Was it out of character?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

Incidentally, Lalwendë, I used to find the book Aragorn almost intolerably pompous, but as I've read and re-read, he is slowly becoming one of my favorite characters as I come to understand the difficulties of his position and mandate.

That's one of the frequently expressed opinions on the 'Downs that I find fascinating, that Aragorn is pompous. I never found him to be so, but after hearing this opinion, I can see how some might find him to be pompous, especially when compared to characters such as Faramir. What I was thinking was that for some reason maybe the scriptwriting team (or even Viggo Mortensen) also found book Aragorn a little pompous and wanted to add some 'temper' to him.

In the books he is certainly the kind of character we would not see much of these days; the media constantly search for all the failings in our figureheads, and if we had an Aragorn today they would no doubt try to do the same to him. Perhaps they sought to 'humanise' him in some way? An interesting comparison can be seen in the way superheroes are portrayed in contemporary films. Spider-Man is filled with angst and doubt, and the X-Men each have difficult personal histories and character failings including anger and resentment. I'm not saying that book Aragorn is perfect, because even here he displays some failings, but he is not presented to us as someone with notable failings, such as the anger his character displays in the films.

I'm quite happy with both versions as they are used in different contexts, but I do have to say I much prefer book Aragorn. I find his character more subtly drawn, and I think I too am an idealist and like to think of him being somehow 'above' anger!

[Essex]

thanks for making the above point Estel. To add to this, Aragorn killed the MoS to stop him spreading the rumour of Frodo's death and therefore the end of the West's Quest to destroy Sauron. Imagine Aragorn's Men hearing this claim. They would lose ALL hope, and some may have also deserted (or lost heart as some do at the Crossroads), leaving Aragorn and co in an even worse state.

As he says "I will not believe it".

He had to stop this poison spreading and this is how he did it (movie wise). Obviously in the books, the MoS came to Parley, and we can see his frightened stance as he declares that he cannot be attacked precisley because of this point.

Also, in the book, the scene is slightly different as the MoS declares Frodo as a SPY, and therefore meaning that the Ring was not found in his possesion, as this would have totally changed the context of his Speech and what he says.

As a Movie Lover as well as a book lover, this scene is one of my favourites in the EE, even though it was different to the Book in certain circumstances.

Although it also leaves another Jackson "plot hole" as my 6 year old (who loves the MoS) keeps asking me - where did his Horse go? (and his body for that...) I just tell him it ran off!

[Evisse the Blue]

Originally Posted by Essex

thanks for making the above point Estel. To add to this, Aragorn killed the MoS to stop him spreading the rumour of Frodo's death and therefore the end of the West's Quest to destroy Sauron. Imagine Aragorn's Men hearing this claim. They would lose ALL hope, and some may have also deserted (or lost heart as some do at the Crossroads), leaving Aragorn and co in an even worse state.

As he says "I will not believe it".

He had to stop this poison spreading and this is how he did it (movie wise). Obviously in the books, the MoS came to Parley, and we can see his frightened stance as he declares that he cannot be attacked precisley because of this point.

Also, in the book, the scene is slightly different as the MoS declares Frodo as a SPY, and therefore meaning that the Ring was not found in his possesion, as this would have totally changed the context of his Speech and what he says.

As a Movie Lover as well as a book lover, this scene is one of my favourites in the EE, even though it was different to the Book in certain circumstances.

Although it also leaves another Jackson "plot hole" as my 6 year old (who loves the MoS) keeps asking me - where did his Horse go? (and his body for that...) I just tell him it ran off!

Well, the men in the army had no earhtly idea about the magnitude of Frodo's mission, (they didn't know about the Ring) so the notion that one of their own had been caught and tortured would only have added fuel to the fire, putting them in a fey battle mood, instead of making them lose hope.

Also Araogrn says: "I will not believe it." NOT "I do not believe it." If the last were the case, I would have said: "Alright, he knows it's not true, and he wants to put an end to false rumours." But as is the case, it's like Sauron's lies have found a fertile soil in his mind and now he's in denial of them although he believes them. To me it seems like MoS won, even though Aragorn killed him. He acted no better than his enemy would.

We all seem to agree that he acts out a weakness that BookAragorn would never display. If you look at the circumstances in which MovieAragorn does this deed, you see it was immediately after looking into the Palantir and seeing that disturbing image of Arwen, curtesy of Red Eye Broadcasting. He thinks his loved one is dead and now he finds out he lost a friend and on top of everything, mankind is doomed. So he takes it out on the first evil thing that comes in his path, because all rules of decency and honourable behaviour mean nothing to him anymore. Hm. Just played Devil's Advocate. I'm not sure I believe myself.

But thank you Boromir88 for this thread because I remembered a topic I wanted to start since I saw ROTK extended and have been putting it off, that should be of interest to this one. I'll go start it now.

[the phantom]

was Aragorn's act out of his character

Probably not for movie-Aragorn. When I saw it I was a bit surprised, but only because I didn't expect the action itself (in other words, I wasn't surprised that it was Aragorn that did it, I was just surprised that tMoS got decapitated in the first place).

After all there are those who think him pompous in the book, aren't there?

What? That's never even occurred to me. Where does that opinion come from? Aragorn never struck me as arrogant in the books.

I realize that arrogant can be rearranged to spell Aragorn T (T for Telcontar), but that's not a good enough reason for me.

and did he break the rules of war (killing a messenger)?

Typical rules don't apply to Sauron and his forces.

Sauron is not a country that Gondor is having a land dispute with. Sauron is embodied evil and he's trying to take over the world. He rarely makes deals, and when he does he never keeps his end (see Gorlim in Beren's story).

If Gondor was fighting Harad then Aragorn would be expected to keep his sword away from the messenger’s neck, but when you're dealing with Sauron- almost anything goes.

[The Saucepan Man]

It's a real shame because I was really enjoying this scene up until that moment. I loved the portrayal of the Mouth of Sauron - it has a very "alien" character to it.

Whether he was a messenger or simply sent to gloat, the fact remains that he was a non-combatant envoy and his decapitation was a breach of the "rules of engagement" on Aragorn's part. Sauron might have been the embodiment of evil, but, as Lyta said, when the good guys start playing by the rules of the bad guys, then they are no better than them. In Tolkien's world, the end does not justify the means.

But this was not what spoilt the scene for me since, in many respects, this is not Tolkien's world, but a (Tolkien-inspired) Jackson's world. And this is Jackson's Aragorn, not Tolkien's Aragorn.

When I watched the scene, I couldn't quite work out what it was that irritated me about the decapitation. Then obloquy put his finger on it on another thread. It destroys the entire character of the Mouth. He has been built up as this wonderful gloating character who lords it over Aragorn and co. Then Aragorn just goes and chops his head off. Easy as that! Tension dissipated. Audience applauds. Well, they shouldn't be applauding. The situation remains grim.

The scene would have been so much more powerful (in my view) if, after saying his piece, the Mouth had simply turned round and ridden back to Mordor. Aragorn could then have done his "I will not believe it" bit and ridden back to give his inspiring speech. It should be "Hope against all odds", not "Silly old Mouth - I'll just chop off his head and that's that".

[the phantom]

The scene would have been so much more powerful (in my view) if, after saying his piece, the Mouth had simply turned round and ridden back to Mordor. Aragorn could then have done his "I will not believe it" bit and ridden back to give his inspiring speech. It should be "Hope against all odds", not "Silly old Mouth - I'll just chop off his head and that's that".

Yes, I totally agree with that.

when the good guys start playing by the rules of the bad guys, then they are no better than them

I've always disliked this notion. I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with someone who is without a doubt evil and horrible and has acted so in the past and will continue to act so- they have forfeited all rights to be treated like a human being.

Now, in the real world it is difficult to define someone as the embodiment of evil, but in Middle Earth there was no doubt about Sauron, the Nazgul, and tMoS. They were sub-human.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I've always disliked this notion. I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with someone who is without a doubt evil and horrible and has acted so in the past and will continue to act so- they have forfeited all rights to be treated like a human being.

Now, in the real world it is difficult to define someone as the embodiment of evil, but in Middle Earth there was no doubt about Sauron, the Nazgul, and tMoS. They were sub-human.

Tolkien would disagree with you.