Forever?

[drigel]

aaahhh that is until the lights go down, and Episode 7 The Fallen Hero begins to play

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Its that very impossibility to convey the inner battle - a central theme of the work - that doomed the whole thing to failure as an adaptation.

Woah! Hold up. I cannot let this pass.

The LotR films are not just about the external struggle, although that is undoubtedly their major focus. But there are internal struggles going on too.

This is perhaps most apparent in Jackson’s theme of “the weakness of Men”: a different emphasis perhaps than Tolkien’s theme, but it is there nevertheless. And what is this weakness, but an inherent (and therefore internal) vulnerability to succumb to evil.

Take the temptations of Boromir and Faramir. They are not only struggling with the external evil of the Ring, but also with weaknesses within themselves. The Ring is playing on their internal desires. In Boromir’s case, this is (as in the book) his desire for the power to defend his land. In Faramir’s case (and this clearly is a change from the book), it is his desire to prove himself to his father. In both cases, the external influence of the Ring produces an inner conflict. (It is, in many ways, a shame that the film missed the opportunity to convey Denethor’s struggle with despair. The Denethor that we meet in the films is way past the struggling stage, and is portrayed as little more than an obstructive villain. However, it would have taken a significant amount of additional film time to develop this aspect of his character.)

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfil his destiny. This is an aspect of his character which is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him.

As for Frodo, well he is clearly struggling to resist giving into the Ring throughout the film trilogy. But is he fighting a desire within himself, or is he struggling with the external evil of the Ring? It’s difficult to tell, but then I think that the book is ambiguous on this. We never get to learn what it offers to Frodo in return for his submission to it. In the book, we learn more about the nature of the Ring, and the internal weaknesses which it preys upon, in its effect on other characters - but cannot this be said about the films also?

A final example of internal struggle may, I think, be seen in the character of Saruman. In this case we see the consequences of one who has lost his inner struggle. In the films, there is, in my view, sufficient in the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman to suggest that he has succumbed to the evil within himself rather than any external force.

I make no comment (for now at least) on how well these struggles were depicted, either in comparison with their depiction in the book or as stand-alone themes. But I would dispute that they are not present at all.

Having said all that, I would agree that the films focus primarily on the external struggle with evil, as represented by Sauron and the Ring – and of course Saruman. That is a necessary consequence of their formulation as “action films”. As I said earlier, that is what they are first and foremost, rightly or wrongly.
In this sense, I don’t think that Jackson and his team “overlooked” the inner struggle with evil, or that they somehow failed to depict it. It is simply that this was not what they were trying to achieve. Should they have been, as adaptations of a book which is very much concerned with this theme? I don’t think so, necessarily. I see no sin in aiming to produce an enjoyable, spectacular, action-packed and intensely moving fantasy film based on the events, characters and some of the themes of the book. Some may say that Jackson failed even in that. Personally, I don’t think that he did at all.

I composed this post before I saw Rimbaud's comment:

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Don’t misunderstand your humble correspondent, I would have enjoyed a thoughtful film more dependant on the internalised struggle as well, but it would have simply been an entirely different experience, and not the choice made either by the studio or the director. Not to harp on the same point, but the film made the choice to be what was considered to be the easier sell ...

Basically, some want cake, and they got it. Some wanted an altogether more difficult-to-bake sort of biscuit - and they have that too, it's just on the page, not the screen.

For me, this is right on the mark - only I get to enjoy both the cake and the biscuit.

[drigel]

I concur with you Davem. For me, the CGI was anticipated, yet it surpassed expectations. But PJ's focus on the character development was a pleasant surprise that - yes strayed somewhat from the books, but provoked (to me) much thought on the internal struggle. That is hard to pull off. If the internal struggle was the primary theme of a film, one would wind up making a movie with people standing around voicing their internal thoughts to the viewer - a 'la Dune

[Rimbaud]

Both are good, Saucepan.

[Bêthberry]

Really, Rim-tim-tim,

From the films alone, however, you'd be hard pressed from the exuberance of the finale of RotJ not to think it was all over.

What a point that J/K difference makes.

[Rimbaud]

Beeberescent,

I meant Jedi, if that's what you're asking.

~Rimi Tiki Tavi

[drigel]

and biscuits are made with buttermilk

[Lalwendë]

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfil his destiny. This is an aspect of his character which is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him

Saucepan - now you have raised this one, I can see that there clearly was portrayal of internal struggle in the films, so I'm pleased you posted those points. However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake. This is something I often sound off about to my pals, so bear with me, I will be reasoned. One thing I always get from the books is how Aragorn is 99% of the time very sure of his purpose in Middle Earth; for the 1% of the time that he is not, we see how he masters his doubts. This, for me, is part of the very essence of Aragorn as a man who inspires others to follow him.

Having discussed the role of Aragorn with non-book fans, they tell me "why didn't they show Aragorn as an inspiring leader, and have them win the Battle of the Pelennor Fields through their bravery and his leadership? It looked like the Deadmen did everything in the battle". This horrified me quite a bit. It seems that Aragorn was somewhat diminished by portraying him in this way. After all, he takes up Anduril early on in the book, i.e. takes up his role and accepts his destiny, for good or bad, with dignity. In the film, he is reluctant to take up his destined role.

Since the films came out this has been one aspect that has always made me bristle a bit, as I always admired Aragorn's inspiring leadership, which in the books is coupled with touching moments of doubt. So, yes, there was internal struggle portrayed, but in this case, in the wrong place. Why did PJ do this? Just to have an inspiring scene where Elrond sweeps a mighty sword out of the darkness? It certainly looked very grand, but it was still not right.

That's my mini-rant over, and now I must find some slippers and a jumper before looking any further, as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering.

[davem]

I take on board everything SpM says about the inner conflicts of the characters in the movie, but I still think Bethberry is on to something, & I suppose its something like 'original sin'.

I don't mean that in the usual sense of sex, but in the sense that we are all born 'sinful', ie with a tendency towards evil. There is a drive towards power, control, domination of others, wanton destruction, etc. There is a 'war' going on within us constantly. This is not a war merely inspired by an external force. Even if there were no 'Rings of Power', if there were no evil 'out there' we would still face evil because it exists within us & must be overcome or it will overcome us.

In the movie the 'good' characters may face dilemmas (sp?) but they are basically good people struggling to discover what the 'right' course of action should be. Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'. In the movie all the good characters are shown wanting to bring about the Good but not knowing what constitutes that Good. Boromir's 'logical' arguments & justifications in the book are all over the place, & its clear that he's really trying to find excuses to give in to his own 'dark side', & justify his desires.

In Boromir, Saruman & finally in Frodo the evil wins out - yet this is a more complex matter than it may at first appear, because on Amon Hen we're told that Frodo 'awakened' to the realisation that he was 'neither the Voice nor the Eye'. There is a rational soul floating around in there who makes a choice between the two aspect of himself as well as between the two external forces. That rational soul must choose one or the other, so its not really a Manichean split, its a Boethian choice.

In short, the movie offers us a Manichean universe, where good individuals struggle to do their best to do the right thing. There isn't a sense that they may actually want to do the wrong thing, in full knowlege that it is wrong.

Book Boromir doesn't simply want 'the strength to defend his people. He wants power & control, dominance - he wants to replace Sauron. So did Galadriel at some point- or at least she had fantasised about it. Both had faced the evil within them - he had submitted & made excuses (& worse than that he had expected, demanded that Frodo go along with him), she had faced her own evil & rejected it.

Perhaps that was necessary in a popular action fantasy movie, but LotR is not a popular action fantasy book. It is a moral tale, specifically a Christian tale, & it is grounded is the idea of original sin, & the individual's battle with it.

[drigel]

Beth and Davem great points. The movies dont exactly examine this aspect. The books hint at the fact that walking among mortals are elves, who represent man in his "unfallen" state. Quite a contrast