Quote:
Originally posted by GreyIstar
...it was posted that Phillipa Boyens said that in the book Faramir was a static character and they wanted to give Faramir a journey in the film to find himself.
|
How about a character with the patience, wisdom, and judgment to think and question before he acts? Is that 'static'? Or is this just an expression of the failure of the screenwriters and the director to take Tolkien's subtlety and good "quality of character" invested in Faramir and depict it on the big screen?
Which is easier:
(A) to open up the book Faramir character to the screen audience, showing a leader with strength and command, but the restraint to inquire for wisdom before judging and taking a risk to do good thereby; or
(B) have a character shove a sword in someone's eye? (In reference to the ease of depicting lengthy battle scenes in the movies.)
I think we know what answer PJ and Co went with.
In my opinion, they needed no more characters trying to find themselves. Speaking of characters finding themselves in the movie, Gandalf found himself - "Gung Fu Gandalf" (concerning the Denethor encounter.)
Did Aragorn ever find himself in the movies? I forget...
Oh, and PJ totally lost Saruman--he just disappeared. But that's okay, really. Because at least the elves were able to
find themselves...in the Battle of the Hornburg at Helm's Deep.
And anyway, talk about making 'static' characters... Was Denethor more static in the movie or in the book? In the movie, there was less appreciation than in the book of the subtleties of the different competing thoughts and influences that led to his demise.
Can anyone say, "Mean old tyrant?" How about Gimli, the romantic warrior poet? Reduced to "comic sidekick" cardboard cutout. You can probably come up with more examples.
Or is this another instance of "modern" inability (lack of ability or lack of appreciation?) to depict "good," and preferring that every character has to have some internal, psychological imbalance?
