The Good and The Bad - a Quick Look at the Movies

[Lush]

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[MatthewM]

I see nothing wrong with the line...

Anyway, I apologize for not elaborating further, it was father's day. I will add more asap. Thanks to all who have contributed!

[Gordis]

Nice analysis, MatthewM!

Not that I agree with you on all points.
I hate the fight of Saruman and Gandalf - it is so undignified and so out of place... It made me wish to leave the theater.
I hate Elrond's portrayal and all this crap about "Men are Weak".
Arwen at the Ford was ridiculous, IMO, as well as the Weathertop fighting.

But why do you think Frodo should have looked older? Much fatter and less pretty, certainly, but why older?
He got the Ring at age 33 - age of maturity for Hobbits - and stopped ageing. He is 50 in 1318, but he shouldn't look it - because he had the Ring. I think his age is about right. It is another matter that he shouldn't have ACTED like a scared kid all the time.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

Hi Beth! Personally, I read the movie Aragorn as trying to raise his companions' spirits by making light of what is essentially a terrible situation. It's a psychological tactic, meant to heal, and I use it on myself with the cockroaches all the time (yes they are huge, disgusting, and quite possibly have souls - horrible souls forged in Hades, reincarnated from evil clowns, that is).

I actually don't think that Aragorn believes that they are animals, particularly based on the look he gives them after he tells Frodo to run, facing the horde. It's a very knowing look, there's mirth in it, they're seeing him and he's seeing them, and he's like, "Alright fellas, let's do this."

He looks like he's glad to have worthy opponents. Once again, a psychological tactic. In keeping with his whole born-to-lead thing.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Lushious One, you have given me two great lines here. Your orcroach line ranks with that other great movie line from Woody Allen, when he describes Keaton's roaches as "bigger than cadillacs" (or, well, something to that effect, memory being what it is). Only missing is a finishing touch, "Let's send them off to roach motel!"

You've given me an image of Aragorn on the shores of Sword beach on D-Day, exhorting his men. (Sword Beach, man! How much more forged could they get?) The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn. Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

No time for other scenes, although I am taken with Morthoron's allusion to SF style rather than M-e style for those dancing wizzs atop Orthanc.

[Lush]

Cockroaches/orcs do inspire, if only in a sick twisted way that has you staying up 'till dawn with weapons drawn.

The fighting man's Aragorn rather than the thinking man's Aragorn.

Really? Because I see no inherent contradiction between the two. I see him, in both the book and the film, as a very intelligent, thoughtful man, who's got to do what he's got to do. I mean, war is disgusting, even when the conflict is pretty much straightforward, those orcs still cry out when they die. And friends betray. In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there. I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.

Yes, very much the very model of a thoroughly modern major general.

*Random anecdotal information from the life of Lush, skip if not interested*

My granddad was a major general. I only wish he had been born in Middle Earth rather than the USSR, when a military man was not simply discouraged from pursuing his intellectual goals and useful hobbies (such as healing, and my grandfather was a healer), but literally forbidden. I don't want to harsh too much on the USSR, it was home, it was ours, and I don't think my granddad wasted his life. I think he would have been happier, though, if he was allowed to do more prior to his retirement.

My mom has tried readingLotR, but she always stops. Aragorn reminds of her dad. She says that watching the movies is easier, because at the very least, Viggo doesn't look like Pyotr.

[Boromir88]

I wanted to add a couple things about Aragorn's character in the movie. I've often disagreed with Jackson's decision to show Aragorn as the "reluctant hero" of the movies. In the books Aragorn is steadfast and sure of what he has to do, and that is become the King of Gondor. Where, in the movies, Jackson fits Aragorn into the "unwilling hero" archetype that a trademark of the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

However, while discussing actually about Faramir, I got to thinking about Aragorn. Someone had mentioned that he likes Faramir's character better than Aragorn's (in the books), because Faramir is more human. Faramir doesn't struggle with the Ring, but he does struggle with what is his duty to Gondor now that Boromir is dead? Faramir doesn't necessarily want to "please daddy," but he struggles with now feeling as if he has to live up to Boromir's expectations. Where Aragorn just seems all too perfect and sure of himself.

I pointed out that although Aragorn, is as Bethberry, describes the ethical, always seems to be right person, he does have his own struggles. Aragorn does go through his own tough times, they just aren't as "severe" as Boromir's or Faramir's. For instance, after Boromir's death, and the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn sincerely starts doubting himself as a leader, and doubts the trust that Gandalf had in him. And while Aragorn always knew he had to become the King of Gondor, he was never sure of the proper time. He originally joined the Fellowship to leave with Boromir for Gondor. Aragorn thought (at that time) it was the right time for him to claim the throne. However, Gandalf's death changes the situation. Should Aragorn keep his promise to Boromir, or to Frodo?

So, Aragorn does seem more perfect than the other characters in Tolkien's story, but he does have his own "low points." After that someone else brought up a very important point to keep in mind. In the books Aragorn is 88, he's already matured, grown, tested, where Faramir and Boromir are still relatively young trying to figure out their own paths. Aragorn had served Ecthelion in Gondor, served Thengel in Rohan, been raised by Elrond and I bet you on more than a few occasions he went to Elladan and Elrohir saying "Let's hunt some Orcs" .

My point is in the books, Aragorn's history is revealed to us, and we see he is already a grown, experienced, and matured characters. That's when something else hit me I hadn't thought about before. The movies don't have this luxury of "time" that Tolkien did. They don't have the luxury of explaining (or showing) Aragorn's "past," his moments when he was younger serving Ecthelion, or growing up with Elrond and his sons. Book Aragorn had already gone through the maturation process, and hence why he is more "sure" (or if you prefer perfect) of himself than the younger characters like Boromir or Faramir. The movies don't have this luxury, so Jackson places Aragorn into the "reluctant hero" archetype. Thus, the audience is able to see Aragorn's transformation on screen, from the unwilling hero, to the man who knows (and accepts) his destiny.

I also might add that it was a very convincing change. Sometimes when Jackson wanted to make the characters go through a change it didn't make sense. Example, Theoden, throughout TTT and most of ROTK, Theoden was in an "I hate Gondor" mode. "What has Gondor ever done for me, why should I help them?" Aragorn comes running in to alert Theoden about the beacons, and all of a suddenly Theoden decides to go ride to Gondor's aid. That made absolutely no sense. However, Aragorn's change is a convincing one, most likely because Jackson had three movies to show it and if he couldn't show a character develop and change in three movies he should give up directing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

In the film, Aragorn's tears at Boromir's death and then the subsequent cheerfulness - it really says a lot about him right there.

It certainly does.

Originally Posted by Lush

I think his face was pretty much the perfect canvas, not for a mere character sketch, but more like a character Sistine Chapel. I think a lot of what Tolkien put into the character is crystallized there for the audience.

Those carefully placed whisps of hair, that designer stubble, the Robin Hood Ranger outlaw background, a strong nose ( ), the hint of arrogance mixed with a coy smile--they'll get ya younger ones every time.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.

In addition when you deal with 11 hours of screen type and a central character who appears in much of that time, Jackson felt it necessary to create an arc for that character, to show growth, development, denial, acceptance and resolution over the films. That was deemed to be more interesting that the static character who is the same in the first hour of film as he is in the eleventh final hour of the film.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.

It is true enough what you say about changing values and tastes in heroes. Yet, I would venture to say that it would not be impossible to present an ancient, traditional hero to today's contemporary audience. It would take but imagination, creativity, true subcreation of a genius film maker. At the risk of being accused of Bondage, I would say, 'never say never.'

Perhaps as an aside, I would say too that Book-Aragorn is less a 19th century figure than one subcreated out of many earlier traditions of hero, Arthurian no less than Shakespearean and Old English. Arthur and Lancelot were flawed. Less so Galahad and Perceval. And there's been no diminishing in interest in Camelot in these rough modern times even with our Knights of Ni--who in fact were parodying modern misconceptions of medieval times.

So I would say not that Book-Aragorn could not be depicted in these cynical times but that Aragorn presents aspects of Tolkien's Middle-earth and Legendarium that could not be accomodated in the hands of PJ et al with the adventure flick concept which PJ wedded to Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

As a side note to the "Let's hunt some orc" bit in the movies, Bethberry, you might find this interesting:

I've been waiting for someone to bring that up and am much obliged to you, Boro88 for doing so. Clearly, that quotation is PJ's justification for moving the 'hunting orcs' line to the death of Boromir scene.

Yet, yet, I would argue that the two scenes are quite different and require a langauge, command and composure from Aragorn. Aragorn's audiences--Eomer and his Rohirrim Riders versus Gimli and Lego--are different and so his purpose differs as well.

Upon the death of Boromir and the loss of the Ringbearer and Sam, and the kidnapping of the two spare hobbits, Aragorn speaks with the remaining members of the Fellowship. This is not a mano e mano situation, but one where all combatants know each other. Aragorn's monologue hints of those moments in LotR where there seems to be a hidden guiding hand, such as at last comes free in its final exquisite play with Gollem's final desperate leap to claim the Ring.

The Riders of Rohan scene is mightily different, for here our intrepid little band of threeship come point to spear point with the warrior tribe of LotR. And here it must be a mano e mano confrontation between Aragorn and Eomer and so here such crude short hand is appropriate. It is also Aragorn's way of appealing to what he hopes will be the honourable side of the Rohirrim, should they not yet have fallen into the fiefdom of Sauron. Here Aragorn dares to appropriate something of the battle tastes of the Rohirrim as a means of closing the distance between the circled horse riders and his three fellows, closing it without spear or bow.

So, because of this contextual difference, of the need for Aragorn to appeal to different audiences, I find it easy to understand, and would not question, why Tolkien put those words in Book-Aragorn's mouth at that time of first meeting Eomer. Not so easy to see the need for Movie-Aragorn , other than the usual complaint of condensing three books into three hour movies.

I suppose another way of saying this is that PJ must have decided that his target audience for the movies were contemporary versions of Rohirrim.

Dearie, Darling Lush, it is, after all is said and done, a weak reader who reads only with personal touchstones. We all do it, and reading would be much the poorer without it, yet alone is is a prison house of language. It alone, all else is solipcism.

[MatthewM]

Ok...let's continue a bit. I don't think I will finish in this post, but I'll get some more out there.

So far, I have to say that I understand where Boro88 is coming from. I never thought of those points. I'm sure that Aragorn had his immature moments in his past. But by the time of the story, he is 87. That's plenty of time to mature, and time that PJ could not film. So although I don't know how I feel about the reluctant Aragorn, I do understand the reasoning here.

Gordis- I, personally, do not have a real problem with Frodo's age in the films. That's kind of why I put "Let's get it over with..." I think Wood did a nice job with Frodo, except of course when PJ made Frodo do things that were clearly not book Frodo. I just mentioned the age thing because I know it's a hot topic and I know that many, many fans hate how young Wood was.

Ok, let's continue a bit.

THE BAD

* Let's get it over with...Frodo should have been older.
* The time was out of whack. That was not 17 years!
* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.
* No Farmer Maggot.
* Frodo's magnetic finger. Ok, so I know that a dancing hobbit atop a table falling and slipping on the Ring would not show so well for live action, but I don't know about this scene where Frodo falls after trying to hush Pippin and the Ring in mid-air magically finds his finger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Ring could do that.
* "Ash on my tomatoes" - although funny, there were no tomatoes in M-e!
* Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford. I've expressed some ok feelings about this scene, but overall - I don't know if it was too good.
* That horrible scene in which Boromir walks into some quiet place in Rivendell where the Shards are just laying on a statue and Aragorn is reading a book. Right off the bat, PJ trys to make Boromir look bad. Book Boromir would have never picked up the hilt of the Shards, then after cutting himself proceed to look at Aragorn with a cowardly face and then drop the hilt, walk away, hear it fall, and then exit the room without picking it up. What rubbish. This is one of my many quarrels with Movie Boromir. He displayed no respect, and Book Boromir would simply not have done that.
* The Council of Elrond was alright, but it wasn't what it should have been. Boromir should have explained why he was there in the first place. He explains the dream a little bit in the EE, but not in the theatrical. Now, without that explanation, which is the key to why Boromir was in Rivendell in the first place, not to mention the key to why Boromir is the character that he is, how is anybody supposed to know what this guy is doing at Rivendell to hear this almighty Council? Besides my problems with movie Boromir, there were other things about this scene. When the whole council stands up after Gimli's bombastic "no one trust an elf!" line, which I do not like, Gandalf stands up and just starts picking fights with people. He blantantly starts picking a fight with Boromir, I believe. Just does not seem like Gandalf. However, I do like, and I forgot to put this on the "good" list, when Gandalf stands and speaks the Black Tongue to all at the Council in the EE. Nicely done.
* "You have my sword" "and you have my bow", ...etc. This just doesn't make sense and would not work in real life. M-e was a realm of valour and courage. I know this saved time rather than Elrond making the decision after the council, but come on. So PJ is saying that the whole other lot of people present at the Council are all cowards? Seems so. If one person started joining in with "you have my sword", and then this random elf and dwarf gave their pledge, I can assure you that if that was real life most if not all of the others present would also volunteer to go, especially after seeing the others volunteer. "You have my sword Frodo!" ... "No, my sword!" ... "Hey, me too, my axe!!!" Ugh.

No more time right now, will continue asap.

[Boromir88]

StW, while I agree with the view that Aragorn is one of the most righteous, just, and ethical characters of the story, I disagree that he was absolutely pure, moral, good...however you want to put it. There is a little Aragorn quote regarding the capture of Gollum and moving him to Mirkwood, where Aragorn wasn't all that gentle with him. Also, I find his arrival in Rohan, where he demands his will should trump the will of Theoden, in Theoden's own hall to sound rather power-hungry and over the top. Why else would Gandalf restrain Aragorn from asserting his "power?"

As a side note to the "Let's hunt some orc" bit in the movies, Bethberry, you might find this interesting:

"I am called Strider," answered Aragorn. "I came out of the North. I am hunting orcs."~The Riders of Rohan

[Lush]

Those carefully placed whisps of hair, that designer stubble, the Robin Hood Ranger outlaw background, a strong nose ( ), the hint of arrogance mixed with a coy smile--they'll get ya younger ones every time.

Although I know and embrace my reputation as this forum's resident finger-licking fangirl, that's not at all what I meant. I was commenting on his range. Both in terms of the acting and in terms of what it reflects of wisdom, maturity, sensitivity and, above all else, his destiny as King.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

* Pippin is not in the company that sets off. I do not like this, and "Three is Company" is completely left out of Pippin's story!
* "Conspiracy Unmasked" is also left out. What gives?! The conspiracy was what brought the Hobbits together and from the onset showed Sam, Merry, and Pippin's devotion to Frodo. M & P's entrance from Farmer Maggot's crop is horrible and too random, and is just not true.

I suppose that these were things that got left out due to time constraints which I understand. But it would have been nice to see some aspect of "Conspiracy Unmasked" in the films, to underline the friendship that prompted Merry and Pippin to accompany Frodo rather than the "silly hobbits accidentally fall into adventure" scene.