Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

How about 'human?' Book Boromir seemed cold, distant, just a character that provided some drama while the Nazgul regrouped.

Movie Boromir was a conflicted man; honourable, faithful, but torn between his duty to his father/country and his oath to his new companions. Sean Bean showed the struggle that the Ring caused, the torment, the despair. I liked in the extended version where he opens up to Aragorn, trying to find the strength that Aragorn has in resisting the Ring as well as relief from the burden that Denethor has placed on him.

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

He glorified the wrong guy.

You mak a really valid point. And maybe even glorifying Aragorn "in battle" isn't enough.

I daresay that Aragorn and Boromir are equals when it comes to strength and fighting skills and that sort of thing. (Reminds me of that passage on Caradhras, where one is described to be broader in the shoulders but the other taller... so different, but equal...) Nonetheless, Boromir dropped his pride and let Aragorn take the lead. It wasn't only because of Aragorn's high title (kings of Gondor scorned Arnorians before, so why not follow suit?). It was more because Aragorn was, well, Aragorn. It's the inner him that is superior over Boromir. He's glorified from the inside, if that makes sense.

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?

By the way, nice new siggy, Bb!

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

We don't see a lot of that in the movies, do we? We know he's a good fighter and a King, but are we shown his inner (should I say hidden?) wisdom, strength, nobility, power, etc?

In the EE, we get a deeper view of Aragorn, including a bit of the Houses of Healing. But I agree, there is not as much of it as there would be if the films were faithful to the books.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

In the EE, we get a deeper view of Aragorn, including a bit of the Houses of Healing. But I agree, there is not as much of it as there would be if the films were faithful to the books.

We barely see the Houses, much less what exactly goes on in them. And I don't think we ever find out that athelas only releases it's full healing power when Aragorn holds it in the movies. So viewers don't know about this special connection and ability.

[Mister Underhill]

Interesting discussion here on book versus movie Boromir, and his function in the story. My (now quite rusty) HoME-fu reminds me that Boromir was originally conceived as a nastier piece of work than he ended up being. There’s a suggestion in HoME VII that he starts thinking of seizing the Ring soon after the fall of Gandalf. In several early sketches, he and Aragorn head to Minas Tirith after the breaking of the Fellowship (he lies about why Frodo ran off), and when Aragorn is accepted as Lord there, Boromir heads off to seek an alliance with Saruman to help him get his position back. In one version Tolkien, contemplating the play of events after the fall of Mordor, muses, “What about Boromir? Does he repent? No – slain by Aragorn.” It was actually only late in the process that Tolkien settled on Boromir’s death and redemption. It would be interesting to discuss how Aragorn doesn’t hesitate to forgive and comfort Boromir, not to mention cover up for him (“The last words of Boromir he long kept secret.”).

Anyway, the history of the composition aside, for me Boromir calls to mind Chekhov’s Gun – there’s all this talk about the powerful temptation of the Ring, you eventually have to have someone from the good side give in to it. And Boromir is tailor-made for it. From his point of view, the answer to any problem is to meet it with as much power as possible. “Valour needs first strength, then a weapon,” is his motto. He can’t really see alternatives to strength and power; if they don’t suffice, then (a la Byrhtnoth), “We shall fall valiantly in battle.” He was always the guy who was going to make a play for the Ring sooner or later.

I would agree that the movie made Boromir more likable. I reckon if you want to reposition his death to the climax of FotR, you want to have him be a character that audiences really care about, and you want to make his redemption more complete.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies.

This is an intriguing idea but I’m not sure I follow you. Could you elaborate on this point?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But is this criterion of "being human" necessarily one that fits LotR?

A reader needs to be able to connect with the characters in the story. I'd never connected with Boromir, as he just seemed bratty and headstrong. The movies have helped me take a second look.

True, it is a modern value and suggests that the normal state of human beings is to be conflicted, but the heroic or warrior values which Tolkien was working with operate on different assumptions. There, the interest lies in those who, despite their conflicted state and the challenges that face them, are able ultimately to uphold their word, their value, their responsibilities. I'm thinking mainly of Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Did not Boromir return at Parth Galen, even when the entire Fellowship was against him? Even when he sinned?

This was the crucial flaw of Byrhtnoth (he of that Old English word ofermod in The Battle of Maldon, that he forgot his ultimate responsibility to protect his people and instead became mired in a personal code of honour (at least, according to Tolkien's analysis of him).

I was just talking about that this morning with the kids.

To quote Nickelback, "And they say that a hero can save us. I'm not gonna stand here and wait." For some reason, this seems appropriate.

To 'humanise' Boromir is to confuse the heroic mode that Tolkien is writing in with modern psychological relativism. I always found Boromir interesting because I think Tolkien was writing a critique of modern male hegemony, but he isn't someone I pity or like. Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but I'm not sure if it does a service to the story to make Boromir 'likeable'.

I now understand his 'story,' his motivations, and he seems less of a cardboard cutout antagonist ("Boromir want Ring. Want Ring now!") and more the proto-Sam who sacrifices/overcomes.

It also, of course, makes it far more difficult to depict Aragorn's heroism in a sympathetic light and this was also a great failing of the movies. I remember having the movie ruined for me several times by folks around me who invariably broke out in derisive laughter and chatter at some of Aragorn's movements. It is Aragorn who should be given the focus of heroism, whose heroism should be tenable and real and believable in today's system of values and that Jackson utterly failed to do. He glorified the wrong guy.

The movie is a bit messed up, and I may have written on that somewhere.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

Definitely not!

[sassyfriend]

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say even if i don't agree. Still find Aragorn a cool guy even though he wouldn't let the others rest after moria. In a way I can see why, but dosen't he sound kinda mean how he says it? I thought even if he is their leader he could've still be gentler.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say even if i don't agree. Still find Aragorn a cool guy even though he wouldn't let the others rest after moria. In a way I can see why, but dosen't he sound kinda mean how he says it? I thought even if he is their leader he could've still be gentler.

So he sould have told them, "the orcs will go after us at nightime anyways, so we might as well die well rested"? I don't get what you're saying. He was leading them away from danger - tired, weary, but in better condition than they would have been had they rested and not reached Lorien in time.

I think you should start a separate thread just about book vs movie Aragorns and Boromirs, if that topic interests you, sassyfriend. Or did you mean the whole books / movies discussion in general?

[sassyfriend]

I think in general. And I didn't mean Aragorn should let them get killed.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

So he sould have told them, "the orcs will go after us at nightime anyways, so we might as well die well rested"? I don't get what you're saying. He was leading them away from danger - tired, weary, but in better condition than they would have been had they rested and not reached Lorien in time.

I think that what we may mean is that regardless of what needed to be done, Aragorn did not appear leaderly when doing it. Pretending that he's the trilogy hero and making people accept that he's the hero are two different things.

Plus I can never get over how he pronounces 'orc.' Always sounds like he's holding his nose.

[sassyfriend]

Boromir helped the fellowship when Gandalf died because he had more compassion and I don't think he wanted them to die either. Aragorn was being smart but he wasn't compassionate.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by sassyfriend

Boromir helped the fellowship when Gandalf died because he had more compassion and I don't think he wanted them to die either. Aragorn was being smart but he wasn't compassionate.

I'd say that Boromir did it out of duty more than compassion. Aragorn is not only compassionate - he's empathetic. But again, I speak for the books.