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]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by H-I

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.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by davem

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:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, in his latter 246 ;)

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, who quoted the passage in Those of Mortal Descent in the Undying Lands , thus saving me the trouble of finding it myself.