Forever?

[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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake.

There is no doubt that film Aragorn is a significantly different character than book Aragorn (as is the case with many other cherished characters). Was that a mistake on Jackson's part? Well, undoubtedly so for many who have read the books. But not necessarily in the context of what Jackson was trying to achieve.

There seems to be held a commonly-held view that, in modern films, the principal characters should have what I believe is known as a "development arc". In other words they should show a marked development in their character throughout the film (or in this case three films) as a result of the experiences that they go undergo on screen. Whether that really is a necessary requirement of a "mass appeal" film, I do not know. But I should imagine that those responsible for producing and financing these kinds of films (or, more accurately, people on their behalf) do a lot of research into this sort of thing, so perhaps there is something in it.

Book Aragorn develops outwardly and those around him notice it. He becomes more noble and kingly as the book progresses. But, inside, he is the same character from when we meet him in the Prancing Pony through to his coronation. Save for his brief moments of self-doubt from Gandalf's fall through to the departure of Frodo and Sam, there is very little variation in his character. Film Aragorn, on the other hand, develops markedly in confidence and assurance throughout the three films.

I also think that there is an element of the film-makers wnating to present us with a more vulnerable, more "human", Aragorn. One who has flaws with which we can identify, but which he overcomes to claim his rightful inheritance. And, in this regard, I have to say that I have a sneaking admiration for film Aragorn. I risk been pelted heavily with rotten fruit here, but the more that I read the book, the more I find myself unable to identify with Aragorn. He is, for the most part, just too perfect for me, and too flat a character. Now, I recognise that there are very good arguments as to why this should be so in the context of the book. But I can also see why the film-makers might have wanted to present an Aragorn with whom they felt that a greater majority of (non-LotR reading) film audiences might identify.

... as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering.

Snow! How delightful. Think yourself lucky. All we get here in London is cold, windy rain.

Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'.

Fair point, and I don't disagree with Tolkien's premise. But, had the films delved any deeper into this (and admittedly they did not delve very deep at all), they would have been very much darker films, and most probably significantly less successful (in terms of mass appeal). There are of course films that explore this theme, some very successfully so. But I am not sure that the public at large is quite ready for it to be explored in a film populated by Elves, Dwarves and Magic Rings. In fact, I would say that many who read the book, perhaps even the majority, do not pick up on this theme (or at least do not reflect upon it to any great degree). I didn't until relatively recently.

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.

Again, I do not disagree. But I think it tells us more about the nature of the respective media that about Jackson's own interpretation of the book.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Davem:
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.

I actually hold a different view. I feel as if nobody is born "evil." I mean Hitler wasn't born thinking later in life he's going to murder millions of people. I think it's our own experiences in life (maybe something from childhood, or maybe TV, video games..etc) or just the way we were brought up by certain morals.

I tend to think that evil stems from good. At one point in time that "Evil" person was good, but a certain event, or the way his parents, or mentors brought him/her up caused her to commit horrible acts.

Let's take into account Morgoth, once a good person, got greedy, wanted power, became corrupt. His servant Sauron, once good, learned from Morgoth, became evil and corrupt. Saruman once good, desired to rule over everyone, became evil and corrupt.

I think of it as more of the fact that we aren't born lusting for things like wealth, power, prestige, but more of our experiences in life, our parents, mentors, teach us certain qualities and we ultimately end up like them. I'm not saying one view is more right then the other, simply getting out my opinions.

I will say this about the concept of "evil." Evil is often caused by abstract nouns. Abstract nouns being things we can't touch, see, hear, or taste, things that we can't measure. Examples are, emotions (love, hate, happy, depressed, nervous) and others like money, power, prestige. These are all things we can't measure. You can't go to the store and say, wow I'm feeling depressed today, why don't I just get a pound of happiness, to make me feel better. (Don't mind my senseless ramble).

Anyway point is, it is these "abstract ideas" which in fact are "evil." Now, emotions can be good or bad, people have killed over love before, but trying to say these unmeasurable abstract ideas is the "root of evil."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I actually hold a different view. I feel as if nobody is born "evil."

I think this brings in the question of what 'evil' actually is - or at least where it originates. Are we born with the potential for evil? If we are its not something that we have chosen, its something innate, a part of our essential nature. But what is the nature of the 'potential'? If we come into being with the potential for evil within us then evil will (almost) inevitably manifest in the world, because some will give in to it.

But true freedom requires the existence of that potential for evil. Of course, circumstances will affect the individual & have a determining effect on their likelihood to choose evil, but the potential to choose it must be there.

Originally Posted by SpM

But I am not sure that the public at large is quite ready for it to be explored in a film populated by Elves, Dwarves and Magic Rings.

Well, they probably weren't ready for it in a book, but that's what they got, & when they got it, they accepted it more than willingly. Why should it be less acceptable in a movie populated with 'Elves, Dwarves & Magic Rings' than in a world 'populated' with cops, gangsters & computer hackers?

My feeling is that we should be demanding that movies (& books) with Elves, Dwarves & Magic Rings deal with such issues, because for too long fantasy has been dismissed as juvenile fiction which only provides its readers with an 'escape' from the serious issues of 'real' life.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

My feeling is that we should be demanding that movies (& books) with Elves, Dwarves & Magic Rings deal with such issues, because for too long fantasy has been dismissed as juvenile fiction which only provides its readers with an 'escape' from the serious issues of 'real' life.

Well, to truly engage with this issue we would have to try to understand the reasons behind the popularity of LotR the book. It is itself generally regarded as "escapist" in nature. A mischaracterisation (or misunderestimation) perhaps, but I do doubt that the majority who enjoy it do so because it gives them the opportunity to grapple with themes such as this.

I do not disagree with the ideal behind your statement. But, as a practical matter, I can't see studios being willing to back the idea. Middle-earth requires a big budget to bring to the screen (to make it visually accurate at least), and it would therefore have involved a hefty financial risk. The book, of course, involved a hefty investment from Tolkien, in terms of his time, but he did not (at the outset at least) have an eye to profit.

[Lalwendë]

I think this brings in the question of what 'evil' actually is - or at least where it originates. Are we born with the potential for evil? If we are its not something that we have chosen, its something innate, a part of our essential nature. But what is the nature of the 'potential'? If we come into being with the potential for evil within us then evil will (almost) inevitably manifest in the world, because some will give in to it.

It is the word 'evil' itself which often leads us as human beings to deny its very existence within ourselves. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they too could commit an evil act, but we must remember that we all have the potential to do 'bad things'. And, as I have said elsewhere before, morals are not always absolute - what is bad to us may be good to another.

In many cases (or all?) it is our human instinct which leads people into committing evil. The instinct to survive can lead people to steal or kill for food or land. The instinct for revulsion can cause people to commit gross acts of violence on others whom they see as 'different'. Again, I will have to restate that I do not see instinct in any way as an 'excuse' for our behaviour. Thankfully, as sentient beings, we are all also equipped with the ability to restrain ourselves from following our instincts. How and in what way we do this is another matter, and one in no small way determined by the society we live within.

As an example, somebody like Saruman might have been revered during the Industrial Revolution, yet would be despised as a wanton polluter of the environment today. To us, his actions are evil, but they may not have been in another time. Likewise, we are able and prepared to accept Frodo and his failings, his succumbing to temptation; I am not so sure about how he would have fared with Victorian readers, who valued the perfect ideal of the medieval hero.

There is one other work of fantasy fiction which springs to mind immediately, which deals with these serious issues - Gormenghast. I shall think if there are any more and post them later...

[Essex]

Going back to what davem said a few days (and lots of posts) ago, re Frodo's internal struggle.

in the book we can see it coming, because we've seen Frodo's inner battle going on & he himself coming more & more under the influence of the desires the Ring symbolises. In the movie, the Ring is simply an external force, so we don't get the sense of Frodo surrendering to something he wants, just of him being overwhelmed by something external to himself.

Hang on, we do see his internal feelings. One of jackson's great skills is the ability to convey complex themes very simply. We see Frodo's internal desire for the ring in TT where he is laying on the ground and lovingly 'caressing' the ring with his fingers. One quick movie shot conveying his real desire (and love?) for the ring.

Your point

When i read the book, I know that on some level Frodo has said 'Yes!' to what the Ring offers, that some part of him has consented to it.

We all know there have been numerous threads on Frodo's struggle on this site. Just one point, I see Frodo's struggle superbly explained by Tolkien where Frodo says to Sam in Mordor

'But you must understand. It is my burden, and no one else can bear it. It is too late now, Sam dear. You can't help me in that way again. I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad.

This shows Frodo's understanding that he couldn't give the Ring up. We see here that he is without hope, BUT HE STILL CARRIES ON. Not neccesarily because he has fallen into Sin by wanting the Ring, but because it has forced itself on him, and he is under its power, helpless and 'alone in the dark'.

The last part of frodo's line above (if you tried to take it I should go mad) also has major resonance for me. Frodo is finally 'outwouldly' happy when the Ring is destroyed, but we must remember he did not give it up (as Bilbo did). It was forced from him and then destoryed (by accident not free will). This happens in both movie and book (but slightly differently). We also see Frodo's struggle afterwards in the movie with the BRILLIANT monolouge Frodo gives us in Bag End. It still brings a tear to my eye when this scene arrives. I feel so melancholy, as I do near the end of the books, and I thank Boyens, Walsh and Jackson for this scene, maybe above ALL others in the films.