Refugees and Victims of War-- something that's not been mentioned.
 

There is one thing that's not been mentioned in this Forum, which I feel does add to the movie. That is the presence of refugees and victims of war, those who are incapble of fighting but who must get out of the way. JRRT makes brief reference to this, but does not go into the detail that PJ does. The movie reminds us in a concrete way how the Shadow touched the lives of the everyday person in Middle-earth. It wasn't only the Frodos and Aragagorns and Gimlis who found their lives turned upside down.<P>This is a nice touch on PJ's part.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

I must agree with you fully.
________
BUBBLER PIPE

Child of the 7th Age, that's exactly what I thought, too, while seeing the film. I know that the film is, as much as the book, not ment to be allegorical in any way. But nevertheless, it's applicable to our times and that's something which gives, in my eyes, even more depth to the whole thing. I think this would be a very interesting topic to discuss about.

Exactly true, Child. I'm proud of PJ for letting us see the horror through the eyes of "normal" folk. Too many directors forget to do that, and concentrate only in the heroes who apparently don't fear anything and are immortal.

An almost forgot: Sidhris, true too.

the entire series is based on WWII. JRR Tolken Wrote it to resemble the troubles of the time. The evil Sauron resembles Hitler and the German War Machine. Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Frodo, Sam, and their friends represent the allies that had little hope but managed to forge onward.
________
LovelyWendie

Good point, I liked the way the film showed the effects of the war on the wider population. Very important.<P>Aragorn2002, you present that as fact, but I think really it's just one reading of the novels. JRRT specifically stated that there was *no* allegory to LotR, and was quite opposed to any attempt to impose one. The strength of the books, I feel, is that you can read in whatever you like. The books *could* be seen as allegory for WW2, but can also be read in other ways. I tend to dislike obvious allegory, as it means that a novel (or whatever) can only be interpreted in one way, and the author is saying "this is what I really mean, aren't I clever?"

The children that flee from the front near Isengard are a gratifying touch. The scene where the two are sitting on the black horse and the boy falls is absolutely heart-wrenching.

It was good. I tended to forget about it in my horror about Faramir, but on a new day parts like that which I liked before they slapped him in my face are coming back to me.<P>I had been somewhat worried about Éowyn donning armour and fighting at Helm's Deep, simply because it would take away from the sentiments she expresses later on. People would have thought, "You already fought and earned glory, why are you complaining?"<P>This worry was aided by a picture of a very dirty person with long blond hair holding a sword, which was always captioned "Éowyn" when I saw it online. But it turned out to be a little boy! I can't remember his name, but that was a nice scene between him and Aragorn.<P>Where did "Morwen" come in? I remember noticing her name in the cast lists prior to watching the movie, but I didn't notice her in the actual movie. Was she that mother from the beginning? Because I thought she had a different name.

I liked how they showed the refugees; it's true that in reading the books, while the refugees are mentioned, I know intellectually that they're there but don't really *see* them with the mind's eye, since I'm preoccupied with the central characters. TTT did a good job of putting a face on them (the two little kids and their mother) without overdoing it; it would have been annoying if the kids had gotten ten-minute speeches while other plot points were being nipped and cut every which way. But just seeing them was enough, and it was very affecting.<P>Diamond, I'd sort of thought that the woman was Morwen - I don't remember if she was ever called by name, though. Can't think of any other candidates for Morwen. Maybe she was cut?

I have no idea what happened to Morwen. But then again we also thought that Arwen would be at Helm's Deep. I suppose Morwen is another false rumor.

I enjoyed the refugee parts. It brought more reality to the movie and whenever the scenes did come on, I felt like this movie was historical fiction rather than fantasy. People from today and the past have also suffered in a much similar way.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Brinniel ]

Dear <B>Child</B>,<P>As so often, you have reminded us of the human cost of evil. The scenes with the Rohirrim refugees were well done, neither maudlin nor destroyed by that cheeky humour which freighted down the Battle at Helm's Deep itself.<P>Yet I would like to step back from that emotional response to think a bit about the place of this human cost in Tokien's epic of war.<P>Insistence upon recognizing this cost is a particularly modern taste or value. Perhaps it took the brutality of the wars of the twentieth century to pound this into our thick skulls. It is not a quality noted particularly in the old warrior epics, although it is present. (In <B>Beowulf</B>, the discord, fear, and disruption to the community are important, but not central to the hero's role.)<P>What I am suggesting is that PJ's use of the plight of the refugees represents another way in which he has displaced the heroic epic of the past to create a modern story. He is writing a contemporary interpretation of Tolkien, and not rendering an epic in itself. <P>There are problems with this, not simply a complaint that PJ isn't being faithful to Tolkien. When he brings in the social cost of war, he changes the nature of the battle between good and evil, of the heroic endeavour itself. <P>He paints those who are victims of Sauron/Saruman with greater sympathy. Suddenly, they have more at stake, are more at risk.<P>Yet this experiment in social perception is one-sided. It is expended only on the Rohirrim. The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized. <P>It is a one-sided expansion of vision and thus, I would say, a misappropriation of sympathy. It emotionalizes the heroic epic without making us understand, in our bones, what the real nature of evil is. <P>To me, Peter Jackson has trivialized evil because the presentation of the struggle is lop-sided. Some would say that Tolkien did this in his limited portrayal of Saruman. Perhaps so. Peter Jackson, however, has taken a quantum leap forward in that depiction. Despite the moral worth of the refugee scenes, I'm not sure they represent a consistent aesthetic.<P>And I'm not sure I've explained my point well here, either. I might have to come back and rewrite this. <P>Bethberry

The victims were a grand addition to the story. Im an actor, and I somtimes I put myself in the shoes of any charater who catches my eye. I did this with the mothers, sons and other children, and it broke my heart.

I liked those parts too. I especially liked when Aragorn was talking to that boy and when they say that most of the people getting ready for battle had either seen too many winters or too few. <P>The whole situation struck me when Legolas of all people said in elvish "They will all die." or somthing like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the entire series is based on WWII. JRR Tolken Wrote it to resemble the troubles of the time. The evil Sauron resembles Hitler and the German War Machine. Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Frodo, Sam, and their friends represent the allies that had little hope but managed to forge onward. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know that Elanor already corrected you. Elanor is right that there is no allegory, but you could look at it as one. But what I really want to know is where did you get this idea from? I have a hunch it's the Nat'l Geo on LotR, Beyond the Movie. Am I right? I really think that Nat'l Geo made a lot of people think what you said.<P>I agree with Elanor on why she dislikes the obvious allegory. I believe that one of the reasons LotR is such an epic and timeless novel is because there is no allegory. Anything in LotR represents nothing. The good thing is that you <I>could</I> see Sauron representing Hitler, or the Two Towers representing the Twin Towers, but that does not mean does represent. If there were an allegory to Hitler and WWII, then LotR would be caged in that one timeframe, and I don't think it would be nearly as timeless or epic as it actually is. If you want to see things in LotR representing any thing in your life, that's fine. 400 years from now, people could see Gandalf as some high authority in thier life and time, but that doesn't mean it is. If it represented hitler, it wouldn't be as timeless or epic and people couldn't really relate to it all that well.<P>But for me, I don't like to read and think of allegories. I just like to read it as it is. Gandalf is Gandalf and Sauron is Sauron. Plain and simple is the way I enjoy it.<P>I think that the refugees do make a difference. It did make it look like a real life issue and a pressing one in the movie. And he did show how refugees running from war, can turn around and face the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet this experiment in social perception is one-sided. It is expended only on the Rohirrim. The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, Bethberry, I don't see why this should be a problem. The Orcs and Uruk-hai are not human, so they shouldn't be humanized. The Rohirrim are human, so they should be humanized. Acutally, this statement leaves out Dwarves and Hobbits and Elves, so I'll re-state it: Orcs and Uruk-hai have no humanizing qualities in their natures, and so to say that because the Rohirrim do the story is lopsided is a bit odd.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is a one-sided expansion of vision and thus, I would say, a misappropriation of sympathy. It emotionalizes the heroic epic without making us understand, in our bones, what the real nature of evil is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I totally disagree with that. Tolkien never wanted us to sympathize with the Orcs, and if that means we can't sympathize with the Rohirrim, who can we sympathize with? And if we can't sympathize with anyone, what is the point of the story? Evil affects humans (or Elves etc.), and if you don't show that you're not showing evil.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What I am suggesting is that PJ's use of the plight of the refugees represents another way in which he has displaced the heroic epic of the past to create a modern story. He is writing a contemporary interpretation of Tolkien, and not rendering an epic in itself. <P>There are problems with this, not simply a complaint that PJ isn't being faithful to Tolkien. When he brings in the social cost of war, he changes the nature of the battle between good and evil, of the heroic endeavour itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, I disagree. If you're going to show evil, you should show what evil is destroying. Tolkien did this with the Hobbits in the Shire, so I don't think there's anything wrong with showing the way it affects humans. And I also don't see why this detracts or changes the heroic nature of the story and the Quest. It seems like you're saying that showing the people whom the Quest is trying to protect makes the Quest to protect them seem less heroic. ???<p>[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

Bethberry says <BR> "The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized."<P>Well, I think maybe it's because they aren't "human." They do not exist outside their role as warriors and toadies to do the bidding of Sauron and Saruman. Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, even the Maiar and Valor all exist as social units: families, communities, societies, etc. etc. We cannot anthropomorphize them to be more than Tolkien made them or assign to them rights we would extend to any human, ally or enemy.<P>The men of the South who join with Saruman are presented as people who are being deceived and manipulated. Those who are willing to lay down their arms and receive compassion are given it.<BR> <P><BR>[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]<P><BR> <P>[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]<p>[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

There are many interesting points here, in response to my inarticulate ramblings. *curtsies to your time and effort and thought*<P><B>Taure Leafsilver</B>, I do mean to deny the importance of empathy in art. I indeed understand what you are saying about preparing for a role, for once, long ago, I accepted the role of a character for whom I had no sympathy and that blindness taught me much about acting, and, ultimately, led me back to the character again. I cannot say that was my greatest performance.<P><B>Diamond18</B>, in my fumbling way I am trying to consider how the movie, and this widening of empathetic vision, enacts the heroic ideal which Tolkien discussed very briefly in the section <I>Ofermod</I> in <I>The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth</I> "the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will," which for Tolkien (and myself as well) are epitomized in these lines from the Old English poem, <I>The Battle of Maldon</I>: "Hige sceal pe heardra, heorte pe centre,/ modsceal pe mare pe ure mægen lythlad." ['Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, spirit the greater as our strength lessens.']. Perhaps my question should more apropriately be asked by considering what might be the similarities between victims and heroes, and the differences.<P><B>greyhavener</B>, you are, of course, correct in your point about who Tolkien chose to humanize and who not. My point is confused and for that I apologize. I am trying to step back from that recognition and ask something about how such a choice works and what it might say about Tolkien's depiction of good and evil. I think Tolkien wanted to make the defense of good dramatic, something which Milton in <B>Paradise Lost</B> did not do. Milton's Satan is more attractive than his Adam, his Eve, his Archangels. How did Tolkien go about doing this? And what might his artistic choices tell us?<P>How is evil being depicted? The main standard bearers for Saruman are creatures who are not, cannot be humanized even though Tolkien goes to great lengths to show pity and mercy to Gollem and Saruman himself. When the "Other" is depicted this way, what conclusions can we draw? Is it possible that, in trying to make Gandalf's and Frodo's quest dramatically attractive, Tolkien limited the depiction of evil? Does expanding our pity for the victims help us understand the nature of evil any better or is it a bath of emotion for emotion's sake? Perhaps what I am trying to ask is, are the refugees there for sentimental reasons only?<P>Bethberry

Ok, Bethberry, I see where you're going now. Thanks for clarifying.<P>I agree that Tolkien's evil is most definitiely uglier than Milton's. In a way the ring itself is more like Milton's Satan, fascinating, compelling, deceptive...the tempter.<P>I think Tolkien, in presenting Gollum, Saruman, Grima, and Isildur distinguishes between those with the potential to be redeemed and irredeemable evil. These characters chose evil when good was also a choice. In Boromir we see this redemption occur in one who has yielded to evil's fascination, regrets his choice and turns to good. In Galadriel and even Gandalf we see temptation, then evil resisted. In Bilbo we see one who has been decieved by this evil finally recognize it for what it is. In the books Faramir and Elrond seem able to resist the ring's temptation, recognizing not only it's evil, but that by it's nature the ring cannot be turned toward good.<P>Perhaps the victims are a reminder like Frodo's wounds that will not heal, that evil always leaves fallout evil when good prevails.<p>[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

The refugee thing was a great addition. Genuinely moving scene, as was Theoden's lament for his son. Not every addition to the books has been a good one, but it's definitely important to realise that many of them add to themes already present in Tolkien's work, and other additions are excellent in their own right. I was also <B>very</B> glad to see the kids reunited with their mum, and tidily taken out of the rest of the story. Imagine if Gandalf had that small rag-tag dangling at his tail for the rest of the film!<P>Also Bethberry, I agree with what you were saying, and I think that the movies (not just PJ, he wasn't the only one who wrote the script) have greatly simplified on the books. I'm surprised more people aren't really livid about this. "Simplified" is a word that critics of Tolkien have often used, and the movie versions do nothing to advance the cause of the books - quite the opposite.