[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I have the same hesitations that you do. I am wondering if this isn't a case where the interpretation presented by PJ hasn't "swept away" what Tolkien actually described in the book.

In PJ's film, the relationship between Gollum and Frodo is presented in these stark terms: Frodo needs to believe that Gollum can be redeemed so that he himself can also be redeemed. Sam definitely comes off looking like the practical hobbit who sees things as they really are. Frodo is almost made to seem deluded, not able to see reality because of the influence of the Ring. This image of Frodo as having "lost" it is reinforced by the scenes PJ added to the story where Gollum stages the trick with the food, which Frodo unwisely accepts as the truth. There is a fight between Sam and Frodo, with Frodo rejecting Sam and ordering him to leave.

What is presented in the book is more complex than this. There is an element of altruism that is missing from PJ. I've always felt that the reason why Frodo was able to bear the ring so long was that he reached out to two beings on his journey-- on the one hand Sam, but also Gollum in some sense. One of the best defenses against the Ring's call to power is love and compassion, and this triangle relationship (Sam, Gollum, Frodo) supplied that for Frodo. Never would the book Frodo have sent Sam away. I am sure the book Frodo also understood the corrupting power of the Ring on Gollum, and this influenced his judgments. But it was more than a simple reaction out of fear and self preservation. Compassion was also involved, and that compassion just doesn't shine through in the movies in the same way.

One striking example of this change of emphasis is the fact that PJ did not include that wonderful scene where Gollum looks at the sleeping Frodo and feels affection for him. He touches his knee and comes within a hair's breadth of repentence until the suspicious Sam chases him off. In the Letters Tolkien said this was probably the most important scene in the entire book, and his own favorite, yet we don't see it in the film. Gollum might have actually repented except for Sam's intervention. In his Letters, Tolkien even speculated on what a repentent Gollum might have done on the slopes of Mount Doom. In this one area at least, book Frodo has a wisdom and compassion that Sam has yet to achieve. (Not that Sam didn't have his own blend of unique strengths!)

In general PJ has given us a slightly different interpretation of these characters than Tolkien did. The PJ Frodo is much younger, less mature and more vulnerable, more worn down by the Ring at an earlier point in the story and so "damaged" that he can not see the truth of what Sam tells him and unwisely sends his friend away. In the movie, Samwise is the 'wise' one; he sees Gollum's sneaky nature in a true light unlike Frodo who is blinded. Frodo is merely worn down and trying to hang on.

The movie excluded the scenes where Samwise looks at Frodo describing how he loves him and the fact that his master's eyes shine with the Elven light, indicative of something wise growing inside of Frodo. Are you being too idealistic, Davem? I don't believe so. The whole crux of the book is that Frodo's mercy and pity preserved his humanity against the pull of the Ring long enough for him to reach Mordor. And, at the end, Providence rewards him for the gentleness of his heart and his ability to show mercy by coming in to take a hand when Frodo finally breaks down and claims the Ring. That is not the main impression that the movie gives.

Let me say that I loved the movies and cried my way through RotK, but I also worry about people's interpretation of the story being so influenced by PJ in the future that they fail to see that the book itself is more complex and says something subtly different.

If I had to sum up book Frodo as he trudged towards Mordor, I would say this: there are two sides of Frodo, the one where he is influenced by the Ring, and the good side that allows him to bear the Ring. Both sides grow on the journey to Mordor. It is a complex two-sided development, and PJ just doesn't present the other side, the good side, of Frodo to the degree that Tolkien does. There is an excellent review Mark 12_30 put up in movies that says basically this: PJ is great at depicting evil but has a harder time with goodness and light.

Never do we have the scene, for example, where the "good" Faramir (less tormented by his father than the one PJ presents) notes that Frodo appears Elvish. Many such references and scenes are missing: all the allusions to light and Frodo's Elvish appearance, how Frodo immediately picked up on Faramir's Men saying a kind of "grace" when they eat and feeling a little ashamed that his own folk didn't have such a custom, Frodo's dreams about the white shore and the "far green country under a swift sunrise". This change in Frodo's character definitely means a different relationship with both Gollum and Sam.

(There have been prior threads on all these topics on the Downs.)

I think this is something we have to be careful about in the immediate future: PJ's interpretations creeping in and taking over the discussion of the Books. I think the general issue of the movies' subtle impact on our book discussions may deserve a thread of its own.... This has been discussed in terms of our physical images of the character, but not our general interpretations.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:10 AM January 14, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]