How much Frodo grew...

[Essex]

For me Frodo did not show the same 'growth' as the other 3 hobbits. Remember they were younger than him. Hobbit's coming of age is 33.

When they set out

Frodo was 50
Merry 36
Sam 35
Pippin 28

(Note that Frodo was also older than Boromir, Faramir, Eomer and Eoywn).

Our coming of age is usually set at 18. Who is grown up at this age? VERY FEW. So Sam and Merry were barely adults, and technically Pippin was still a child. No wonder we can see their growth in the books and movies. Frodo was a more mature adult at 50.

So I put it to you, book wise, that Frodo himself had very little 'growing' to do as a character. He seems to me, in the book as well as the film, to be a character that seems fully developed once he leaves Bag End with the Ring.

In the film, I think we see him grow somewhat the second he says 'What must I do'. And the melancholy I always feel during Frodo's last scene in Bag End also shows film-wise to me how he has grown.

PS Amanaduial, copy and paste Umwë and it will work!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

You make a good point Essex, that Frodo actually had little growing to do. In that case, I will have to say that I thought Frodo was missing something important all the way through the films. Elijah Wood seemed to substitute scary eye movement in place of quality acting.

[Bêthberry]

This reminds me that I still owe a reply to Essex on a thread from about six weeks ago when I suddenly had to disappear for a bit. I do enjoy our different perspectives, Essex.

No wonder we can see their growth in the books and movies. Frodo was a more mature adult at 50.

So I put it to you, book wise, that Frodo himself had very little 'growing' to do as a character. He seems to me, in the book as well as the film, to be a character that seems fully developed once he leaves Bag End with the Ring.

Your argument here seems to depend upon the idea that an adult--or hobbit--in middle age has learned about all he or she needs to learn, about the world or about himself or herself.

I would suggest instead that growth in awareness about oneself or about the world comes not from merely living a certain number of years but from intense experience and interaction with people, events, dramas, challenges, tragedies. There are those whose lives are set and so they do not change beyond middle age. And then there are those who experience tremendous change, upheaval, loss, struggle. Here then is the crucible where they discover just how much they know about themselves and grow in wisdom.

Frodo, the reckless tween who would cheekily steal mushrooms, assumes a quest when he has not 'settled down into regular hobbit habits' and without at the time quite understanding what burden he is accepting. At the very least, he must learn how to stay true to his decision in the face of terrible odds. Or, he must learn what the cost is of his decision.

[Lalaith]

To go back to Essex's point about the ages of the hobbits and also that the 'coming of age' was 33. At the time of Tolkien's writing, our coming of age was actually 21.
So how would we translate the ages of our hobbits into 'man years'?
By my reckoning, the actors playing Merry and Sam should have been, or at least look, in their early twenties, and Pippin in his late teens.
Obviously Frodo should not look like a fifty-year-old man, but he should look older than the other hobbits, in his early thirties perhaps.
In the film, I think Pippin looked about right to me, but Merry and Sam were a shade too old and Frodo much, much too young.
And to go back to the original question of the thread (of course! ) movie-Frodo did grow somewhat, but should certainly not have started out giving the impression of being a schoolboy. Which, I agree, he did.
Because (as I said before somewhere else) would Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond really have entrusted the most dangerous thing in middle-earth to a schoolboy?

[tar-ancalime]

This idea of 'growth' through a film has become an obsession for many filmmakers and studios, often to the detriment of movies where it isn't an apt element...

Yes! Thank you! Bravo! Well done! I concur! Lauds and acclamations!

I tried to make this point several weeks ago in a thread about Faramir but, sadly, no one wanted to play with me.

The obsession with "arc" totally denies the idea that there are other kinds of stories in the world--and it's one of the areas where I think PJ made his worst mistakes. Aragorn, Faramir, Frodo, Theoden--these are not characters in a romantic comedy who need two hours to figure out what they really want. But in each case, PJ inserted a story line to make them do just that.

In the books, it seems to me, Frodo's growth is subtle and often symbolic: he is continually given gifts throughout the story (the Ring, for one, then being named an Elf-Friend, then Sting and the mithril coat, then the Light of Earendil), and he's also injured or attacked continually, and each time he comes through an injury or is given another gift, it shows his growth. In the movies, these things happen but their significance is diminished by Frodo's constant appearance after Weathertop (I think I"m agreeing with Rimbaud again here) as a head-lolling, pale-faced Ring vehicle.

[Essex]

tar-ancalime, I think the problem one has in converting book to MOVIE nesessitates Frodo as "head-lolling, pale-faced" after Weathertop is that how can we show Frodo gradually declining in health over a 12 day period in a 3 hour movie? It's impossible, and would kill the film.

Over the past 3 years, in discussions on these type of websites, and listening to the director/scriptwriters reasons, I'm begining to get an understanding of film making, and how a straight copy of book - movie would not work.

I'm putting together a script (purely for my own purposes of seing how hard it is) for a long winded series of LOTR, sticking as close to the text (and trying to use ALL of it) as possible. I'm also trying this without a NARRATOR'S voice, which makes it VERY difficult.

Just looking at the begining chapter, how do I show Bilbo welcoming Frodo into the fold without straying from the text? How do I show Frodo visiting different places, meeting with elves and dwarves after the Party and before Gandalf's 'final' visit? Indeed, how do I show the 17 year period between the Party and Bag End without a narration?

Jackson cleverly used narration where it was absolutely nessessary. ie the Prolouge, Gandalf's reading of the scrolls in minas tirith, and the "60 years Later" subtitle at the start of the film. They all worked. He could have put in "17 years later" to show the gap between party and leaving, but that would have looked silly.

And finally, to get back to my point, how could he have put "12 days later" before Arwen (Glorfindel) turned up?

PS Eomer, I think you're being a tad unfair to Elijah re:

Elijah Wood seemed to substitute scary eye movement in place of quality acting

I feel Mr Wood showed some of the best acting in the movies. So what if it is done with his face. All great actors are able to show a host of feelings/moods without having to say a word. Just look at Sir Ian's acting.

The tear on Frodo's face when he says 'here at the end of all things' makes me cry every time. Frodo crawling up the mountain. Frodo's look at the cracks of doom. Frodo realising the trouble he is in when he says "What must I do?" Frodo accepting the challenge "I will take the Ring". Frodo's snatching of the ring from Boromir. Frodo's smile at the start and begining of the movies. And most of all, the most scariest, atmospheric, well acted line in the movie: "I'm here, Sam" at the Sammath Naur. That line sends a shiver down my spine every time I hear it. Just listen to the inflections in his voice when he says it. Absolutely marvellous. And yes, he is good at rolling his eyes, but again, that's another sign of good acting. Anyway, end of rant!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Essex, I appreciate that comment and I realise that my earlier post was unfair to Elijah Wood. I actually am not as hard on Elijah as that would suggest (certainly not as harsh as some other Downers). I agree that Elijah did display some quality acting, and I should have made that clear earlier. However, I maintain that the numerous 'eye movements' (these - ) were poor, and I do think that Frodo could have been a lot better.

I do think that this discussion becomes a microcosm for the whole film. I think Elijah was good, but not as good as he should have been. It's harsh to criticise such a good film, but compared to the visualisation I had in my mind, it was a poor imitation. This is an inevitable consequence of the project. I have great respect for everyone involved in the films, but this is not enough.

Talk about hard to please!

[elfwishes999]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Elijah Wood seemed to substitute scary eye movement in place of quality acting.

I wouldn't say that exactly. Elijah was just simply acting the way that he acts. I think he did a VERY WELL JOB on the movie, and when we talk about Frodo here, we talk about how Elijah Wood portrays him and i think some (or most people) would agree that Elijah did a very nice job as Frodo. (he did a good job of memorizing the lines) and frodo AS THE CHARACTER THEY WROTE i thought was the one who grew. Just from watching parts in FotR and RotK i kinda saw a change in character in frodo..

[Kransha]

I haven't posted in 'The Movies' in a VERY long time. But, this topic's a-callin'.

I very much disliked the movie 'growth' of Frodo. Book-Frodo was older, more experienced than the other three hobbits. He was the oldest indeed, and thus, on technicality, one of the wisest. He was jovial, somewhat naive about the surrounding world, but all Haflings were. In the movie, his original personality was somewhat lost, since so much time was 'left out' from before his first scarring incident. As an example of what I'm trying to say here, I'll just put forward this book reference, which seems more than a little relevant.

In the books, Frodo, and all the Hobbits, were still relatively innocent, ready beings for a portion of their journey. Suddenly, their jollity, or just Frodo's dissapeared after he was forced to face the Barrow-Wight threatening his friends. Then, with Tom Bombadil, he remained jocund, but Tom makes everyone jocund, so that's no excuse. His innocence was diminished, but Sam's, Pippin's, and Merry's was not, since they had not had to 'deal' per se, with the Wights. In the movie, this whole transition was lost in the shuffle. As a character, Frodo's book personality shrinks, but is still 'growing downwards' not retreating into himself. He becomes a new person. In the films, he simply shrunk, remaining the same person, but more of a shell than a Halfling. Not one of the aspects I liked. The character of Frodo, both in terms of lines, writing, acting, and personaality, was not the character I loved in the book like, say, Gandalf or Merry (I could rant about Meriadoc's character developement overwhelming Frodo's, but I won't).

elfwishes999, I think Elijiah Wood can be credited with many things, but line memorization is not one, unless you're being sarcastic, considering the fact that he had more than enough takes during filming to make countless mistakes. Also, on the subject of the 'VERY WELL JOB' (forgive me, I'm a bit of a Grammar Nazi) I rather disliked Wood for the part of Frodo, one of my least favorites in the movie. I still don't entirely understand why Frodo was morphed from a 50-year old to a 17-year old. Yesm definate dislike.

Post Script: BTW, as per to Fordim's comment: The 2.3 centimeters grown by Frodo was not a measure of height, width, hair length, or otherwise. It was obviously a measurement of the radius of his pupils. Did anyone else notice that in the third film, his eye size had reached near bibical porportions?

Post Post Script: elfwishes, technical apologies about my bashing of your opinion, though it is, of course, all in good fun. An interesting debate topic you've manufactured here.

Post Post Post Script: Yes, I realize that I am a total and complete cynic, but I have my reasons. I am forced, though, to revert back and agree with our resident Saucepan Man. If any scene in the trilogy actually felt like Frodo to me it was the final speech, as a credit to both Elijiah Wood and Sean Astin, on Sammath Nuar, that Saucepan mentioned (that is the one I'm thinking of, yes?"

[ninlaith]

While watching the movies I did not notice any sort of personality change in Frodo. Except for the fact that he was burdened by the ring and not as positive and chipper as usual, he seemed to be the same. But the physical change was amazing. Three times I saw three different Frodos in the movies. For example when Frodo saw Gandalf at the start, his waking in Rivendell, and on the slopes of Mt. Doom.
Frodo was such a happy hobbit at the start of the movies. Not tainted by anything, never dangered in his life. He had, however, been troubled by the death of his parents but that's a different story. But all in all just happy. Then, after his first real encounter with danger, he woke up in Rivendell and I saw a little difference. They made him look tired, which he was, but more of a troubled atmosphere was to him. Then through TTT I did not see the happy hobbit at all. He was gone, almost transformed into an everyday stressed out human being. Then on the slopes of Mt. Doom after the destruction of the ring I saw good old Mr. Frodo again. It was such a breath of fresh air. My old friend Mr. Frodo had come back to us. So I think there was a certain change to Frodo but not an extreme change.

[Lathriel]

One thing you have to realize is that it is easier in a book to show a character's growth because you can read their thoughts but with a movie you can't really do that.

So maybe you think Frodo grew too weak but I mean he just happens to have the most powerful object of ME around his neck! How would you feel to have such a powerful thing. If Frodo hadn't seemed so weak the audience might not have felt so powerfully about the evil of the ring. The audience might not have understood clearly enough that the ring has to be detroyed.

Besides as was mentioned earlier a movie can't be 100% like the book in everything.

I think that Frodo showed growth especially when he came home. I mean before he couldn't show much growth other than the growing hold that the ring had on him.

[ninlaith]

It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings.