Forever?

[Son of Númenor]

Peter Jackson didn't 'get' one of the major themes of the books.

Cate Blanchett (narrating): "The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil forever."

He blows it. Cut ahead a few thousand years, to when

...Frodo destroys the Ring. Evil is destroyed forever! Everyone lives happily ever after.

Never mind this insignificant little passage Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days. (The Silmarillion, "Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath")or the silly concept of the 'Long Defeat'.

(Unnecessary sarcasm, I know).

At worst, PJ missed this important - some would say defining - part of Tolkien's works altogether. At best, he didn't convey it adequately in Blanchett's aforementioned narration and, more importantly, in the tone of Return of the King's ending.

Your thoughts?

[Rimbaud]

An accurate crticism, SoNo, if not necessarily valid. The movie never could, and to its credit from a certain point of view, never tried to import the gravitas of the books. And neither were the films intended as one strand of a multi-layered mytholology, as with the literary counter-part; rather as an 'open-and-shut', if three-part, cinematic experience. There would be little benefit from a contemporary silver screen perspective of casting doubt on the 'ending' of the evil, and providing the more ambiguous realism of Tolkien's original.

Added to which, in so far as filmic LotR is concerned, there isn't a 'Morgoth', just a Sauron, and we all saw the death-dramatics of the effects at the end of of RotK. So he must be dead.

All this, however, is only if you have the relatively restricted view of 'blockbuster' movies being necessarily simplistic; I'll confess there is merit in argument, having meandered casually to either side fo the fence at various times, but is possibly a less Tolkien-related discussion than strictly warranted.

In the essence of what you say, I do agree: there is a loss of the deep sorrow of the books through the film. As above, that can be construed as necessary, and I would posit perhaps that once you have delineated the two media into distinct pleasures, there is less in the way of qualitative 'detraction' from book to film.

[Son of Númenor]

I understand the politics of big-studio filmmaking, but I still think it's a shame PJ (or New Line) didn't think audiences could stomach a quasi-tragic, bittersweet ending and a little ambiguity about the ultimate fate of evil.

[The Saucepan Man]

Peter Jackson didn't 'get' one of the major themes of the books.Ah, but how much does this theme come across in LotR as a stand-alone trilogy of books? Until relatively recently, having only read LotR (aside from a failed attempt at the Silmarillion in my youth) I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Morgoth and the marring of Arda.

Perhaps the idea of enduring evil is explicit in LotR, but surely it is implicit in any event. Although the external "personification" of evil has been defeated, it stands to reason (to my mind at least) that this will not mark an end to the internal evil within the hearts of Men (and the other races). I suppose I really just took this for granted in the books without it having to be made explicit. So doesn't this also apply with regard to the films?

Admittedly, Galadriel's words talk of an end to evil. But don't we automatically interpret this to mean an end to the personification of evil, rather than a complete end to evil itself? Or do you think that people might view Middle-earth at the end of the film as an idyllic realm devoid of evil? It's possible, I suppose.

One further, related, thought. The cinema release does not in fact close with all evil having been defeated since, for all we know, Saruman is still at large, albeit restricted to Orthanc when we last see him. Of course, this "little" detail is to be cleared up in the Extended Edition.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by SpM:
Admittedly, Galadriel's words talk of an end to evil. But don't we automatically interpret this to mean an end to the personification of evil, rather than a complete end to evil itself?

I think most viewers (or well, atleast myself) viewed Galadriel's words as "an end to the ring, or an end to Sauron." Not saying "an end to EVERYTHING evil, forever."

Even viewing at that however, Numenor brings up a valid point. One could view it as Galadriel saying "an end to evil (meaning any type of evil) forever." And indeed we know that will not be true. There will eventually be one person down the line who will get greedy, power hungry, and then cause another "personified evil." Even after the one Ring was destroyed, "evil" in Middle-Earth still existed, hint hint Saruman (oops I forgot PJ didn't add that). That is why I would have to say Numenor's point is valid, because even if we would view it as a Galadriel's evil as being "personified," instead of "all evil," it would still be incorrect because we have Saruman. That is my book thought.

For my movie thought. Saruman is already dead, Sauron is destroyed, so the "personified evil," is gone, and if that's what PJ wanted to say, then so be it.

[davem]

I don't think they felt able to push it too far. How much of the tragedy would audiences accept? The movies have a very quiet ending, & there is a sense of loss. I suspect many movie goers were quite 'shocked' by the ending - most of them were probably expecting a Return of the Jedi type celebration complete with fireworks.

I can't help wondering what the reaction will be once people have seen the extended editions & know that that's it. When there's no more to await maybe something else will hit those who know only the movies - not the sense of enduring evil, but the sense of enduring loss - & perhaps that will affect them much more. Isn't eternal loss harder to ive with than enduring evil?

You could try here: http://www.lordoftheringsresearch.net/ for info on movie goers reactions to the films.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think davem's got it spot on (how many times have I thought that before?). The films as they are are already laced with a hefty order of melancholy, in the eyes of movie-goers. The 'normal folk' surely could not handle any more sadness - so assume the filmmakers.

But like many others on the site, I would have liked to have seen a darker tone to the movies. That might sound strange, what with the plot and all (so don't point that out Saucepan ;) ) but Jackson only punched half-heartedly when it came to the tragedy and dejection.

[Bêthberry]

We seem to be explaining the ending of the movie by recourse to "the politics of Box-office movie-making" (I hope I have correctly quoted that from Son of Numemor. This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.

Is this the case? I don't know enough about what Jackson has said about his work, but does he in fact share a sense that the books are melancolic, even tragic? What is his interpretation of Tolkien and what is his interpretation of the movie genre he is working in? What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire? went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima? The elves, in my intrepretation of the book, have failed and their departure over the seas is full of hapless regret. Yet Jackson's scene has more a tone of a happy sea cruise.

I think Son of Numenor is on to something which deserves to be discussed more than simply as an effect of movie making or of some readers' ignorance of TheSilm. Did Jackson miss the big picture?

[Boromir88]

Did Jackson miss the big picture?

Good question Bb. Jackson is often critisized for focusing on death and gore. Now there isn't a lot of gore in LOTR but we'll say a reasonable amount of fighting. I'd have to say that PJ paid too much attention to fighting, and not enough character developement, or character, we'll say "analysis." I think in order to portray the "neverending evil," that evil will always be around, you have to focus in on the characters, the people, their ways, cultures...etc. Something Tolkien had did, and created a message. Where PJ focused on long fight scenes.

On the other side of the spectrum. Maybe PJ was forced to make the movie the way he did. Mr. Jackson studied these books for years, even before making the movies, so I think he has a pretty good idea of Tolkien, now I don't know to what extent, but I wouldn't be shocked if he knows more about it then me. Anyway to the point, another example of how maybe New Line put pressure on him, was the climatic, cheesy hollywood, Frodo hanging by one hand, and then the REACH, and oops, that's my bloody hand, REACH FARTHER, wooo, you did it! Anyway, point being maybe PJ was forced to make the movie like that, and not get into the "indepth Tolkien analysis" part of LOTR.

So, two possibilities. In all of PJ's years of studying he focused on the battles and missed the whole concept of Tolkien's writing. Or, he really did get the concept, but was on a short leash, and was pressured to make the movie more enjoyable for the non-bookies. :)

[The Saucepan Man]

This argument assumes that Jackson understood the tragedy of the book but choose to follow the dictates of a different genre.I am sure that Jackson has not spent as much time analysing every detail of the books in the way that some of us do here. ;) I understand, however, that he has been a fan of the book since childhood, so he no doubt has given some thought to what it means to him. And it is clear to me from the films themselves that he understood many of the themes impicit in the books. The same goes for his co-writers, I should imagine. Whether he has read The Silmarillion or not, I cannot tell. But then again, I would speculate that only something like 10% of those who have read LotR have gone on to read Tolkien's other works (The Hobbit aside). Apart from those on this forum (which is a special case, let's face it), of those people that I know who have read LotR and The Hobbit (and there are a fair few), none have read The Silmarillion or any of the other works.


What kind of reasons went into omitting the scouring of the Shire?Largely for reasons of film pacing, as I understand it. Jackson is on record as having said that this is one of his favourite parts of the book. I too have great affection for this Chapter, but I can see the sense in omitting what would have been, in effect, a mini-story following the main climax.


went into omitting the ends of Saruman and Grima?This was filmed and originally intended for inclusion in the theatrical release (although at Orthanc, rather than in The Shire), but was omitted for reasons of timing. There are those who would say that it should have been included at the expense of other material, and I would be one of them, but Jackson obviously felt different.


I think Son of Numenor is on to something which deserves to be discussed more than simply as an effect of movie making or of some readers' ignorance of TheSilm. Did Jackson miss the big picture?Well, there are clearly a great many aspects of the book that were omitted for "film-making" reasons (whether that be timing, pacing, anticipated audience reaction or whatever). And I would be fairly confident in speculating that there are themes that Jackson (and his writing team) were aware of but omitted, either because there was not sufficient time to develop them or because they simply did not resonate with them. I can see the sense in focussing on a limited number of themes, given the time available to develop them. Rightly or wrongly, these films are first and foremost "action" films, and the intricate web of themes that Tolkien was able to weave in the book would have over-complicated them unnecessarily and hindered the action. In light of this, I personally feel that it is to Jackson's credit that he was able to include so many of Tolkien's themes, to capture the "spirit of Tolkien" as Christopher Lee put it (although I am fully aware that there are many who would disagree with me on this).

Did Jackson miss any of the themes of the book? Well, I am sure that he did. But then, so did I before I joined this site (despite having read the book a number of times, and long before the films came out).

As to the theme which is the subject of this thread though, I still think that it really goes without saying that Sauron's destruction will not represent an end to all evil forever, and that Galadriel's words can be interpreted accordingly.

One further thought (again). I do think that we are rather lucky to have had the Grey Havens scene, which I do see very much as a bittersweet moment (as far as both the Elves and Frodo are concerned). It is not really necessary in the context of the films, but Jackson nevertheless felt it sufficiently important to include. Of course, its omission would have been an anathema to us Tolkien fans, but I am sure that the films would still have been greatly enjoyed by the majority of those who went to see them, and just as successful, without it. Indeed, it might be argued that "the politics of Box-office movie-making" would dictate the omission of this scene. I have seen a number of reviews of RotK (the film) which criticise it for the length of its ending. As davem suggests, most film-goers would have expected it to end with Aragorn's coronation and the honouring of the Hobbits. That would certainly have been the more traditional "Hollywood" approach.

[Esgallhugwen]

I agree with Saucepan Man, given the fact that Peter Jackson is not one of our fellow BD pupils (or teachers for that matter), I'm sure that if one of us were to make the movie's we would spare no turmoil and no detail no matter how small or intricate.

However that not being the case, I am one to agree that PJ did a fine job, though the omitting of certain scenes did displease me. The movies made me cry and I daresay certain parts of the books did as well (especially the ending). The Trilogy provoked more emotion from me then the movies and I do enjoy both deeply.

Let me remind that if some of us had our way one movie alone would be some 6 hours long, a movie that long would definetly call for an intermission (in this day and age because we no longer have need for intermissions in 3 hour movies). So mainly because of timing and no doubt pressure from the higher ups
some of our most beloved scenes (no doubt some of PJ's most beloved as well)from the book have been omitted or cut from the movies.

Now back to the subject of whether Peter missed the point of Tolkien's work. My opinion is both yes and no. Yes, because I felt he didn't develope the characters as much as he could have, but keeping in the bounds of movie logic he did well enough.

Galadriel's words, to me, did not entail the whole annihilation of evil entirely but simply the evil of Sauron. Morgoth was mentioned by Legolas in the movie, so PJ if he hadn't read the Silm must still know something of him. Also keep in mind, I pay way to close attention to these things and also that I havn't seen RoTK in awhile and heres the grabber I don't even own the theatrical release; I'm waiting for EE.

I might not remember this line exactly so I won't quote it. Gandalf (movie) mentioned something to the fact that peace will last as long as the days of the King last, though a happy thought keep in mind that can't last forever, even when Elessar's Heir rules something could happen to him and if not he will eventually pass from Middle-Earth as well, and so on and so forth.

Evil will eventually grow again in the land, its an ever changing cycle of life, nothing can be totally good nothing so totally evil. As evil resides good will eventually come to destroy it, as good prevails evil will eventually come to crush it.

And a final note, at the Haven's in the movie, though the Elves are all smiles and la dee da, there is still a sadness in their tone and something in their eyes that betrays their smile. In my eyes its not a Fanciful splendour cruise to Neverland, its a bittersweet parting, an end of an age.

Please tell me (politely) if I've gone too far from the mark, its just my opinion, and I'm not nearly as intelligent as the rest of you, whose knowledge and awe inspiring-ness (made up a word there) is something to behold.

[Bêthberry]

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion. I am quite happy to recognise that many people enjoyed the movies. I don't think, however, that one's response to the movies hinges entirely on whether one is a dedicated Tolkien book reader or just someone who reads 'Tolkien lite.' I am not in particular a big fan of TheSilm. And for me, RotK was disappointing, in part, because it had so many 'concluding' scenes or climaxes. Aesthetically or emotionally, it was, for me, a mishmash. This does not lessen the enjoyment of many others. It merely reflects the different way I have of reading movies. Nor do I presume that there is one essential way of reading LotR, which Jackson missed. He is entitled, as are we all, to have his own particular interpretation.

SaucepanMan's argument is that most people do not read The Silm and so will not understand the theme from that point of view. This derives from Son of Numenor's first point which quotes from The Silm. However, I don't think the argument needs to be referred to The Silm at all. I think the question of the nature of evil can be analysed in LotR alone.

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

[The Saucepan Man]

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion. I am not sure that any of the points made so far hinge on the participants' respective opinions of the films, although opinions have undoubtedly been expressed (not least by me :rolleyes: ;) ). My underlying point is that the extent to which Tolkien's themes have been included within the films has necessarily been influenced (and limited) by film-making considerations and the subjective interpretations of the film-makers.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Bb

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

Ack -- this sounds like my English class. :p

But an interesting question nonetheless. Since it's my favorite chapter, I shall discuss the Scouring of the Shire. The ending of the book, complete with this separate little ending, is much more painful, but in the end it's almost that much rewarding. The hobbits return to their beloved Shire to find it a complete mess, and under the control of "Sharkey" and his ruffians. It's a severe blow for them; I can't find the quote I'm looking for for the life of me, but I believe it's Sam who says that it's the worst thing they've encountered yet (someone please correct me if I am wrong). We see that the evil that has spread can make it anywhere, that there is no entirely safe place -- this is the tragedy of the book's ending. Our small heroes do save their home, making them appreciated by their fellows. They get the respect and honor that they deserve.

Yet the movie depicts the Shire as a place that might be taken over, but only if the quest should fail, as Galadriel says when Frodo sees the mills and chimneys in the Mirror. It puts more at stake on the turnout of one single event, as if all evil and evil influences will simply disappear for a time if the Ring is destroyed. The quest is successful, and the hobbits return back to their picturesque homeland. The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on. The message here is that sometimes great deeds must go uncelebrated, and just because they are not recognized does not make them any less worthy, or make the heroes any less for it.

[Essex]

Encaitare,

not sure what you mean by The tragedy of the movie's ending was that after all they had done and sacrificed, the four hobbits were not recognized whatsoever by those back in the Shire, because no one even knew what was going on. Do you mean you believe PJ got this right, because that's what I think. let me explain.......

the movie showed (via the pumpkin scene) exactly what the book explains to us, that the hobbits were not celebrated in their country for their great deeds.

in the book they expelled saruman and the Men, but this, if anything, is what the Shire (by giving sam the mayorship) thanked the 4 hobbits for. Not for the destruction of the ring. Do we see anywhere in the end of the book where the hobbits even mention what their Quest was for? Frodo only tells the Cottons that Sam was now one of the Greats, and that was because Frodo was putting in a good word for Sam with Rosie!

PS jackson shows us, via a brilliant narration by Frodo in Bag End, the real melancholic feeling of the end of the books. every time I see this scene, I feel pangs of regret for Frodo, and a deep sadness for what he will have to give up. To me, as a movie goer who had read the books, this was clear. I'm not sure how clear this is to a non book reader, but hey, what do I care?????

PPS to me its boyens and walsh who were the real scriptwriters, who reigned back jackson when required, and were the main players behind the plot of the films.

[Encaitare]

I shall try to clarify, Essex.

You're right, either way they're never fully appreciated for what they did, but at least in the book they are considered the saviors of the Shire. That's what I was getting at.

[davem]

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive. That's why for me in watching the movies what happens at the cracks of Doom seems wrong - in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself. When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it. And in the end he is unable to forgive himself for that reason, & exiles himself almost as a punishment (I know other's don't read it that way). In the movie this doesn't come across. Movie Frodo is simply broken by an overwhelming but purely external force, so it makes little sense to me that he feels he has to leave.

Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too unpalatable a thing for a movie hero to say.

[Lalwendë]

I'm approaching this with the words of non-readers in mind; I have had many (oh so many) conversations about the films with non-readers, and went to see the films with non-readers. One opinion I've heard over and over is that many did not see Sauron as such an enormous threat. I have heard several people say that Saruman was the real 'bad guy' in the films. I have heard, as have so many others, that the films ought to have ended at Mount Doom. This all adds up, to me, to show that in some way PJ did fail to convey something very important in the films. Now, I thoroughly enjoyed the films (not least of all to pick over the 'wrong' bits ;) ), and I am actually loathe to say this, but I feel that PJ somehow failed to portray the absolute villainy of Sauron.

How? And indeed, Why? For one thing, the image of the 'eye' eventually was degraded into being an image of a lighthouse; are not lighthouses a symbol of safety to us? Another reason, and one for which you can hold PJ blameless, is that the power of Sauron was entirely psychological; certainly, the power of the ring works on the mind, and PJ did portray this. But as for Sauron's power beyond the ring itself, it is a difficult thing to portray such a power. And to be added to this is the fact that action was something very much grasped upon, and to portray both, especially in combination with trying to portray all the other multifarious fantastical aspects of Middle Earth, and keep a story going, well, I wouldn't have put money on it being pulled off perfectly.

Now this leads into the Why. A book can be put aside, a reader can turn back a few pages if they start to wonder if they have 'missed' something, and most importantly, a book can be read at your own pace. A film has none of these benefits, and it must be pitched at a middle ground somewhere along the line. It must, essentially, find a correct pace. And to do that, it has had to lose something along the way. I think it was inevitable that some of the essence would be lost.

[Imladris]

It all goes back to how Tolkien and Lewis believed that myth cannot be turned into drama.

Did PJ miss a few things, yes he did...I'm sure that we would have missed points as well.

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive.

Not meaning to be polemic, but how do you portray an internal drive on film?

As for Sauron not being evil: he was an eye for pete's sake. It was the feel of him that was evil. How do you portray intangibility into tangibleness?

The Evil of the movie, as many have said, is different from the book. I think that PJ (necessarily) had to simplify the evil...External force (to borrow davem's wording), verses internal conflict....maybe that is one reason they did not show Sam's temptation. It was a truly internal drive, an internal temptation, that could not have been portrayed on film and if it had been attempted it would have come off as ludicrously ridiculous.

The Nazgul was a failure in my opinion. Black cloaks is not what makes them scary, or their fell beasts.

It is the quality of myth. It is a feeling that cannot be described, that cannot be projected.

Ultimately, PJ was doomed to fail in that sense. We would all fail.

[drigel]

If PJ would have secured film rights to the Silm, and had planned a series of films on the book, there would have been a lot of chances to tie in or hint at that theme, since Sauron was a mere Lieutenant back in the day... sigh, one could only dream... :)

[Lush]

Well, I just think the original line that Son of Númenor quoted, the whole "destroy evil forever" crap, is just bad. I view it more as an instance of an unfortunate screenwriting decision. It's silly and melodramatic. Later on in the film, Elrond harps on about the Ring in the same fashion, "evil was allowed to endure..." Blah blah blah. Here too is the seeming notion that if you destroy the Ring, you destroy everything evil.

I think if anything the films tend to suffer from a number of unfortunate utterances that periodically break the melancholic spell. They take this notion of evil that Tolkien cultivated in the books, and sap the magic and mystery and terror out of it. Having said that, for me the FotR (from which both the "bad" lines are quoted) worked best as a movie about defeat. It wasn't, a few mis-steps aside, particularly, er, bouncy. The other two didn't do it for me so much on that level.

[davem]

It is the quality of myth. It is a feeling that cannot be described, that cannot be projected.

Ultimately, PJ was doomed to fail in that sense. We would all fail.

Well, I wouldn't have 'failed' 'cos I wouldn't have attempted the thing in the first place. Its that very impossibility to convey the inner battle - a central theme of the work - that doomed the whole thing to failure as an adaptation.

I'm not saying the movies don't work as a depiction of the external battle between good & evil - they are a modern Star Wars in that sense (though I have to admit that the inner, moral, battle came across better in Star Wars than in LotR. I'm just saying that while, superficially, they put Tolkien's story on screen, they don't (because they can't) put the whole thing on screen - the most important themes are missed, or substituted by lesser themes which have been done to death by innumerable other movies.

[HerenIstarion]

I seem to agree with everyone on the thread, average, balanced, happily-merri... whoops, I ain't merried. Does not matter, than. What I would like to communicate is that, agreeing with Rimbaud on points that movie is good as a movie, I can't help agreeing with Lush and Sono that omitting such an important thing is simply bad, and, whilst agreeing with Imladris that not all can be 'filmified', I can't help thinking that Gandalf's discourse in the Last Debate chapter of the book could have been pretty easily reproduced in the Council of Elrond part of the movie. I'm talking about the following:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule

Read it aloud, it won't take more than two minuts. What is two minutes of movie time for the settling the matter of ultimate importance?

This being said, I would further venture to add that there is nothing in the world we can do about it but to film a movie of our own (contrary to davem's intentions not to do it, ever ;)

As for people whom I haven't named as being in agreement with: I omitted your names not consequent to state of disaccord in our opinions, but purely by accident

:smokin:

[Bêthberry]

I think davem is on to something here, something which helps me put into perspective some of his points in the Chapter by Chapter discussion about internal and external battles.

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive. That's why for me in watching the movies what happens at the cracks of Doom seems wrong - in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself. When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it. And in the end he is unable to forgive himself for that reason, & exiles himself almost as a punishment (I know other's don't read it that way). In the movie this doesn't come across. Movie Frodo is simply broken by an overwhelming but purely external force, so it makes little sense to me that he feels he has to leave.

Actually, I still don't get why movie Frodo has to leave at all - where's his guilt? What drives him away? The change the writers make in Frodo's words to Sam 'I tried to save the Shire' to We tried to save the Shire' says it all for me. Either they didn't get the point Tolkien was making at all, or they got it & decided it was too un
palatable a thing for a movie hero to say.


Over and over in the book, we see how the Ring's power is that it can pervert even the best of intentions. This is certainly Gandalf's understanding of the Ring and, I would venture to say, the purpose of showing his temptation. It would appeal to Gandalf's best instincts and desires but still lead him into intolerable tyranny. The book plays out in agonizing detail Frodo's slow decline to the Ring. That is, it is not so much Absolute Evil (nor are Morgoth and Sauron, according to Tolkien's Notes on Auden's review of LotR, #183 in the Letters) which, when destroyed, will mean that people never again need fear the rise of tyranny. For Tolkien, evil is something inherent in mankind's nature--well, maybe that is stating it too strongly. Evil is something we are all susceptible to. And the long defeat means that there is never a final victory but that each Age or each generation must be aware of its own susceptibility to tyranny. Tolkien's astonishing position is to show how his hero, the man--halfling--who enabled events to come to the point where the Ring could be destroyed--was himself overcome by the Ring's appeal to him. When even heroes fail in this way, readers, I think, must consider the psychological or mental or spiritual (whichever word one would personally use) state of mankind to be always and ever temptable.

This sense of our human failing it, for me, missing from the movie, for many reasons. Son of Numenor attributes it to the voice over. dave attributes it to the fact that we are not shown Frodo succumbing to the Ring. I don't buy the argument that a movie cannot show tragedy or evil. I can name many movies which do, movies which employ symbolism and not merely realism. This, I think is the point to be considered here on this thread: Does the movie depict evil as some physical force which can through action and battle be removed? Or does the movie depict evil as a condition into which people and cultures can fall? The second perspective of evil will require a very different kind of 'defense' than the first.

Evil for Tolkien was intimtely connected with the human desire for Power, Domination, and control over one's own creation. (Letter #131 in particular discusses this.) This is a psychological appreciation of evil as something we are all capable of feeling or succumbing to. It is not a bad guy or bad object which, when once removed from the scene, will lead to our liberation.

I think I've rambled on long enough. I hope this makes sense.

Oh, and HI, it is not by accident that I have not named anyone else here. It was deliberate. I know you can have only so much patience for long posts from me. ;) :cool:

[Rimbaud]

Beebonic,

evil is something inherent in mankind's nature--well, maybe that is stating it too strongly

Not sure if it is, really. What we would see as a reasonable desire for dominion, control, resides happily within all of us. We want control, quite naturally, over our thoughts, our physical selves, our 'personal space', our homes, our lifestyles, our friendships...the bubble expands to varying degrees. Pushing the envelope too far, as encouraged by Tolkien's device, is the true folly. Not the 'evil' desire itself, but the failure to moderate and temper it.

More cinematically, I’m not sure any but one or two of the actors had anything close to the talent required to display what some posters wanted to see. McKellan showed flashes of insight, but as with most of the better elements of the film, they are swiftly washed away in a maelstrom of FX laden set-pieces.

Don’t misunderstand your humble correspondent, I would have enjoyed a thoughtful film more dependant on the internalised struggle as well, but it would have simply been an entirely different experience, and not the choice made either by the studio or the director. Not to harp on the same point, but the film made the choice to be what was considered to be the easier sell.

Absolutely, trivialising the evil is a sad failure to explore the theme of the book, but neither could it have been displayed effectively in its true guise (internal, everlasting, the strand of sorrow that stems forth from it), in my opinion - and certainly not with that cast.

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.

[HerenIstarion]

If there is a difference it seems to me that its that Jackson seems to see evil as an external force more than an internal drive

On personal level he may have seen it otherwise, we don't know, but when the medium is basically 'visual', without sort of subtitles as to depict characters thoughts and emotions, it should be so. And even if, as my previous post shows, I believe there were means of putting a hint of it into the movie, there is not much one would be well-advised to expect from form of art which usually depicts 'will' as clenching of one's fists and teeth, manly chin and resolute stare .

movies which employ symbolism and not merely realism

Unfortunately, not in this case. Seems we have 'GDI first, else over it' situation here.

BTW, Boethian vs Manichaean view, anyone?

PS (or disclaimer) Slightly sarcastic flavour of my few recent posts must be due to overwork and cold I've caught yesterday. So it is not deliberately aimed at anyone, just a mood, I hope)

cheers

[HerenIstarion]

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.

Men may long remember your words, Iore... I mean, Rimbaud ;). Actually, it was a cross-poster up there, so let it stand as it is, else, seing these first, I would consider not posting at all

cheers

[drigel]

ill pick up on another one of Davem's good points - the Star Wars series

If you read the plot lines for the final trilogy of the series (and im not sure how valid they are - being spy reports and such), you can see (although formulaic) how Lucas is relaying that theme. While there are peaks and valleys, victories and defeats, the struggle continues. While admittedly the final movie sees the end of the dark side of the force, Lucas does a decent job with portraying in movie format the endless struggle.

[Rimbaud]

Well, I'm not sure about that either. If you are familiar with a wider SW universe, then sure, the fact that the struggle endures is apparent. From the films alone, however, you'd be hard pressed from the exuberance of the finale of RotJ not to think it was all over. As indeed with the LotR films.

[drigel]

aaahhh that is until the lights go down, and Episode 7 The Fallen Hero begins to play

[The Saucepan Man]

Its that very impossibility to convey the inner battle - a central theme of the work - that doomed the whole thing to failure as an adaptation.Woah! Hold up. I cannot let this pass.

The LotR films are not just about the external struggle, although that is undoubtedly their major focus. But there are internal struggles going on too.

This is perhaps most apparent in Jackson’s theme of “the weakness of Men”: a different emphasis perhaps than Tolkien’s theme, but it is there nevertheless. And what is this weakness, but an inherent (and therefore internal) vulnerability to succumb to evil.

Take the temptations of Boromir and Faramir. They are not only struggling with the external evil of the Ring, but also with weaknesses within themselves. The Ring is playing on their internal desires. In Boromir’s case, this is (as in the book) his desire for the power to defend his land. In Faramir’s case (and this clearly is a change from the book), it is his desire to prove himself to his father. In both cases, the external influence of the Ring produces an inner conflict. (It is, in many ways, a shame that the film missed the opportunity to convey Denethor’s struggle with despair. The Denethor that we meet in the films is way past the struggling stage, and is portrayed as little more than an obstructive villain. However, it would have taken a significant amount of additional film time to develop this aspect of his character.)

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfil his destiny. This is an aspect of his character which is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him.

As for Frodo, well he is clearly struggling to resist giving into the Ring throughout the film trilogy. But is he fighting a desire within himself, or is he struggling with the external evil of the Ring? It’s difficult to tell, but then I think that the book is ambiguous on this. We never get to learn what it offers to Frodo in return for his submission to it. In the book, we learn more about the nature of the Ring, and the internal weaknesses which it preys upon, in its effect on other characters - but cannot this be said about the films also?

A final example of internal struggle may, I think, be seen in the character of Saruman. In this case we see the consequences of one who has lost his inner struggle. In the films, there is, in my view, sufficient in the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman to suggest that he has succumbed to the evil within himself rather than any external force.

I make no comment (for now at least) on how well these struggles were depicted, either in comparison with their depiction in the book or as stand-alone themes. But I would dispute that they are not present at all.

Having said all that, I would agree that the films focus primarily on the external struggle with evil, as represented by Sauron and the Ring – and of course Saruman. That is a necessary consequence of their formulation as “action films”. As I said earlier, that is what they are first and foremost, rightly or wrongly.
In this sense, I don’t think that Jackson and his team “overlooked” the inner struggle with evil, or that they somehow failed to depict it. It is simply that this was not what they were trying to achieve. Should they have been, as adaptations of a book which is very much concerned with this theme? I don’t think so, necessarily. I see no sin in aiming to produce an enjoyable, spectacular, action-packed and intensely moving fantasy film based on the events, characters and some of the themes of the book. Some may say that Jackson failed even in that. Personally, I don’t think that he did at all.

I composed this post before I saw Rimbaud's comment:

Don’t misunderstand your humble correspondent, I would have enjoyed a thoughtful film more dependant on the internalised struggle as well, but it would have simply been an entirely different experience, and not the choice made either by the studio or the director. Not to harp on the same point, but the film made the choice to be what was considered to be the easier sell ...

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.For me, this is right on the mark - only I get to enjoy both the cake and the biscuit. :p ;)

[drigel]

I concur with you Davem. For me, the CGI was anticipated, yet it surpassed expectations. But PJ's focus on the character development was a pleasant surprise that - yes strayed somewhat from the books, but provoked (to me) much thought on the internal struggle. That is hard to pull off. If the internal struggle was the primary theme of a film, one would wind up making a movie with people standing around voicing their internal thoughts to the viewer - a 'la Dune :)

[Rimbaud]

Both are good (http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/), Saucepan.

[Bêthberry]

Really, Rim-tim-tim,


From the films alone, however, you'd be hard pressed from the exuberance of the finale of RotJ not to think it was all over.

What a point that J/K difference makes.

[Rimbaud]

Beeberescent,

I meant Jedi, if that's what you're asking. :)

~Rimi Tiki Tavi

[drigel]

and biscuits are made with buttermilk :)

[Lalwendë]

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfil his destiny. This is an aspect of his character which is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him

Saucepan - now you have raised this one, I can see that there clearly was portrayal of internal struggle in the films, so I'm pleased you posted those points. However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake. This is something I often sound off about to my pals, so bear with me, I will be reasoned. ;) One thing I always get from the books is how Aragorn is 99% of the time very sure of his purpose in Middle Earth; for the 1% of the time that he is not, we see how he masters his doubts. This, for me, is part of the very essence of Aragorn as a man who inspires others to follow him.

Having discussed the role of Aragorn with non-book fans, they tell me "why didn't they show Aragorn as an inspiring leader, and have them win the Battle of the Pelennor Fields through their bravery and his leadership? It looked like the Deadmen did everything in the battle". This horrified me quite a bit. It seems that Aragorn was somewhat diminished by portraying him in this way. After all, he takes up Anduril early on in the book, i.e. takes up his role and accepts his destiny, for good or bad, with dignity. In the film, he is reluctant to take up his destined role.

Since the films came out this has been one aspect that has always made me bristle a bit, as I always admired Aragorn's inspiring leadership, which in the books is coupled with touching moments of doubt. So, yes, there was internal struggle portrayed, but in this case, in the wrong place. Why did PJ do this? Just to have an inspiring scene where Elrond sweeps a mighty sword out of the darkness? It certainly looked very grand, but it was still not right.

That's my mini-rant over, and now I must find some slippers and a jumper before looking any further, as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering. :eek:

[davem]

I take on board everything SpM says about the inner conflicts of the characters in the movie, but I still think Bethberry is on to something, & I suppose its something like 'original sin'.

I don't mean that in the usual sense of sex, but in the sense that we are all born 'sinful', ie with a tendency towards evil. There is a drive towards power, control, domination of others, wanton destruction, etc. There is a 'war' going on within us constantly. This is not a war merely inspired by an external force. Even if there were no 'Rings of Power', if there were no evil 'out there' we would still face evil because it exists within us & must be overcome or it will overcome us.

In the movie the 'good' characters may face dilemmas (sp?) but they are basically good people struggling to discover what the 'right' course of action should be. Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'. In the movie all the good characters are shown wanting to bring about the Good but not knowing what constitutes that Good. Boromir's 'logical' arguments & justifications in the book are all over the place, & its clear that he's really trying to find excuses to give in to his own 'dark side', & justify his desires.

In Boromir, Saruman & finally in Frodo the evil wins out - yet this is a more complex matter than it may at first appear, because on Amon Hen we're told that Frodo 'awakened' to the realisation that he was 'neither the Voice nor the Eye'. There is a rational soul floating around in there who makes a choice between the two aspect of himself as well as between the two external forces. That rational soul must choose one or the other, so its not really a Manichean split, its a Boethian choice.

In short, the movie offers us a Manichean universe, where good individuals struggle to do their best to do the right thing. There isn't a sense that they may actually want to do the wrong thing, in full knowlege that it is wrong.

Book Boromir doesn't simply want 'the strength to defend his people. He wants power & control, dominance - he wants to replace Sauron. So did Galadriel at some point- or at least she had fantasised about it. Both had faced the evil within them - he had submitted & made excuses (& worse than that he had expected, demanded that Frodo go along with him), she had faced her own evil & rejected it.

Perhaps that was necessary in a popular action fantasy movie, but LotR is not a popular action fantasy book. It is a moral tale, specifically a Christian tale, & it is grounded is the idea of original sin, & the individual's battle with it.

[drigel]

Beth and Davem great points. The movies dont exactly examine this aspect. The books hint at the fact that walking among mortals are elves, who represent man in his "unfallen" state. Quite a contrast

[The Saucepan Man]

However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake.There is no doubt that film Aragorn is a significantly different character than book Aragorn (as is the case with many other cherished characters). Was that a mistake on Jackson's part? Well, undoubtedly so for many who have read the books. But not necessarily in the context of what Jackson was trying to achieve.

There seems to be held a commonly-held view that, in modern films, the principal characters should have what I believe is known as a "development arc". In other words they should show a marked development in their character throughout the film (or in this case three films) as a result of the experiences that they go undergo on screen. Whether that really is a necessary requirement of a "mass appeal" film, I do not know. But I should imagine that those responsible for producing and financing these kinds of films (or, more accurately, people on their behalf) do a lot of research into this sort of thing, so perhaps there is something in it.

Book Aragorn develops outwardly and those around him notice it. He becomes more noble and kingly as the book progresses. But, inside, he is the same character from when we meet him in the Prancing Pony through to his coronation. Save for his brief moments of self-doubt from Gandalf's fall through to the departure of Frodo and Sam, there is very little variation in his character. Film Aragorn, on the other hand, develops markedly in confidence and assurance throughout the three films.

I also think that there is an element of the film-makers wnating to present us with a more vulnerable, more "human", Aragorn. One who has flaws with which we can identify, but which he overcomes to claim his rightful inheritance. And, in this regard, I have to say that I have a sneaking admiration for film Aragorn. I risk been pelted heavily with rotten fruit here, but the more that I read the book, the more I find myself unable to identify with Aragorn. He is, for the most part, just too perfect for me, and too flat a character. Now, I recognise that there are very good arguments as to why this should be so in the context of the book. But I can also see why the film-makers might have wanted to present an Aragorn with whom they felt that a greater majority of (non-LotR reading) film audiences might identify.


... as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering.Snow! How delightful. Think yourself lucky. All we get here in London is cold, windy rain. :rolleyes: ;)


Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'.Fair point, and I don't disagree with Tolkien's premise. But, had the films delved any deeper into this (and admittedly they did not delve very deep at all), they would have been very much darker films, and most probably significantly less successful (in terms of mass appeal). There are of course films that explore this theme, some very successfully so. But I am not sure that the public at large is quite ready for it to be explored in a film populated by Elves, Dwarves and Magic Rings. In fact, I would say that many who read the book, perhaps even the majority, do not pick up on this theme (or at least do not reflect upon it to any great degree). I didn't until relatively recently.


Perhaps that was necessary in a popular action fantasy movie, but LotR is not a popular action fantasy book. It is a moral tale, specifically a Christian tale, & it is grounded is the idea of original sin, & the individual's battle with it.Again, I do not disagree. But I think it tells us more about the nature of the respective media that about Jackson's own interpretation of the book.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Davem:
I don't mean that in the usual sense of sex, but in the sense that we are all born 'sinful', ie with a tendency towards evil.

I actually hold a different view. I feel as if nobody is born "evil." I mean Hitler wasn't born thinking later in life he's going to murder millions of people. I think it's our own experiences in life (maybe something from childhood, or maybe TV, video games..etc) or just the way we were brought up by certain morals.

I tend to think that evil stems from good. At one point in time that "Evil" person was good, but a certain event, or the way his parents, or mentors brought him/her up caused her to commit horrible acts.

Let's take into account Morgoth, once a good person, got greedy, wanted power, became corrupt. His servant Sauron, once good, learned from Morgoth, became evil and corrupt. Saruman once good, desired to rule over everyone, became evil and corrupt.

I think of it as more of the fact that we aren't born lusting for things like wealth, power, prestige, but more of our experiences in life, our parents, mentors, teach us certain qualities and we ultimately end up like them. I'm not saying one view is more right then the other, simply getting out my opinions.

I will say this about the concept of "evil." Evil is often caused by abstract nouns. Abstract nouns being things we can't touch, see, hear, or taste, things that we can't measure. Examples are, emotions (love, hate, happy, depressed, nervous) and others like money, power, prestige. These are all things we can't measure. You can't go to the store and say, wow I'm feeling depressed today, why don't I just get a pound of happiness, to make me feel better. (Don't mind my senseless ramble).

Anyway point is, it is these "abstract ideas" which in fact are "evil." Now, emotions can be good or bad, people have killed over love before, but trying to say these unmeasurable abstract ideas is the "root of evil."

[davem]

I actually hold a different view. I feel as if nobody is born "evil."

I think this brings in the question of what 'evil' actually is - or at least where it originates. Are we born with the potential for evil? If we are its not something that we have chosen, its something innate, a part of our essential nature. But what is the nature of the 'potential'? If we come into being with the potential for evil within us then evil will (almost) inevitably manifest in the world, because some will give in to it.

But true freedom requires the existence of that potential for evil. Of course, circumstances will affect the individual & have a determining effect on their likelihood to choose evil, but the potential to choose it must be there.

But I am not sure that the public at large is quite ready for it to be explored in a film populated by Elves, Dwarves and Magic Rings.

Well, they probably weren't ready for it in a book, but that's what they got, & when they got it, they accepted it more than willingly. Why should it be less acceptable in a movie populated with 'Elves, Dwarves & Magic Rings' than in a world 'populated' with cops, gangsters & computer hackers?

My feeling is that we should be demanding that movies (& books) with Elves, Dwarves & Magic Rings deal with such issues, because for too long fantasy has been dismissed as juvenile fiction which only provides its readers with an 'escape' from the serious issues of 'real' life.

[Essex]

Going back to what davem said a few days (and lots of posts) ago, re Frodo's internal struggle.

in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself.Hang on, we do see his internal feelings. One of jackson's great skills is the ability to convey complex themes very simply. We see Frodo's internal desire for the ring in TT where he is laying on the ground and lovingly 'caressing' the ring with his fingers. One quick movie shot conveying his real desire (and love?) for the ring.

Your pointWhen i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it.We all know there have been numerous threads on Frodo's struggle on this site. Just one point, I see Frodo's struggle superbly explained by Tolkien where Frodo says to Sam in Mordor'But you must understand. It is my burden, and no one else can bear it. It is too late now, Sam dear. You can't help me in that way again. I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad.This shows Frodo's understanding that he couldn't give the Ring up. We see here that he is without hope, BUT HE STILL CARRIES ON. Not neccesarily because he has fallen into Sin by wanting the Ring, but because it has forced itself on him, and he is under its power, helpless and 'alone in the dark'.

The last part of frodo's line above (if you tried to take it I should go mad) also has major resonance for me. Frodo is finally 'outwouldly' happy when the Ring is destroyed, but we must remember he did not give it up (as Bilbo did). It was forced from him and then destoryed (by accident not free will). This happens in both movie and book (but slightly differently). We also see Frodo's struggle afterwards in the movie with the BRILLIANT monolouge Frodo gives us in Bag End. It still brings a tear to my eye when this scene arrives. I feel so melancholy, as I do near the end of the books, and I thank Boyens, Walsh and Jackson for this scene, maybe above ALL others in the films.

[The Saucepan Man]

My feeling is that we should be demanding that movies (& books) with Elves, Dwarves & Magic Rings deal with such issues, because for too long fantasy has been dismissed as juvenile fiction which only provides its readers with an 'escape' from the serious issues of 'real' life.Well, to truly engage with this issue we would have to try to understand the reasons behind the popularity of LotR the book. It is itself generally regarded as "escapist" in nature. A mischaracterisation (or misunderestimation) perhaps, but I do doubt that the majority who enjoy it do so because it gives them the opportunity to grapple with themes such as this.

I do not disagree with the ideal behind your statement. But, as a practical matter, I can't see studios being willing to back the idea. Middle-earth requires a big budget to bring to the screen (to make it visually accurate at least), and it would therefore have involved a hefty financial risk. The book, of course, involved a hefty investment from Tolkien, in terms of his time, but he did not (at the outset at least) have an eye to profit.

[Lalwendë]

I think this brings in the question of what 'evil' actually is - or at least where it originates. Are we born with the potential for evil? If we are its not something that we have chosen, its something innate, a part of our essential nature. But what is the nature of the 'potential'? If we come into being with the potential for evil within us then evil will (almost) inevitably manifest in the world, because some will give in to it.

It is the word 'evil' itself which often leads us as human beings to deny its very existence within ourselves. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they too could commit an evil act, but we must remember that we all have the potential to do 'bad things'. And, as I have said elsewhere before, morals are not always absolute - what is bad to us may be good to another.

In many cases (or all?) it is our human instinct which leads people into committing evil. The instinct to survive can lead people to steal or kill for food or land. The instinct for revulsion can cause people to commit gross acts of violence on others whom they see as 'different'. Again, I will have to restate that I do not see instinct in any way as an 'excuse' for our behaviour. Thankfully, as sentient beings, we are all also equipped with the ability to restrain ourselves from following our instincts. How and in what way we do this is another matter, and one in no small way determined by the society we live within.

As an example, somebody like Saruman might have been revered during the Industrial Revolution, yet would be despised as a wanton polluter of the environment today. To us, his actions are evil, but they may not have been in another time. Likewise, we are able and prepared to accept Frodo and his failings, his succumbing to temptation; I am not so sure about how he would have fared with Victorian readers, who valued the perfect ideal of the medieval hero.

There is one other work of fantasy fiction which springs to mind immediately, which deals with these serious issues - Gormenghast. I shall think if there are any more and post them later...

[davem]

We see Frodo's internal desire for the ring in TT where he is laying on the ground and lovingly 'caressing' the ring with his fingers. One quick movie shot conveying his real desire (and love?) for the ring.


But we don't see his real desire & love for evil, what the Ring symbolises.

This shows Frodo's understanding that he couldn't give the Ring up. We see here that he is without hope, BUT HE STILL CARRIES ON. Not neccesarily because he has fallen into Sin by wanting the Ring, but because it has forced itself on him, and he is under its power, helpless and 'alone in the dark'.

But this is the whole question - the nature of evil - is it something 'external' which has overcome his will, or is it an internal response - does he give in & desire evil?

We also see Frodo's struggle afterwards in the movie with the BRILLIANT monolouge Frodo gives us in Bag End. It still brings a tear to my eye when this scene arrives. I feel so melancholy, as I do near the end of the books, and I thank Boyens, Walsh and Jackson for this scene, maybe above ALL others in the films.

But is movie Frodo saying the same thing as book Frodo? Different Frodo, different struggle, I'd say. Movie Frodo has been broken by an external force, but has no reason to blame himself or feel like the 'broken failure' Tolkien says he does by the end of the story. Book Frodo has (in my reading) willed evil by surrendering to the Ring.

Well, to truly engage with this issue we would have to try to understand the reasons behind the popularity of LotR the book. It is itself generally regarded as "escapist" in nature. A mischaracterisation (or misunderestimation) perhaps, but I do doubt that the majority who enjoy it do so because it gives them the opportunity to grapple with themes such as this.

It is a mischaracterisation - one which the movies have exacerbated, & just because the majority of readers don't grapple with these themes is no reason to pretend they don't exist & reduce the work to an action adventure.

I do not disagree with the ideal behind your statement. But, as a practical matter, I can't see studios being willing to back the idea. Middle-earth requires a big budget to bring to the screen (to make it visually accurate at least), and it would therefore have involved a hefty financial risk.

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.

[Rimbaud]

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.

The argument is moot, then, if you would rather they had not been made.

I think what SpM and myself are trying to say, with our jaunty practical caps on, is that there is no way the books could have been translated to the screen in the manner you describe - not with the responsibility of the large budget, and constraints on running length and the necessity of appealing to a younger audience (the perception thereof being of limited attention spans for something without a special effect).*

This is not to say that even under these regulations, the films are unimprovable - I would love to see a complete re-edited version, cut to my whimsy, but such changes that could have been made whilst staying within the requisite profit zone would not bring about the dramatically differen motion picture you outline.


*This is not to hold that these regulations are accurately posited, nor to justify the commercialisation of sub-creation, merely to state that they and that exist in the major release cinematic oeuvre.

[Essex]

Davem,Book Frodo has (in my reading) willed evil by surrendering to the Ring.I do not believe this in my reading of the book. In what he says here But you must understand. It is my burden, and no one else can bear it. It is too late now, Sam dear. You can't help me in that way again. I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad. the line "I am almost in its power". To me this is not a statement of Will. This is a statement of the ring's CONTROL over him as he neared the Crack of Doom. He did not will evil onto him. The Ring controls people into desiring it.

To me, and I've stated this before on this site a few times, I'm lucky enough to love the films enough that Movie Frodo is the "same" as Book Frodo. I can pick and chose paticular parts of his (and any other character's) traits that tie in with the book, which makes my Movie watching pleasure all the more greater.

And to me at the end of the film, movie Frodo is feeling the same as book Frodo. His well known 3 wounds he endured during his adventure leads him to need healing, something he won't get in the Shire. His mental healing is maybe something greater, because the Ring was TAKEN from him, not given up, is to me the reason he feels he must leave Middle-earth for Healing. Not because of guilt. (yes before anyone corrects me I know its been mooted by Tolkien himself that Guilt was one of the main reasons he left) It's just the way I read the story.

[The Saucepan Man]

But we don't see his real desire & love for evil, what the Ring symbolises.Nor do we in the book. As for whether, at Sammath Naur, Frodo surrenders to an external force or freely chooses not to destroy the Ring, the book is ambiguous.


I have come. But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!The words "do not choose" might suggest that he has no choice in the matter, while the words "I will not do" might be used to argue that he is acting out of free will. His feelings of guilt could justifiably arise either way. If it was an external force, then he could still feel guilty over nor having the strength of will to resist it.

As I recall, the words used in the film are different. But I should imagine that they could equally be interpreted either way (although I reserve the right to alter that view if someone posts them here :D ).


It is a mischaracterisation - one which the movies have exacerbated ...I disagree. LotR was popularly regarded as escapist fantasy long before the films came out. I agree that it is a mischaracterisation, but I doubt that I would have 3 years ago.


So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly. What Rimbaud said. :p ;)

Although I would reiterate my earlier point as well:


I see no sin in aiming to produce an enjoyable, spectacular, action-packed and intensely moving fantasy film based on the events, characters and some of the themes of the book. Some may say that Jackson failed even in that. Personally, I don’t think that he did at all.

[Lalwendë]

If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly

I've yet to see a film based on a work of literature which was done perfectly. I think this has something to do with the conflicting natures of literature and film; alas I was not listening in my critical theory lectures so I don't have the necessary theorems to explain this in that way, but I suspect it could have something to do with intertextuality.

Atempting to explain by way of example, consider that this was only the second attempt to film LoTR. There have been many film versions of other works - e.g. Dracula, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights - none of which, in my opinion have been perfect. This has not always diminished my enjoyment of those films, though it quickly made me realise that to ever see a perfect version of my favourite book was very likely an impossibility; therefore seeing the films as they were made, I was pleasantly surprised, even if I still can't accept the portrayal of Aragorn. ;)

Hollywood is also quite a lazy beast and there is a tendency to adapt pre-existing works rather than make a 'pure film'; when a film is based on an 'original' concept then it is a very different product. You only have to look at the fan worship surrounding such 'pure films' as Star Wars, Donnie Darko and The Matrix. When Hollywood adapts pre-exisitng works it so often gets it very wrong. A good example of this is comic book adaptations. I am told that many are so completely wrong that it is not worth seeing them - not that I have much knowledge of comic books beyond Beano.

Earlier I mentioned fantasy works which do reflect the disturbing nature of the 'real' world. In between many rounds of stress this afternoon I managed to give this some thought. I mentioned Gormenghast - which is a critique of red tape, hierarchical structures, and the class system. When I was younger I read this as a simple if gothic fantasy - now I am in civil servitude I understand it on a deeply satirical level (especially today... :( ). Many 'Downers do not seem to like His Dark materials very much, but it provides grown-up comment on the nature of religion and of democracy; and this is one book I shudder to think of being made into a film, as I am convinced it will be wrong.

[davem]

the line "I am almost in its power". To me this is not a statement of Will. This is a statement of the ring's CONTROL over him as he neared the Crack of Doom. He did not will evil onto him. The Ring controls people into desiring it.

the problem I have with this is that it implies that evil is powerful enough to overwhelm the individual, so that at some point the individual lolses control & has no will. for me this is contradicted by Frodo's realisation on Amon Hen that he is 'neither the Voice nor the Eye'. He exists at some point between them, able to make a moral choice. To state as (?) did on another thread that if Gandalf had taken the Ring he would have become simply more good than he is & would have imposed that 'goodness' on others is to miss the point. It is saying that 'Evil' is simply misapplied Good - ie, that there is no moral difference between the two & that Good & Evil are simply subjective value judgements based on effects.

For Tolkien (as I read him) the two are mutually exclusive things, between which the individual makes a choice. I think Jackson's position is not quite either of those - simply some people are evil by nature & others are good by nature, but may make mistakes & do evil things in a wrong attempt to do good - hence Boromir & Faramir (till he changes his mind).

Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one. Frodo consents to what he knows is evil - the Ring & everything it symbolises - & that is his 'failure' - & the fact that we also, in his position, would surrender does not make what he does acceptable. Frodo knows this. And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts. If evil is simply an external force then theoretically we could save ourselves by becoming 'stronger'. On the other hand, if evil is an innate aspect of our essence then our salvation must be out of our hands, & we are dependent on an external source of salvation.

If it was an external force, then he could still feel guilty over nor having the strength of will to resist it.

He could - but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile. He would be going simply to 'get better' - which is the sense I get from the movie. This is why the movie doesn't move me in the way the book does. Frodo's guilt is real, true guilt, because he did surrender to what he knew was Evil. Otherwise he mightas well have been a machine - & the point of the story is that he is not a machine.

[Essex]

Davem,

And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts.Whoops. I'll let my priest know on Sunday that I'm not bothering to go to Church as there's no point then!!!! :) ;)

Frodo's guilt is real, true guilt, because he did surrender to what he knew was Evil. Can someone point out to me the part of the book after the Ring is destroyed where we see Frodo feeling guilty...........

but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile. Go into exile? He was given 'the grace of the Valar' and he's going to the West / Undying Lands / Paradise / Nirvana / Valhalla / Heaven - whatever you want to call it. He is going to a BETTER PLACE. Yes, he's leaving behind the people he loves (but also following Bilbo, the person I believe he loves the most), but you say he's going to the West just because he feels guilty?

Methinks not.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Davem:
Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one.

I would have to say it's more of an internal battle within oneself as well. Take violent video games for example. Now, I stand that if a kid can handle the sort of things that are in let's say the game Grand Theft Auto, if he can maturely handle that game, then he can play it without becoming "attached" to it. Unfortunately not all kids are like that, some will take the game too far, and even play it for hours and hours and hours at a time, they are indeed addicted to it, and therefore are corrupted by the game. Let's look at the situation with the Ring.

The Ring isn't all powerful, there are those who can resist it, Bombadil, Galadriel, Faramir, Sam, and Bilbo. Then there are those who can't Frodo, Boromir, and Gollum. Out of the one's who resisted, the person who had it the longest was Bilbo, and he gave it up freely (with a little nudge to help him of course), but he gave it up rather easily. As we get a quote from Faramir here in A Window on the West:

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!" he said. "How have you increased my sorrow, you two strange wonderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow and be held by them.

Here Faramir makes it seem as if it's internal struggle, that there is a choice in the matter. He said "It was too sore a trial," and Boromir did face the trial, and it was too sore for him to handle. Faramir later says, "Even if I were such a man as to DESIRE this ring." Note, desire which makes it seem as if you have to "want" what the ring offers to you, and Faramir doesn't "want" any of that. You have to "desire" what the Ring offers to you, and that would make it a choice, an internal struggle between taking it or not.

In Frodo's situation I think we can connect it to my anecdote about "Grand Theft Auto." He had the Ring for so long, he was obviously weighed down, wounded, spiritually demoralized because of it, and he in return became attached to it. But who wouldn't have? If somebody was stuck in Frodo's spot who wouldn't have done what he did? Of course besides Bombadil, but he would have lost it even before he got to Mount Doom.

The way I view this is Frodo didnt FAIL the quest, he FAILED the personal test (I rhymed). The quest was to destroy the ring, by any means, and the Ring got destroyed. The ultimate job of the quest was to get the Ring into the fire, and the Ring got there. The personal test Frodo did fail. He had a choice, throw it in, or not, and he decided to keep it, so he failed that internal test within himself, but he completed the quest.

One has a choice, there is always a choice within somebody, the Ring can't control how somebody reacts, to it's power. All it can do is lure a person to it, and some people are lured by it, others don't fall for it. As I stated before if there are those who can resist the Ring's lure, then I think that goes to prove that it's more of an internal struggle, more then the external Ring's force of controlling people. One has a choice in the matter of doing it or not doing it. Just like the game situation, it's not like Grand Theft Auto "forces" kids to go around rape and shoot people, there are those with the strong enough "will" to resist it, and there are those who can't. Making it the internal conflict within each person.

[HerenIstarion]

And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts.

So and not so. True and not entirely true. The argument, sorry davem, is lopsided. If it were entirely true (i.e. logic as follows - our acts can not bring our salvation = no need to act), there would be no point for Frodo to go anywhere at all, all acts being useless unless salvation came from outside (or inside - i.e. externally strenghtening his inner self, or will).

I'll risk to tell you a joke to illustrate (even if clumsily) what I mean:

There was a man drowning, and he prayed to God to help him, and having trust in Him, he laid back and stopped making attempts to swim. Naturally, he drowned. When in Paradise, he asked his Lord - why haven't you saved me when I humbly prayed for deliverance? Because I've already given you means to it by giving you hands and legs to swim, wich you could have used to swim ashore - was the answer

in LoTR, Frodo is the illustration of both necessities - i.e. acts do count, for not to act would be deriliction of duty, but acts as acts, without external (external and at the same time, internal, rather) help, will bring no salvation - hence Gollum falling down by Chance.

In a sense, and in a way, Frodo's story is illustration of Lord's Prayer, specially 'lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil' part.

In that sense, PJ version errs as it depicts mainly acts. But utterly symbolical movie, stressing on inner battle, on Frodo giving in to temptation or, on the contrary, winning out by trust and submission to external force working from the inside, which is not clearly seen at all, but only hinted at in the book, as Duty, would be equally erroneous.

Is Boethian and Manichaean opposition solvable, than? Despite the number of disputes we have had or will have about the issue, we haven't reached final conclusion. It may be said that truth lies, if not entirely in the exact middle, at least nearer to Boethian side of the swing, but not utterly there. It would follow, than, that absolute evil is impossible - i.e. when its very existence derived from Good, to exist, it must retain some good at least.

But I'm drifting off.

choice made by a free being

A-ha! (http://69.51.5.41/showpost.php?p=314760&postcount=87)

He could - but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile

Um, difficult issue, this. He in fact, goes to 'get better' - to be healed. Towards the end, Frodo seems like more than mere human - having failed at Sammath Naur, and being there delivered by Miracle, he seems to cease to fail at all - he seems redeemed. So, he must be free from supposed 'feeling of guilt'. His repentance is over as the Ring is forcibly taken from him. The rest of his life would be joy, unless he were not maimed (both bodily and spiritually). You seem to make it sound as if guild here = shame. Frodo has nothing to be ashamed for in that respect. He does not feel guilt - he's in pain (it's gone, Sam, it's gone.. etc)

EDIT

While I tinkered, Essex and Boromir88 cross-poster under my very nose :)

Well, should accommodate your posts too

The way I view this is Frodo didnt FAIL the quest, he FAILED the personal test

In a sense. Indeed, I myself has written immediately above that he have failed. But, come to think of it, he failed (in a sense) neither. It could not have been otherwise - work 'deliberately' Christian 'in the revision' could not have allowed for Frodo to drop the Ring down in a nonchalant way - when even Perfect Human crucified cried out "my God, why have you forsaken me' - i.e.even being the best of humans allows for moments of waivering. Frodo failed the quest, but did not fail it at the same time, in a sense it was impossible not to fail it. What he did not fail was his obligation. He carried his duty to its end, and than the game was took over by the higher Authority. Thence there should have been no guilt after the event (whatever amount of it could have been felt by him prior to it) - Frodo did all he could do (really all, not what his fancy told him was "all he could"), Logically, he should have died than - for his life is accomplished at that moment. Only book would have lost without kind of rehearsal of the Joy we read in the Cormallen Fields (I use to sob over the chapter)

And, as we are in the movies forum, let me add a movie flavour to it - that what PJ version utterly failed to transfer.

West / Undying Lands / Paradise / Nirvana / Valhalla / Heaven - whatever you want to call it. He is going to a BETTER PLACE.

In a sense, yes. And again, moments ago, I myself wrote something similar, but not entirely similar. Frodo goes to the place of Repose, not final place of Abide. (Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth - humans being guests, technically are exiles everywhere but at their Final Home - Arda Remade, in the reality plane of ME)

END OF EDIT

[davem]

Can someone point out to me the part of the book after the Ring is destroyed where we see Frodo feeling guilty...........

'There is no real going back, though I may come to the Shire it will not be the same, for I am not the same'

Isn't that passing sentence on the guilty? He has denied himself his home. He has proclaimed himself an exile.

Whoops. I'll let my priest know on Sunday that I'm not bothering to go to Church as there's no point then!!!!

But how can you save yourself? If salvation comes from God through Christ's sacrifice then that's impossible. You can only through your acts make yourself worthy of salvation (though many Christians would argue that there is nothing you as an individual fallen being can do to raise yourself up. I think the belief that you can is Arianism.

The argument, sorry davem, is lopsided. If it were entirely true (i.e. logic as follows - our acts can not bring our salvation = no need to act), there would be no point for Frodo to go anywhere at all, all acts being useless unless salvation came from outside (or inside - i.e. externally strenghtening his inner self, or will).

The point for Frodo to go is that it was willed by Eru that he go. A servant does what his master tells him because that's his job. If his master chooses to reward him that's his choice. The servant cannot make his master reward him, or the servant would be the 'master'. A good person will do good not because he desires a reward, but because as a good person its his nature to do good. Thoughts of rewards should not come into it. Frodo does what he does not in order to get the reward of passing onto the West.

And why shouldn't Frodo feel guilt over his choice? A free person is resonsible. Frodo's choice must be a free one, hence he is responsible for it, & so he is guilty. If he did not make his choice to surrender freely then the events at the Sammath Naur are meaningless. If he did make a free choice then he is guilty.

[drigel]

Boro
Faramirs quote is a good reference to point to. Here is B's brother showing the compexities of the mortals. We see him saying "I would do this. .. I would do that.." yet, would that be different if he were the one who made the trip to Rivendell instead of B?

This thread is (again) way transcending the single subject we are on. I find the guilt therom intriguing. I say this landscape is to stark - too black and white. The internal struggle is not a "one time shot", if that makes sense, unless, it seems, the ring involved.... or is it? Could Boromir have, after successfully getting the ring from Frodo, feel guilt? Could he give the ring back? Could Faramir?

Could Frodo change his mind, once he made the decision to not destroy the ring? No one, its seems, gives up the ring willingly. But, is there a difference between bearing and wielding? In other words, once you realize the abitlity and potential of what you could achieve with the ring - is it all over?

[Lalwendë]

Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts

I am a rather clumsy theologian - my qualifications are an O Level in the subject and many years of 'pondering' - but I understand that this is true only of certain types of Christianity. I had two ex-Catholic grandmothers, one of whom had not in her heart really converted to CofE on her marriage, and she would certainly have agreed with that view of salvation. However, as a child I went to an ordinary CofE church where we were weekly instilled with the need to do 'good deeds' in order to go to Heaven. So, I have assumed that there are two diverging Christian viewpoints, and being no Martin Luther or Thomas A Kempe, I may have expressed this clumsily, but no offence is intended (I fundamentally believe that all religions are equal, I am something of a philosophical Unitarian if not a spiritual one).

Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one. Frodo consents to what he knows is evil - the Ring & everything it symbolises - & that is his 'failure'

I have already said in another post that I recognise in Frodo's sufferings an echo of the sufferings of Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD). There is indeed a very real internal battle which Frodo is fighting; his agonies are a very real internal evil. He is battling an urge simply to give up. This urge to give up is in itself an 'evil'; what could be more wasteful than giving up your own life? This is something that often inevitably follows a great trauma, and having been there myself, at the very cracks of my own metaphorical Mount Doom, ready to succumb to some evil within, I thoroughly understand his internal struggle.

After being at the bottom of such despair, I know what inevitably follows and that, indeed, is a whole lot of guilt. The concept of sadness at Frodo's being forced to go into exile is also correct - he was going into exile. You do feel deeply ashamed at having in some way almost 'given up' - I know that for months I would scuttle around in the shadows afraid everyone was talking about my "failure to cope"!

Sorry for the little bit of soul-baring, but it is a good example to use, and, as I've said before, for the past three years I've grown to deeply understand the sufferings of Frodo (and Gollum and Bilbo for that matter). I used to think it was 'just' the power of the ring - but now I see there was more to it. And it is not something Tolkien would have been unfamiliar with either, following his experiences in the trenches he will have seen many men with PTSD, if he did not have this to some extent himself.

In terms of the films, it would have been good (or would it have felt too 'raw' to me?) to have seen this understanding of Frodo represented, but, from bitter experience, I often find that if you haven't walked in those shadows, you're not necessarily going to know how it feels, or even to acknowledge that they exist.

[HerenIstarion]

The point for Frodo to go is that it was willed by Eru that he go. A servant does what his master tells him because that's his job. If his master chooses to reward him that's his choice

Touché.

Very true. But, allegedly, Frodo does not know about Eru? He does not know about Master/Servant relationship? Or, maybe, he knows but in a role of Master (Servant being Sam)

In case you imply Eru worked through him directly, the freedom is eliminated - that is not Frodo who willed to go, but Eru through Frodo willed him to go. Rather I'd say, Eru worked through insight in Gandalf, who helped Frodo to will to go - and that shows Frodo's strengh and his humility - he trusted (in estel sense) in Gandalf, he held a belief that what Gandalf advised was a right thing to do. Ultimately, Frodo does his duty in allegience to what he thinks is Right, without expectation of reward (I never intended it to sound as if I believed Frodo did what he did to get a ticket to Sanatorium-in-the-West)

but because as a good person its his nature to do good

But as a free person he has the ability no to do it. Why should he not feel guilt is the fact that repentance frees one from guilt, and redemption frees one entirely. Guilt, so to say, is a means to an end, not end in itself - if it leads to repentance and redemption, it is good, but guilt in itself is not good.

I argued elsewhere that (improbably) Frodo-Gollum-Ring make a composite creature towards the end. With the death of latter two, what is left - Frodo, is person free from sin, i.e. already redeemed. And redeemed do not feel guilt - their guilt is over as their sins are cleansed. In a sense, Frodo is dead too - that's why Shire is not for him - living lands are not for the dead. (That last paragraph being diggin too deep into the thing, I suppose)

[HerenIstarion]

I have already said in another post that I recognise in Frodo's sufferings an echo of the sufferings of Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD). There is indeed a very real internal battle which Frodo is fighting; his agonies are a very real internal evil. He is battling an urge simply to give up. This urge to give up is in itself an 'evil'; what could be more wasteful than giving up your own life?

Probably you're right, and I am wrong. But I'm not persuaded - I'm inclined to view the case of Frodo as an exeption - his utterances during his crises are not of self-blame, but of thirst, desire - he misses the Ring. It's more like to what drug addict goes through - I mean drug addict who, mentally, is resolute to quit, has, in fact, quitted, but his body is still in the habit of having the drug and is in pain for it. Without drug nothing seems joyful to the body. That's what is supposedly to be healed in the West, not his guilt. If he were feeling guilty, his behavior on Cormallen must have been a hypocrisy.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have to say that I think that this is one aspect of the book (among many) that PJ nailed absolutely dead to rights. The markers of a continuing sadness/melancholy that will surpass the bounds of the movie are so many that I hardly need to enumerate them here (besides, they've been mentioned already).

I would just say, however, that PJ translates to the filmic medium something that Tolkien did brilliantly in the novel. The end of LotR is supremely non-novelistic, what with the hero 'disappearing' into an ambivalent, even ambiguous exile the nature of which is not adequately explained in the narrative. Sam's own ending, the ending of the whole story, is also an extraordinary rewriting of the novelistic convention. The utter domestication of the hero in that final paragraph, his being taken 'back in' by the home and hearth is something that just does not happen in novels. In the 19th C, that scene would have been played out only in epilogue form and been presented as the achievement of the hero's journey, not the conclusion of his retreat from his journey. In the 20th C that scene would not be presented at all, except as a problematic and ambiguous 'real life' moment to counter the supposedly 'happy ever after' conclusion it appears to be.

What I mean to say is that Tolkien, in writing his book, gives us a conclusion that goes against novelistic convention. The drawn out series of endings (incl the Scouring) leads to a rather anti-climactic moment. . .but only from a narrative/strucutral point of view, not an emotional one at all.

PJ does precisely the same thing but in filmic terms. Each of the "closing shots" that he gives in the serialised endings (Mount Doom, the marriage of Aragorn and Arwen, the return to the Shire, Frodo's departure) is large, gorgeous, rounded out with large soundtracks -- they are typical Hollywood closing shots. The fact that they keep happening, I think, hammers home the idea that there is no one way for this film to really 'end'; that the story the film is telling defies the easy conventionalities and sententious simplicity of Hollywood narrative. That it is all rounded off with a shot of the closed door of 3 Bagshot Row undercuts the drive to conclusion and understanding -- the final shot of the movies is not a narrative one in which things are explained in a final way (Aragorn and Arwen are married, good is triumphant; Frodo is gone, good is rewareded) but a shot in which the ongoing story of Sam and Rosie is hidden from us -- they go inside to live their lives, the door closes, and we are left with the image of not being able to see what is going on.

I realise that this is not entirely on point with the original point of the thread, or with the current direction, but I wanted to put that up anyway. It does seem to me, however, that this careful drive to constitute the narrative as not finished, as escaping any final conclusion, works against the prologue's assertion that evil can be destroyed "forever". The vision of "forever" that we have at the end is one of continuing life and ongoing existence/change: no-one is so niave, I think, as to think that life is perfect. So while Sauron may be gone, we are still very much in a world like the one we live in: imperfect, ongoing, and in which bad things happen (Frodo does leave Sam, this is sad and an 'evil' necessity to him).

It also occurs to me that the insistence on ambiguity that PJ works toward is a good way of capturing the ambiguity that surrounds Frodo's sense of failure/judgement and his desire to leave. The film is not, I think, as certain of why Frodo has to leave as it would appear. With his departure Bag End is empty and dead -- unlike the book, in which Frodo's departure is a healing of the Shire and what opens the way for Sam's fulfillment, in the movie Frodo's going leaves a gaping wound in his world, and while he may finally be happy, nobody else is.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am having real difficulty here seeing any significant difference between Frodo succumbing to the Ring (an external evil) because he did not have the strength of will to resist it and Frodo succumbing to the evil within himself (an internal evil). To my mind, it is in the very act of succumbing to the external evil (and surely the Ring has to play a part here) that Frodo succumbs to his own internal evil.

As to the nature of Frodo's inner turmoil following the destruction of the Ring, I shall content myself with waiting until I read these chapters together once again (probably as part of the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion) before drawing any firm conclusions. But I do think that guilt (if that is what he feels) is a justifiable reaction to a failure of will.

But, to get back on topic (*hint ;) *), doesn't the very nature of the discussion going on here illustrate exactly how the perfect film of the book could never be made, at least for those who have already read the book? :p

One person's perfection would always be another's failure.


Hollywood is also quite a lazy beast and there is a tendency to adapt pre-existing works rather than make a 'pure film'; when a film is based on an 'original' concept then it is a very different product. You only have to look at the fan worship surrounding such 'pure films' as Star Wars, Donnie Darko and The Matrix. When Hollywood adapts pre-exisitng works it so often gets it very wrong.An interesting point. But say, for example that Star Wars was based upon a much cherished book which concerned itself in much more detail with the themes explored in the film (because, as a book, it was able to). Wouldn't the same criticisms be being made of it? Much as I love the original Star Wars film, I do think that the LotR films suffer unfairly in comparison with it. Yes, I know that it is an original work, rather than being adapted from a book. But, then again, it is very much based on the Hero Myth, and so is not entirely original.


Many 'Downers do not seem to like His Dark materials very much, but it provides grown-up comment on the nature of religion and of democracy; and this is one book I shudder to think of being made into a film, as I am convinced it will be wrong.I very much enjoyed Pullman's trilogy, but I did feel that, ultimately, he failed credibly to portray the massive (parallel) universe-wide war that he sought to depict. And it is there that I think that his trilogy suffers in comparison with LotR, rather than on any theological issue. It will be interesting to see how the films work out, given that Pullman himself is very much involved with them. I am going to see the plays next month, which I have been told are rather good. :)

[Nimrodel_9]

Personally, I do not think that evil would have been destroyed forever. Sauron (or Morgoth) had followers, as Sauron was one of Morgoth`s followers. Evil can, and most likely will always rise again. By the way, didn`t it say some where (either RotK or FotR) that Sauron would not be completely destroyed? Help me someone. :confused: :)

[Boromir88]

SpM,
I am having real difficulty here seeing any significant difference between Frodo succumbing to the Ring (an external evil) because he did not have the strength of will to resist it and Frodo succumbing to the evil within himself (an internal evil). To my mind, it is in the very act of succumbing to the external evil (and surely the Ring has to play a part here) that Frodo succumbs to his own internal evil.

Here's the way I see it. Ok, the Ring is an external evil, and does play a role in having Frodo not drop it into the fire. The reason it's not an "external" evil, is because the Ring can't force Frodo to do what he does. The Ring can offer you something, whether you take it or not, that is up to you, it's whether you got "what it takes" to resist it. From the Faramir quote above we can see that Faramir makes it up to the person. He says
Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing,
So, to Faramir there is a choice in it, you either desire to take what the Ring has to offer, or you don't. Take this as a scenario.

A gun, what many would call an external evil, it's a bad weapon. Somebody takes the gun and shoots and kills someone. Now who's fault is it? Obviously the person's, the gun didn't pull the trigger by itself. The person who pulled the trigger fell to the internal struggle within himself to do it or not to. The Ring can't "force" anyone to do something, that's up to the person. The Ring can lure, and manipulate, but when it comes down to it, it's up to the person to throw it in or not. Let me tell you, I don't think anyone, in Frodo's situation, would have thrown it in. But thing is, you still have to consider Frodo's decision an "internal evil," for he had a choice, good or bad.

[HerenIstarion]

Obviously the person's, the gun didn't pull the trigger by itself

But suppose gun was taunting the person with something along the 'shoot me, it would be so nice to shoot me, it will settle all difficulties right once you shoot me...' sort of whisper previous to actual pulling of the trigger?

[davem]

Frodo, is person free from sin, i.e. already redeemed. And redeemed do not feel guilt - their guilt is over as their sins are cleansed.

Well, that depends whether you see Frodo's journey into the West as going to Heaven or going to Pugatory. If its to Purgatory (even in the Earthly Paradise) then he hasn't been completely purified by his experiences in the world. The journey to Mordor was like the Workhouse in Niggle, the West is like his time in Niggle's Parish - still a learning & purificatory experience - & his final passing beyond the circles of the World will happen when his freedom from both his earthly sufferings & his guilt resulting from them, have been attained - like Niggle passing beyond the Mountains.

[Lalwendë]

So while Sauron may be gone, we are still very much in a world like the one we live in: imperfect, ongoing, and in which bad things happen (Frodo does leave Sam, this is sad and an 'evil' necessity to him).

In HoME Vol. 12 you can find The New Shadow, a story which Tolkien attempted to draft, set 100 years after the death of Aragorn. Tolkien never finished the tale, yet to attempt it, he acknowledged that ‘evil’ was still very much a real presence in Middle Earth. Tolkien said of the story:

…almost certainly a restlessness would appear about then, owing to the (it seems) inevitable boredom of Men with the good; there would be secret societies practising dark cults, and ‘orc cults’ among adolescents

Tolkien here himself says that there is potential evil in the hearts of men, that they may turn away from ‘the good’. It is a negative view of humankind, but then this is seemingly the way of things; Tolkien lived through a century of alternating peace and war, seeing his generation slaughtered and hurt, almost for nothing. So too was Frodo harmed almost for nothing, certainly for nothing of immediate benefit to Frodo; he did not return to the Shire to live as a war hero, he was broken, and his only succour was to leave his home altogether.

that depends whether you see Frodo's journey into the West as going to Heaven or going to Pugatory

He is indeed travelling to a kind of Purgatory. In the films I see Frodo’s departure portrayed as a very sad event, I agree with this, but it is also seen as something of a ‘privilege’ that he goes on the Elven ship to the West, whereas in reality, it is his only choice, it is no ‘gift’, but a necessity. And I say it is portrayed as a blessing to Frodo to go into the West, as others have told me that this is how they read the events in the film. I think that in the films, by necessity, a focus was placed upon the ring as an absolute tool of evil, and thus it does appear that it is the ring, and the ring only, which is the undoing of Frodo, when really it has worked in a more subtle way, by working on what potential is already within Frodo (and Gollum and Bilbo).

I'm not persuaded - I'm inclined to view the case of Frodo as an exeption - his utterances during his crises are not of self-blame, but of thirst, desire - he misses the Ring.

Yes, Frodo does miss the ring; he misses his dark and dreadful joy, and his ‘precious’. He is empty without it, but he is also shattered by possessing it.

I very much enjoyed Pullman's trilogy, but I did feel that, ultimately, he failed credibly to portray the massive (parallel) universe-wide war that he sought to depict. And it is there that I think that his trilogy suffers in comparison with LotR, rather than on any theological issue.

How Pullman worked on me was to show a world/worlds where the soul is disregarded; I found them immensely complex and still cannot decide the true meaning of them - yet they left me feeling utterly bereft and without hope. But yes, something fell down towards the end of the books - I shall say no more in case there are those who wish to read them without spoilers. ;)

[davem]

How Pullman worked on me was to show a world/worlds where the soul is disregarded; I found them immensely complex and still cannot decide the true meaning of them - yet they left me feeling utterly bereft and without hope. But yes, something fell down towards the end of the books - I shall say no more in case there are those who wish to read them without spoilers.

It will be interesting to see how the movies handle the concept of 'evil', as Pullman seemed to me not have one. His 'philosophy' as displayed at the end in the dream of 'building the republic of Heaven' seemed (sorry) silly - how can you 'build' (construct) a metaphysical concept? He seemed to be confused about the whole thing. His position seems to be simply that organised religion is 'a bad thing' & that we'll all be happier without it.

I know this seems like I'm back on my anti-Pullman soapbox, but where I'm going with this is that Tolkien's understanding & portrayal of evil is, for me, far more grown up than Pullman's. But having said that it seems to me to correspond with Jackson's. Pullman doesn't seem to have any 'evil' character's in the sense of people who have chosen evil knowingly - they all seem to be either beaurocrats (sp?) or flawed 'idealists' who are doing what they think is best but sometimes getting it wrong. Maybe its this belief that leads Pullman to believe that we can make everything lovely if we really try & constrct Heaven out of bricks & mortar. Tolkien clearly didn't have the luxury of such a utopian belief, because once you've experienced true evil (as opposed to having read about it in Blake & Milton) you can't pretend it can be swept away if everyone will just be nice to each other.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by H-I:
But suppose gun was taunting the person with something along the 'shoot me, it would be so nice to shoot me, it will settle all difficulties right once you shoot me...' sort of whisper previous to actual pulling of the trigger?

If that is the situation, then it would have qualities of the Ring. Ok, say this talking gun's wish is for somebody to pull the trigger and the Ring just wants to get back to Sauron. Well, the Ring can't just roll it's way into Mordor, it's got to be found, and somebody has to bring it to him. Again, the gun just can't pull the trigger, somebody's got to do it. And if we have this gun saying "pull me, pull me," you still have a choice, it just gets harder because now you have this voice telling you to pull it. Just like the Ring, maybe saying to Frodo "Don't destroy me, I will give you riches, power, women...etc" whatever, but he still had a choice to drop it or not.

The External Evils (The Ring and the gun) and as already said, they do play an effect, if you have this things whispering "do it, do it" or for the Ring's case "don't do it, don't do it," it definately makes your internal struggle of good and evil a lot harder. I think in the Ring's case, everyone would have done what Frodo did, if they were stuck in his spot. The thing is the person still has the choice to do it or not. As we have seen many times, people are able to resist the Ring, so it's a question of that internal good vs. evil battle within everybody. Notice Faramir called Boromir's madness on Amon Hen a "trial." A trial, meaning it's decision time, you're convicted or you are not. In Boromir's instance it's he either tries to take the Ring, or he is able to overcome it. If there is a choice in the matter then it's a "trial" of good vs evil, we all face in our hearts. To do the right thing, or the wrong thing.

I think if Sam was stuck in Frodo's spot he too wouldn't have thrown it in. I think if Gandalf carried the Ring from the Shire to Mount Doom, he might not have made it to Mount Doom, he might have tried to sieze control of it even before getting there. The Ring is a very good manipulator, and I don't see anybody being able to drop it in the fire, but there's still that choice, it just so happens in this case "internal" evil wins out over the "internal" good.

Let's look at another very good manipulator, Saruman. Now, Saruman is in no way the type of persuader the Ring is, but still when you hear the voice of Saruman, one has a choice, to hear it and be swayed by it, or to reject it. In The Voice of Saruman Chapter there are those who fall to his voice (Rohirrim Riders and I believe Merry and Pippin find it rather odd that Theoden denied Saruman) But there are those who aren't swayed by it (Gimli, Theoden, Eomer). So, it's all a question of the internal struggle, good vs. evil, whether you do or don't. It just so happens that the Ring is a much better manipulator and in the internal struggle of good vs. evil, evil wins out, and very well could win out 99% of the time.

When you are talking about manipulation and corruption it's this external power (A voice or an object) enforcing it's will against the internal will of another. Anytime when dealing with manipulation one can simply say no, the manipulator can't force you to listen to him, he can only try to "persuade" you. The external manipulator (A voice or object) can affect the outcome of the internal battle. However, when it comes down to it, once that persuader's voice is done babbling, it's up to the person, then the internal struggle begins.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien clearly didn't have the luxury of such a utopian belief, because once you've experienced true evil (as opposed to having read about it in Blake & Milton) you can't pretend it can be swept away if everyone will just be nice to each other.

Very true - while reading HDM I got the impression that Pullman was exceedingly well read in Milton and Blake, and in works of theology, but that he, like most of the rest of us, had shifting perceptions as to the meanings of those texts. And it takes someone who has truly experienced horror to express it most effectively. Tolkien is not alone on this either, there are many writers out there who went through sufferings, and you can tell this is true when you read their work.

As to constructing the Republic of Heaven - one side of me gets the impression from the books that this in itself was seen as an impossibility, or even an oxymoron. To have no God is to have no Heaven, so how can it be done? But another side of me sees that the Republic of Heaven means a heaven without a God, but with God as a concept. Almost the democratising of the soul as it were. By which I mean, that there is no one God, but many concepts of God. Argh! This is why I liked the books - I can't explain them; they befuddle and fascinate me at the same time. Plus, into all of this, Pullman threw concepts of quantum physics and dark matter, topics I should possibly ru away from but which I can't help spending a lot of time thinking about.

I think Pullman's evil is in the 'system'. This is a concept I can understand if not necessarily always accept. The Magisterium reminds me of our own dear Government, issuing edicts from on high about how we ought to modify our behaviour.And we do live in a godless society, something which alarms me. Not because I am in favour of organised religion - if people want one then that is their personal choice and I thoroughly respect that - but because I live in fear that our society is being turned into a nightmare of 'profitability' 'usefulness' and 'products'.

Nor can I spell beauracrat :mad: and I am one...but I can spell antidisestablishmentarianism. ;)

When you are talking about manipulation and corruption it's this external power (A voice or an object) enforcing it's will against the internal will of another. Anytime when dealing with manipulation one can simply say no, the manipulator can't force you to listen to him, he can only try to "persuade" you. The external manipulator (A voice or object) can affect the outcome of the internal battle. However, when it comes down to it, once that persuader's voice is done babbling, it's up to the person, then the internal struggle begins

Very good points, and also slightly disturbing, especially if you consider the actions of some soldiers during war. They are given orders to do X, and if they do Y then they are breaking orders and will be disciplined; even the threat of facing death themselves. This is the voice of an external 'evil' working on the internal 'evil' of our instinct to survive, not to be beaten by our 'officer' if you will. It often makes me wonder how and why soldiers do what they do when faced with such dilemmas, and it also disturbs me if I think about that too much, as the possibility comes up that sometimes, they might want to do the thing which their higher conscience would tell them is wrong.

[Boromir88]

We've been talking a lot about the evil form of manipulation, with the Ring, but what about "good manipulation?" (Gandalf). Gandalf uses his own ways of manipulation and actually prevails.

First instance-Bag End, Bilbo. Bilbo wants to hold onto the Ring, Gandalf is that external power telling Bilbo to let it go, and he convinces Bilbo to let go the "evil."

Second instance-Amon Hen. The Eye (Sauron) and the Voice (Gandalf) battle within Frodo, so this is Frodo's own internal battle, good and evil represents the Voice and The Eye. As Davem points out Frodo see's himself as neither, but as his own person, and with this matter, he sort of is "on the fence," as he decides he's neither, but his own person.

Third instance-Theoden. Theoden's mind is overthrown (or very close to being overthrown) and Gandalf, again the external power, telling Theoden to listen, Theoden does, and he is renewed.

Now Theoden son of Thengel, will you hearken to me?" said Gandalf. "Do you ask for help?" He lifted his staff and pointed to a high window. There the darkness seemed to clear, and through the opening could be seen, high and far, a patch of shining sky. "Not all is dark. Take courage, Lord of the Mark; for better help you will not find. No counsel have I to give to those that despair. Yet counsel I could give, and words I could speak to you. Will you hear them? They are not for all ears. I bid you come out before your doors and look abroad. Too long have you sat in shadows and trusted to twisted tales and crooked promptings."

Gandalf uses his own form of manipulation, this external voice, to get across to Theoden. Theoden decides to listen to Gandalf and you know the rest of the story. Where I'm trying to go is "manipulation" seems like it's such a bad term, but could be used for good purposes. When you think about it, what Gandalf does is the same to what the other "manipulators (The Ring and Saruman) do, it's just he manipulates for a good reason. Or maybe, manipulation is too strong a word for what Gandalf does, would persuasive work?

[THE Ka]

Peter Jackson didn't 'get' one of the major themes of the books.

Cate Blanchett (narrating): "The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil forever."

He blows it. Cut ahead a few thousand years, to when

...Frodo destroys the Ring. Evil is destroyed forever! Everyone lives happily ever after.

Never mind this insignificant little passage or the silly concept of the 'Long Defeat'.

(Unnecessary sarcasm, I know).

At worst, PJ missed this important - some would say defining - part of Tolkien's works altogether. At best, he didn't convey it adequately in Blanchett's aforementioned narration and, more importantly, in the tone of Return of the King's ending.

Your thoughts?

If you have ever taken a course or looked into sciology or theology of any western culture, you can see why PJ might have done this. Some of us know about the "silly concept of the 'Long Defeat'" and why you could get away with something like this is in our society today. "Evil is destroyed forever" is engraved into society as a motto of expansion and development, to make people, sometimes refered to as "sheep" to feel that the more civilized, the more advanced you are, the less evil there is. Unfortunately, I hate to break everyone's fantasy but, this is not true. This issue also seems to compare with the Utopian belief that expanded duing the 60's and 70's. I'm not saying that this is bad, but it is not close to the real factors at play. One of the most important things forgotten by our globalized society today is that there is no such thing as "perfection". I see your statment as clearly pointing this out, and the message that Tolkien, along with many others of both his and our times are trying to tell us.

Bottom line is, major society believes that in 'perfection' only can come true 'happiness'... a.k.a (No 'evil' , everyone's happy, hurayy!) True thing is, this is not a good, if even true message to be telling ourselves. much of society today is built on 'fantasy' of a bigger, better tomorrow, and that if you are willing to follow this, you will become better too. Tolkien reminds us, that you cannot be perfect, no one can, all you can do is to try your best. I think this what he was trying to show through some of his characters, especially journeys that of Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn. Did everything go 'perfect' for Frodo on his journey? No! After the ring was destroyed, did everyone suddenly become 'perfect'? No, they did not. All I can say is, the bottom line to the whole belief of "evil gone forever" is that as long as there is a 'good' there will be a 'evil'. All we can do is try. Tolkien's story is like the 101 textbook on this, as long as you know what you are looking for. When it comes to that, Tolkien is a Master... :)

i hope i haven't lost anyone... if i have, sorry. I do not mean to.

~Explainitory Ka~

[HerenIstarion]

Well, that depends whether you see Frodo's journey into the West as going to Heaven or going to Pugatory. If its to Purgatory (even in the Earthly Paradise) then he hasn't been completely purified by his experiences in the world

That, at leas partially, can be answered by the following:

Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him if that could be done, before he died. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide for ever on earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil (emphasis mine)

So it leaves room for both our views, in a sense.

Much thanks to Fingolfin II (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=3642), who quoted the passage in Those of Mortal Descent in the Undying Lands (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11370), thus saving me the trouble of finding it myself.