Battle of the Five Armies (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

Really, I mean it. You've been warned.

Let me begin with a bit of context. First, while a big fan of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, I do feel they gradually diminished in quality. Many seem to think ROTK to be the best, whereas it seems the least good of the three to me. More, I saw it coming. The whole fantastic battle of Helm's Deep seemed impossible to top, which sparked a fear the filmmakers would to try for the third film and in doing so upset the balance of the story (because the siege of Minas Tirith is a side show, not the main action). Alas I was proved right.

Same thing happened here.

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies continues in expanding the original small novel into a full trilogy, sometimes with great impact. In particular the story of the White Council and their efforts at Dol Guldur have been a nice extra to the relatively straightforward tale of Bilbo Baggins going on an adventure very nearly against his will. This carries over into BOTFA, but only a little bit alas. One scene, essentially, well done as far as it goes but that single scene hardly gives the weight of these events they deserve. Frankly I'm also bothered by the coincidence that Galadriel shows up just as what seems

to be the sole remaining Orc in Sauron's fortress decides to kill Gandalf. Meh. But otherwise the scene looks great! But it feels like an earlier draft, and the context of it seems curiously absent. For example, I wondered at the lack of shots or lines noting the fortress really has been emptied. Perhaps as a trap? I didn't get it. Still don't. And certainly the business of Galadriel using her own Ring this way violates canon about how the Rings of Power work! I could go on. What comes out right about the scene seems extremely right, moving, dazzling and fun. This is what I hoped to see! What comes out not right feels puzzling, unfinished, uninvolving and sometimes (not really in this scene) both exhausting yet somehow dull.

So it is for the entire movie!

More, and this has ticked me off in all three films, I genuinely hate it when Jackson and company recreate moments from the earlier trilogy. Galadriel going all dark and evil witchy. The drums and lights in tunnels heralding the arrival of Orcs. The warrior maiden weeping over the man she failed to save at the end of the battle. The Arkenstone as a surrogate for the One Ring. Legolas once again demonstrating Bugs Bunny-like powers in combat (his Dad Thanduil does the same thing), even down to the weapon through the skull from above, and using one of the enemy's beasts as a mode of transport. The cartoon-like slide down a staircase (that should have killed everyone involved after all, including those children). A Wormtongue-clone. Give me a break!

When these films do something original and clever, I felt enchanted and fascinated! Didn't we all know Thorin and Azog (great notion, incidentally--bringing him out of the appendices as an antagonist) would eventually fight it out one on one? That fight proved spectacular and thrilling, not least because we cared so much about Thorin's pain (bravo Richard Armitage) and Azog achieved such stature as a villain. More, the fight resembled nothing I'd seen before. Yet this same movie refused to allow this actor to use his skills in showing Thorin's struggle between his honor and his rage. He could have done it by pacing in front of the other dwarves, or watching the battle. But no, we got a CGI extravaganza that took so much more time and money and looked cool amidst a film that needed not one extra special effect. *sigh*

Jackson and his co-writers often make wonderful choices in adapting Tolkien to a very different medium than the printed page. Loved how Bilbo came to be knocked into unconsciousness while doing something important to the story, for example. A tiny point, yes, but demonstrative of excellent adaptation. Turning Lord Dain into a specific person (Billy Connelly as the fiercest of fierce warriors proved such a delight), just as giving Bard a family to protect--all good. Or not. The sheer number of characters weighed the story down after a time. Just as the amount of time that went into the actual battle coupled with all the extra elements--friggin' BATS for example--emotionally confuses. Much like the political intrigues of Laketown--could see no good reason for it save to turn two movies into three.

Here's what I mean about what is both glorious and very poor in this trilogy and this film. Tauriel. Leaving aside my suspicion about why she has red hair (yeah, somebody saw Iron Man 2) which is supposed to be extremely rare among Elves, only seen in one highborn family--the whole idea of Tauriel intrigued me loads. Yeah, a female warrior is cool and all that, but what moved me most was how she retained the sense of Hope and Light her King seems to have lost. She never turned her back on the rest of the world. That she could even allow a dwarf into her heart said much about this extraordinary subplot, a story in its own way as moving as that of Beren and Luthien, of Arwen and Aragorn. No wonder she touched a raw nerve in Thranduil--she embodies the part of him he suppresses. But all that really ended up so poorly done. A writer myself, I keep seeing different ways to make that story work. Certainly I'd've liked to see Thranduil react to Tauriel mentioning Gundaban, where his wife died. More, the way her arc reached its climax left me cold, unsatisfied. Just a replay of Eowyn over the body of Theoden, with the added (and unrealistic frankly) notion of her never having felt loss or love before.

I pondered, and as a writer, here's what I found myself wanting to see. My expectation was for Tauriel and Kili to die in battle together, but that would have echoed Thorin's end so avoiding that makes lots of sense. Rather, I would have had Thranduil proven even more contemptuous of Tauriel, but after the battle in which he finally let loose his full rage and thus could feel again, he walks among the many dead and dying. He sees others tending the sick. Kissing their loved ones goodbye. He comes across Kili's corpse, Tauriel very nearly dead and bleeding beside him, having managed to crawl to him and hold his hand. Thranduil then heals Tauriel himself, for which she at first feels no gratitude at all. But instead of defending himself, he lets her weep and scream, recognizing his own grief in her. As she winds down, they look at each other, each of them with tears in their eyes--a shared visceral moment without any "on the nose' dialogue.

But that is just me. Wanted to get that off my chest.

Honestly, I could go on and on about the different elements of the film--many of which (including the performances) really do shine and thrill. But with so much time and effort going into the look of it, into one spectacular special effects shot after another (let's have giant worms suddenly gnaw out tunnels for the orc armies, yeah!), the story and characters did suffer. Much as they did with ROTK, only moreso. Still worth seeing if this is your cup of tea. I do intend to buy a copy on DVD and hope to watch lots of cool special features. At its best, this second trilogy really does deliver magical moments, delightful scenes and characters, stupendous vistas and exciting stories. I have complaints as well, and must say The Hobbit simply is not as good as Lord of the Rings. This trilogy does seem to be setting up another movie or movies, one focusing on Legolas and probably Tauriel getting to know Aragorn--who will have to be recast, evidently, as well as possibly on Saruman (who, alas, would almost certainly have to be recast--Sir Christopher Lee does a wondrous job but is 93 this  year). Honestly, I hope someone else directs. I still wish Guillermo del Toro had directed these flicks.

Just my humble viewpoint. As ever.

Writing: Heroic Trios

Odds are you've seen them.  Perhaps as you read a description you will even recognize them.  But do you understand what they are and how they work?  I speak (er...write) of a certain trope or character dynamic dubbed (by yours truly) as the Heroic Trio.

First of the trio I call the Decider.  In whatever essential conflict of the story, he or she will be the one to...well...decide.  Another way to look at it is they have the ultimate responsibility in resolving the central conflict of the story.  Be it to defeat the Dark Lord, or rescue the princess from the evil galactic empire, or solve the mystery of who is the werewolf threatening the entire town--the Decider has to make the central choices leading to success or failure.

Helping the Decider are two others--companions or co-workers or family members or something.  What distinguishes these two are the roles they play.

One I call the Ace, because first and foremost this person is an expert.  At what entire depends upon the story details.  Sometimes they are a brilliant scholar or scientist, possibly the brightest student in school.  Then again, maybe they alone know how to enter the secret lair of the evil wizard.

Finally there is the Supporter, the person who acts as an emotional anchor for the trio.  In practice this often means a humorous person, something of a clown, but not always.  A Supporter might just as easily be the equivalent of a butler or nanny or even a bartender -- someone who helps emotionally and physically.

Kirk has Spock and Bones.  They also function as two sides of Kirk's personality, or at least the voice of each.  An interesting aspect of that dynamic is that Kirk leans so heavily on Spock precisely because Kirk tends to be so intuitive rather than logical.  In heroic trios this often happens, that the Decider becomes in some ways more associated with the one who is least like them.  Fan fiction abounds with tales of Kirk and Spock, their famous friendship, at times positing a romantic/sexual aspect to it.  The new Star Trek movie was almost completely built around that relationship.

Buffy has Willow and Xander.  At one point in the series they were explicitly labeled the Hand, the Head and the Heart -- during a season that was explicitly about reforging the trio in the wake of graduating high school.  Willow and Xander are extremely close friends, having known and leaned upon each other practically since infancy.  Yet not until Buffy arrived did they begin to find focus in their lives.  Again, this is common aspect of the heroic trio.  The Decider becomes the focus, the point around which the other two orbit to some extent.

Frodo has Gollum and Sam, which helps illustrate another common trait.  The Ace and the Supporter often seem to be polar opposites.  In Lord of the Rings it is harder to imagine a more typical Hobbit than Samwise Gamgee, nor a less typical one than Smeagol/Gollum.  One is obsessed by the Ring, addicted to it, both loving and hating it as he loves and hates himself.  The other is among the tiny minority almost unaffected by the thing.  Even their eating habits are (famously and comically) at opposite ends of the spectrum.  One is ancient, the other young.  One is fat, the other scrawny to the point of emaciation.  One loves plants and gardens, while the other is most comfortable in underground caves.

Vlad from Young Dracula has Chloe and Robin, who highlight how the desires of the characters in a heroic trio are usually intertwined.  Vlad is a vampire who wants to be human.  Robin is a human who wants to be a vampire.  Chloe is the clear-sighted one who clearly sees that hanging around a real vampire is very, very dangerous -- yet continues to do so (Robin is her brother after all, and Chloe does seem to genuinely like Vlad).

Harry Potter has Hermione and Ron.  That trio was formed early on in the very first novel of the series and once continuing theme is how their relationship is stretched and bent, net never quite truly broken.  It also illustrates something universal in the heroic trio--the Ace and the Supporter have a powerful emotional relationship.  They never exist separately and are never indifferent to one another.  In this series, they fall in love.  Elsewhere they are siblings, rivals, hate one another, are deeply loyal in contentious colleagues, etc.  No matter the details, when these two characters interact, some kinds of sparks fly.  Unless of course the trio is dysfunctional for some reason...

Looked at in a certain way, Bill Compton on True Blood has Eric and Sookie (this is from the perspective of Bill's character of course--the series itself generally is from Sookie's POV).  In The Dark Knight you can see that Bruce Wayne/Batman has Alfred and Rachel Dawes (the Butler in this case being the Ace).  Dexter violates this trope in that he always seems to be trying form such a trio -- but they collapse, not least because in terms of the character dynamic he has to keep his Ace and Supporter apart.  This fits into his particular storyline, that of a serial killer trying to turn into a normal human being (a quest that, if successful, would of course destroy Dexter completely -- talk about an inherent and unresolvable conflict!).  On the opposite legal end of the spectrum is the intense and often-brilliant Kurt Wallander (played in English by Kenneth Branaugh on Masterpiece Mystery), much of whose internal conflicts can be seen from a near-total lack of anyone who can function as part of a trio with him.  He is alone, and that fact tortures him.

Bones has Booth and Angela.  House has Wilson and his team (being a bit dysfunctional, his Ace is a group whose membership keeps changing).  Like any such trope, the Heroic Trio is a tool -- something to help and clarify things for the writer.  Its dynamic can be useful.  Be warned however of using it as a crutch or a formula for success.  It is and remains only a tool.

Unclicking my soapbox icon.  For now.