one of the soldiers’ biggest supporters (I would also like to take this moment to point out in the most cowardly way possible that I have always defended Bay as a fantastic cinematographer).
Now you may say “But Kyle! The military were the bad guys in
The Rock!”. And while OK... yes, it is true that General Hummell and Major
Baxter were the masterminds behind the hostage taking, Bay did his damnedest to
show that they were in the wrong and did not represent the ideals of the
military. Even Navy SEAL Michael Beihn puts him in his place with a lovely
little soliloquy in the infamous shower scene…
Well… before he gets
murdered that is…
And in the end Hummell and Baxter come to their senses and
try to rectify their mistakes. Hummell was just a confused and frustrated man
who was fed up with the way the country was dealing with veterans and tried to
make it right for his me. He was more of an anti-hero than he was a villain,
and in the end he redeemed himself. Now true, the other Marines were the TRUE
villains, but their actions, dialogue (I want… my F**KING… MONEY!!!) showed
that they never really believed in the military, and as a result, never
reflected their values. In the end I don’t have a problem with this film
because the level of respect it shows the military is far more apparent than
any level of disrespect.
The point is that making military trained veterans the
villains in TV shows and films is OK, as long as you go out of your way to
explain how they’re crazy people whose ideals don’t reflect the values and
ideals of the military. The problem is that this new breed of military villainy is perpetually shown doing their evil deeds because they say they are
SUPPORTING the values and ideals of the military and America in general.
Now a few of you may jump in about now and
comment “Well Kyle, the director of Non-Stop is French, so he isn’t
going to share the same beliefs as an American”, to which I reply “Well then
that’s even MORE insulting”, because this film was produced and funded by an
American film studio. So now instead of making a statement by taking a dump on what
you perceive as another countries’ problems, you do so with their money! It’s
like instead of trashing your own house, you go over to a friends’ house who
was kind enough to offer you dinner, and then piss on their rug.
I'm actually a little disappointed that Liam Neeson, an actor I've liked and respected for years, didn't stop at some point and say "Wait, what? The villains are who? Why? That's kinda weird Mr. Director man, couldn't we just make them... I don't know... not soldiers?"
Now I could go on and on about the increasing level of
disrespect being shown in film, but one thing that’s bothering me more than
even this is the increasing amount of disdain and hatred these same films are
leveling against the Constitution. Now obviously I’m not a Democrat, but I’m
not a Republican either, I’m a Moderate Constitutionalist with some
conservative ideals (namely smaller government and the promise of
Constitutional rights). But one thing that overrides all of that however, is
the vow that I took along with every other service member to uphold the
Constitution, so what do these films and TV shows love to do in return? Take
potshots at the Constitution.
This is what I find unacceptable.
Movies like Non-Stop love to have the villain be a
Constitutionalist because it is a document that ensures people rights that the
left does not agree with, so what better way to have the audience hate it than
to have the villain misquote and pervert it like a lunatic? A very popular show
on CBS called Person of Interest revolves around a group of heroes who seek out
terrorists by using the government to illegally wiretap, record, and spy on
people, but it’s OK because they’re the good guys everyone! And then last week
the “Bad Guys” were… you guessed it… a group of former military Constitutionalists
who then violently murder people to “uphold the people’s rights”. The heroes
say things like:
“We need this system to weed out the true evil and protect Americans' rights!"
Oh, you mean the system that violates pretty much every
right guaranteed to the American people? Yeah, great rationality you got there.
Again, I know that Hollywood and the media are liberally biased, but do they
really need shows like this to push political agendas like “PRISM is the hero!”
and “Your rights aren’t as important as your safety!” or “Don’t listen to the
military, they don’t have your interests at heart.” As one final thing, I’d
like to point out that while every one of the things supported by this show and
others was put in place to “fight terrorism” (PRISM, NDAA, the IRS), the only things
they have been used for in real life is targeting their political enemies… just
food for thought.
So how can Hollywood get over this little problem and still
keep films intact? I’ve thought about it and I’ve come up with a pretty damn
good idea. OPERATE IN THE GRAY! Things in Hollywood movies have gotten so black
and white that they forget the best films tend to be the ones that work in the
middle, with no sides to the story. The best people in show business when it
comes to practicing this idea are actually the creators of the greatest
satirical program of all time, Matt Parker and Trey Stone. Both of them are
very right wing, but watching South Park and their films you wouldn’t even
notice it. For every joke about the left, there is a joke about the right. For
every jab against Obama, there is a praise. It’s not hard to remain unbiased in
Hollywood, as these two have proven time and time again.
Hollywood is getting really comfortable taking shots at the
military, and while I can’t really give them too much crap about it for the
reasons listed above, I can sure do my part by refusing to watch these movies
and hurting their bottom line. I understand that film-making is now a much more
world oriented business than it used to be, but do film makers really need to
abuse the powers that people like me fought to ensure them? I don’t know, I
really do try to keep an unbiased opinion about such things, but I do believe
that if I had never enlisted and had lived my life as a civilian, I would still
be disgusted by the things they are trying to currently perpetuate.
You ever watch a film based on a book and feel like they
had to leave out A LOT of important stuff because of time and money
constraints? Of course you did! Pretty much every Hollywood film based on a
book has been guilty of this crime, but you really can’t blame them. The
producers and directors of these films are more or less forced to cram a
700-1000 page novel into a film that’s barely two hours. Films like the middle
4 Harry Potter films, early James Bond films, and the Hunger Games films are
particularly guilty of this sin, and even people who have never read the books
can often get the impression that entire segments of the book were changed or
flat out eliminated to make the basic story concepts fit in the film.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a case study
of a film, namely because I can honestly say that it’s the first film I have
ever seen that is actually guilty of the opposite
problem. I’ve never read the book The Hobbit, but even without the knowledge of
the novelization I get the distinct feeling that massive segments of Tolkein’s
other works were shoehorned into this film in order to pad out three whole
movies based on a singular kid’s book, a move which would pad out the
producer’s wallets as well. Now I know by reading reviews that the first Hobbit
movie was guilty of this problem as well, but to me this padding felt pretty organic and flowed
relatively well with the story. In fact, if you were to ask me to pick out
which parts of the film were added and which were in the book I’d probably fail
to get even half of my choices right.
In Desolation of Smaug however, these additions seem
to stick out like a sore thumb, and there are a lot of scenes that seem to jar,
or flat out halt the flow of what is more or less a very interesting fantasy
tale. To make matters worse, this is the first Peter Jackson “Middle Earth”
film that (to me at least) fully felt like the nearly three hour running time. How
early into the film did I get this odd impression you may ask? Try the first
five minutes.
One of the first scenes of the film revolves around Bilbo
and company meeting a new supernatural character. He’s an interesting character
to be sure, and it certainly is a unique scene, but his introduction and
subsequent dialogue amounts to nothing more than “Have fun in Mirkwood guys”.
If they had eliminated this early scene altogether and simply had Gandalf warn
the company about the impending dangers of Mirkwood instead they could have
literally cut twenty minutes off the bloated run time right there, and this is
an idea I just had off the top of my head. Now I could be wrong, and maybe
the character was a big deal in the book, but to me his role seemed completely
useless and out of place.
I know it may seem like I’m already being harsh on this film
right out of the gate, but I did this to demonstrate a point. Believe it or not
I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit, but it was one of those few movies I
like that I also find incredibly frustrating because it was a few simple fixes
away from being a great film. It
just feels like they took the template of something awesome and just kept
cramming more and more crap into it to inflate the running time of the movie. When you have such
a well written and widely known story as this, why would you mess with it? We
all remember what this leads to right?
Oh…
Nowhere is this “mountains out of molehills” style of
film making more apparent than in the inflated action scenes. Now I kind of got
the impression that the entire barrel action scene was never in the books, so
after the film I looked into it and while there is a barrel scene in the book
it is limited to the dwarves hiding in barrels to sneak out of Mirkwood. Here
however we are treated to a fifteen minute action scene of elves vs. dwarves in
barrels vs. orcs, and it doesn’t flow as well as previously extended action
scenes.
Now I know that Peter Jackson has a habit of doing this,
even doing so quite a bit in the original Lord of the Rings films. The
difference is that in those movies the drawn out action scenes advanced the
storyline and were more or less necessary components in the War for the Ring.
Yeah, Helms Deep was a much longer fight than in the books, but these scenes flowed
well and advanced the story just as the book originally intended. It
also helped that these battles, while having fantasy elements in them like
orcs, and elves, and wizards, were much more grounded in reality than the
longer action scenes in the Hobbit film counterparts, so it’s easier to sit
through despite the long running times.
Uh oh! I appear to have opened a can of worms, so it’s time
for us to go down the rabbit hole of filmmaking 101 again. Now what do I mean
by an action scene being easier to sit through by being grounded in reality?
Well I have a theory in film, which we will call the “Guthrie Principle”.
Patent Pending
Basically my belief is that the more grounded an action
scene is to real life, the longer you can sit through it before you get bored
or your mind starts to wander. Black Hawk Down was more or less a 100 minute
firefight between Somali and American forces, but not once have I ever met
anyone who said they got bored at any point in the film. The most memorable and
well regarded Bond fights in the franchise (the train fight in From Russia
with Love, the opening fight from Thunderball, the foot chase from Casino
Royale, etc) all have the distinction of being the most realistic fights,
and they often end up being the longest. At no point do we see Bond using
gadgets, gizmos, or wacky weapons at any point of the more memorable fight
scenes.
Conversely, over the top, elaborate, insanely choreographed
fight scenes involving beyond belief settings seem to wear out the audience
much quicker than the realistic counterparts. The last eighty minutes of Transformers
3 featured dazzling effects, otherworldly action, and breathtaking
explosions and settings, and yet despite all this high-tech wizardry for the
life of me I can’t remember more than roughly two or three minutes of it! But
the big example of this problem is none other than the final lightsaber fight
between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker in Episode III.
This is literally a sword fight with laser weapons between
two demi-gods with perfect choreography inside an erupting volcano using flying
robots, explosive eruptions, and disintegrating set pieces, the epitome of
over-indulgence in an action. So how come I can remember every thrust, parry,
and swing from Luke and Vader’s lightsaber fight from Empire Strikes Back,
but I can’t really recall many of the details of the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight? Don’t
just take my word for it though, here’s a quote from none other than Obi-Wan
himself.
“It was a challenge with the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight because
three or four minutes into it you get over the initial explosion of the fight
and why they’re fighting”-Ewan McGregor
He’s basically saying that for such a large and epic set
piece the hardest challenge is keeping the audience’s attention through the
whole scene, a problem that grounded action scenes never really have to deal
with. Now obviously there are other factors to keeping your attention during an
extended action scene such as character attachment, personal investment in the film,
etc, but as a general original theory I may honestly be onto something.
In fact, some of what I consider to be the best and most
memorable victories in action films have nothing to do with action themselves,
but with the hero using their intelligence and wits to beat the bad guy with
very little or even no violence. One of my favorite “action” climaxes actually
comes from a fantastic comedy called Galaxyquest, where the main hero
tricks the villain into thinking he’s charging the villain's ship, but in
reality he’s hiding the fact that he’s dragging a shitzillion mines behind his
ship and directly into the villains main reactor. It’s a fantastic, feel good
ending, and while it doesn’t involve a single punch or gunshot it’s nonetheless
exhilarating to see such a simple idea payout in the villains defeat.
Think about it, some of the greatest films share this
characteristic, and some of them (like Galaxyquest) aren’t even action
films:
The point is that you can create a great scene chock full of
tension, action, and suspense without using a lot of violence, and a lot of
times this payout is even more rewarding. Why else do you think I love Doctor
Who so much? Pretty much every episode ends with the Doctor using his intellect
and wits to trick a superior force, usually followed with…
But getting back to the review, the drawn out action
sequences in the original LOTR trilogy never really bothered me, but in these
films they feel shoehorned and unnecessary. Like I said, this is the first film
in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit film franchise that really felt like the
full running length, and it’s a bit of a shame because once the film gets to
the actual introduction of Smaug it’s like a breath of fresh air since the film
felt like it was really beginning to drag on.
Smaug, like Gollum, is one of the greatest creatures to ever
be created in a film, and every second he’s on screen is breath-taking and exhilarating.
The first exchange between him and Bilbo is flat out brilliant, and if I had
seen this movie a few months ago it would have hands down ended up on my top
five moments of last year. The movie really lights up when he’s on screen, but
the only problem is the looooong lead up to get to it.
I need to stress why this film felt so long, and I hate to
nitpick because I really did like this film, but the shortcomings really began
to get on my nerves after a while. There were a lot of scenes (just like the
first scene) that they could have trimmed about 30 percent off of the majority
of them. That alone could have reduced the running time by about 45 minutes.
Also worth noting is that the entire Gandalf exploring that deserted castle
storyline reeeeally felt like they were milking it, you could have gotten
everything you needed from that storyline in about 20 minutes, but instead we
get a sequence that runs roughly 45-50 minutes.
The final real issue I had with the film was that Peter
Jackson seems to have forgotten how to break up the tension of an extended
action scene, a trait he excelled at with the previous trilogy. Remember the
awesome battle scene of Helm’s Deep? If you do, then you remember that they
kept switching back to a comparatively slow and dry scene of Merry and Pippin
talking with a bunch of tree ents. The transition of regularly switching from
an action scene to a dry scene allows the audience to retain the tension from
the action scene while the story can create a secondary tension with the slower
scene. This is called scaling or see-sawing, and if done correctly it can
perfectly maintain the tension of an exciting and drawn out action scene
without the audience getting bored of the action.
This tactic is used in almost every competently directed
action movie. Die Hard scaled the epic climactic fight between Karl and
John by balancing it with scenes of Hans discovering that Holly was John’s
wife, which created a secondary tension that transitioned into the ongoing
fight. Return of the Jedi scaled their climax with three scenes occurring
simultaneously, and while yes, all three were technically action scenes (the
space battle, the forest battle, the showdown between Luke and Vader) at any
given time one of those scenes was in a lull that allowed the audience a moment
to breathe.
But in Desolation of Smaug Jackson seems to have
forgotten this trick that he had previously perfected, and many of the early
action scenes drag on without transition and allow the audience to lull and
grow somewhat tired. Action scenes are like sprints, and if you don’t take
occasional breaks then you will burn out very quickly. Jackson begins to remedy
this problem towards the end of the film by interjecting the frantic battle against Smaug with some much
slower scenes back in Lake Town, but then he undoes this by throwing orcs,
Legolas, and Tauriel into an unnecessary action scene.
Now that I’ve gotten my major gripes out of the way, I can
finally talk about the things that I liked in this film, which were actually
quite abundant. First of all, I still love the cast. Bilbo,
Gandalf, Radaghast, and every one of the dwarves were fantastic in the film, and as I’ve mentioned,
Benedict Cumberbatch perfectly voiced Smaug to really put his role in the film
over the top. I also loved Stephen Fry in his role as the Mayor/Dictator of
Lake Town, and his fantastic turn reminds me that he’s quite possibly the best
overlooked comedic actor in the business.
Despite the fact that it dragged on a little (as I’ve talked
about), I still really loved the barrel scene. It has a real sense of over the
top adventure that perfectly lent a lot of excitement to an already exciting
fantasy film. I also really loved Barrel Bombur (you’ll understand what I’m
talking about you see it). When I first saw the scene in the trailers I was
seriously worried it was really going to stink and irritate me, but the final
product was so over the top and insane that it was really hard NOT to become
totally enamored by it.
I loved both the orcs and the elves, and while I loved them
for different reasons they both delivered exactly what we needed as otherworldly
characters. I liked how the Mirkwood elves were considered dangerous and little
insane because of their proximity to the encroaching darkness and the years of
warfare it has entrenched their world in. On the other hand, I loved the looks,
designs and attitudes of the orcs, and it was so damn great to see villains in
film that just plain liked being evil without any reservations. I also liked
seeing Legolas back in action again, but it was a little weird because
apparently Orlando Bloom has been hitting the weights since he vanished off the
face of the Earth.
I loved the scene where Gandalf and Radaghast visited the
graves of the Nazgul, and I loved how the location was both impossible to get
to and impossible to escape from. This really set the stage for just how
twisted, evil, and powerful these guys are to escape from their prison. Also,
even though I ragged on how overly long the sequence was, I actually loved the
was Sauron finally made himself known to Gandalf. It was shot brilliantly, and
I’m a sucker for the Eye of Sauron effect since it’s just one of those iconic
effects that has become a part of pop-culture.
Now get ready for this, but possibly my favorite part of
this film was the love story between Kili and Tauriel. Anyone who knows me
knows that I’m not the biggest fan of romances on film…
F*CK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOU!
But this romance is handled so perfectly and feels so real
that it’s hard NOT to root for Kili through the whole film. I’ve never felt so
hopeful or so involved in Tauriel’s race to cure Kili, and I’ve never wanted to
see two people get together so badly since a little starship captain named Mal
met a space hooker named Inara. Apparently I’m not the only one who seems to
think so, as typing in Kili and Tauriel into Google will prove.
Do NOT type Kili and
Tauriel into Google.
Finally, the last thing I’d like to bring up is that in five
movies, this is the first one that ends on a sour note. It doesn’t end on a
downer (well, maybe a little), but it literally just ends in what seems like
the middle of a scene. All the other Peter Jackson middle Earth movies ended
with the story still needing to be continued, but for the most part the most
pressing issues in the film were more or less resolved. This is not so much the
case in this film however, so be prepared to say “There’s no way this movie is
over” at the screen seconds before the credits start to roll.
In a nutshell, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is
an enjoyable movie with a lot of flaws. The flaws aren’t nearly enough to ruin
the film, or even make in a mediocre film, but they are certainly enough to
keep it from reaching the levels of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy.
8 out of 10
I enjoy sending my
readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give
the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on
the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
1. Katniss
(The Hunger Games: Catching Fire)-Warrior, champion, and loyal friend,
Katniss lights the fire necessary for a crucial revolution of a long oppressed
population. A breath of fresh air for women in film, and the best female role
model since Hermione Granger, Katniss is a much needed change of pace following
the embarrassing female "heroine" that was Bella Swann.
2. Harada (The
Wolverine)-Deadly and dead-eyed ninja archer Harada proved to be an utter
badass when covering Wolverine and Mariko in the chaos following a funeral. Despite
being in a film featuring heroes as awesome as the legendary Wolverine and
awesomely written fellow ninja Yukio, Harada manages to eek out a slight lead
because he manages to give us a performance that Hawkeye should have been in The Avengers.
3. Colonel
James Rhodes (Iron Man 3)-I can only praise Robert Downey Jr. for so
long (yes, he is still perfect as
Iron Man) without mentioning how awesome the decision was to trade up to Don
Cheadle for James Rhodes. Loyal, resilient, and dependable, James Rhodes proves
that Tony made the right choice by trusting him with the Mark II armor in Iron
Man 2.
4. Dr. Ryan
Stone (Gravity)-I frequently have trouble maintaining my composure when
they get my order wrong at Del Taco, so it speaks magnitudes about Dr. Stone's
resilience when she finds herself perpetually facing down life threatening
situations in the most hostile environment in the universe. Her continued
resilience lands her back home, something even her veteran astronaut partner
couldn’t manage to achieve.
5. Andy
Knightley (The World's End)-Despite initial misgivings about a proposed
pub crawl, Andy decides to accompany his former best friend partly to bury the
ghosts of his past and partly out of pity. When the shit hits the fan however,
it’s up to Andy to keep the group of survivors alive as their “leader” spirals
downward into a self-destructive pattern of psychosis.
Top
Villains of 2013
1. Seaworld
(Blackfish)-The groundbreaking documentary may have been about the
murder-prone killer whale Tilikum, but the sheer brutality, greed, lies, and
amoral behavior of the legendary amusement park takes the stage as the true
villain of the film. When they’re not covering up deaths by framing their
trainers, killing whales in the wild, or stealing money from their own
charities, you can count on them lying about the life of killer whales in the
wild to make themselves look good.
2. Loki (Thor:
The Dark World)-Christopher Eccleston may have been the primary antagonist
of the film, but no one can deny that the film really lit up every time Tom
Hiddleston appeared onscreen. Resplendent in his hatred, and brilliant in his
execution, Loki is one of those few villains in Hollywood that you just can’t
bring yourself to hate.
3. Leatherback
and Otachi (Pacific Rim)-While the film revolved around countless
monstrous Kaijus that are as diverse as they are vicious, the big baddies of
the film are a pair of Category IV Kaijus that manage to take out 50 percent of
the world’s remaining Jaeger force. Massive, fast, and the first Kaijus to
carry organic weapons against the human race, these baddies take down the giant
fighting robots like they were puppies.
4. El Macho
(Despicable Me 2)-El Macho could be placed right alongside every other
evil genius mastermind from any James Bond film, and that alone would be enough
to an improvement on the previous film’s villain. What places him on this list
though is that even jumping out of a plane, while riding a shark, strapped to
two tons of explosives, into an erupting volcano still wasn’t enough
to kill this villain.
5. Danny
McBride (This is the End)-As if being a selfish prick and stealing all
the survivor’s food wasn’t enough, Danny McBride becomes a cannibalistic psycho
after being kicked out of the house, even going so far as to turn poor Channing
Tatum into his personal sex slave. What truly makes him an abysmal human being
however is the fact that he jizzes up the last porno mag in existence, that monster.
Top Moments
of 2013
1. Death at
a Funeral (The Wolverine)-We’ve had four movies featuring the comic
legend Wolverine, but this scene is the first real time we as an audience get
to see what the hero is really capable of. Even when good ol’ sideburns is
missing most of his trademark super-healing he still carves through leagues of
mercenaries and assassins with ease, brutally slicing through men like a hot
knife through butter.
2. Aerial
Rescue (Iron Man 3)-On repeated viewings I am quickly approaching naming
Iron Man 3 as my favorite in the series, and the high point in this high
point is the thrilling mid-air rescue of the passengers on Air Force One.
Teased heavily in the trailers and commercials, this short and sweet action
scene makes the audience hold their breath more than any other moment in the
franchise.
3. Battle
of Hong Kong (Pacific Rim)-Everyone knows how much I preach that bigger
isn’t necessarily better in films (see my reviews of Transformers, the Star
Wars Prequels, etc.), but in this case the scene is so well shot and action
packed that it made me eat my own words. Over the top in the most beautiful way
imaginable, this explosive and climactic battle scene encompasses everything
that is right about monster films.
4. Batman
versus Superman (Take one!) (The Dark Knight Returns)-Despite being an
animated film, The Dark Knight Returns saga was just as awesome as
Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, and no scene is more awesome as the Batman vs.
Superman fight at the end of the second part. Unapologetically brutal, and
played completely straight, this fantastic scene makes you believe that the
Caped Crusader can actually hold his own against the Man of Steel, and in all
likelihood, I imagine this scene will be much better than the one we are
getting from the actual Batman vs. Superman movie in 2015.
5. The
Tenth Man (World War Z)-One of the biggest and earliest mysteries of the
film revolves around discovering how Israel was able to fend off the zombie
invasion, and when the Mossad chief explains to Gerry Lane how his company was
able to do so, many aspects on the hard life of a civilian in Israel become
clear to the audience. This simple but brilliant scene not only establishes the
Israelis as the badasses of the film, but also conveys to audiences the
countless atrocities committed against Israel over countless decades.
Top Dorks
of 2013
1. Raleigh
Becket (Pacific Rim)-Get your god damned thumbs out of your god damned
belt loops dude, you’re not a teenager!
2. The
Smith Boys (After Earth)-There is so much to pick on in this awful M.
Night Shyamalan film, but it doesn’t get any easier than the two idiots that
this film is built around. Allegedly written and made to appease both Will
Smith’s growing love of scientology and the growing ego of Jayden Smith, these
two train wrecks are laughably bad throughout the film. This is what you get
when you pass on Django Unchained because Quintin Tarantino wouldn’t
re-write it for you.
3. Superman
(The Man of Steel)-Nice going Superman, you watch your dad die and do
nothing, you let half of Metropolis get pounded into dust, and you wreck half
of the military. You have one job dude, what the hell are we paying you for?
4. Gary King
(The World's End)-For the longest time I thought it was impossible for Simon
Pegg to play a character I didn’t love… and then The World’s End totally
changed my mind. Refusing to let his glory days be a thing of the pass, Gary
goes to no end to dupe his former friends into reliving them with him, and then
abandoning them to their dooms during them. He’s like that guy we all know who
won’t stop talking about how cool he was in high school… and then shoots you.
5. Dr.
Newton Geiszler (Pacific Rim)-Yes, Pacific Rim gets two mentions
on the dorks list, but unlike frontrunner Raleigh, Newton is a dork in the most
endearing sense possible. He’s wacky but brilliant, panicky but steadfast, and
if anyone other than Charlie Day had played this role it could have been
disastrous. Luckily, the talented Day plays this old-as-time trope perfectly,
creating a lovable dork we can all appreciate.
Here is a list of my most enjoyable (not necessarily best) films of 2013:
Gravity-9.75 out of 10
Iron Man 3-9.5 out of 10
The World’s
End-9 out of 10
The Dark
Knight Returns-9 out of 10
Despicable
Me 2-8.5 out of 10
The
Conjuring-8.25 out of 10
Star Trek:
Into Darkness-8 out of 10
The
Wolverine-7.75 out of 10
Monsters
University-8.25 out of 10
The Great
Gatsby-8.5 out of 10
If your favorite
picks aren’t on this list, chances are I never had a chance to watch it. Here
is a short list of some of the movies I have yet to see this year:
