Forever?

[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...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

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.

But we don't see his real desire & love for evil, what the Ring symbolises.

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'.

But this is the whole question - the nature of evil - is it something 'external' which has overcome his will, or is it an internal response - does he give in & desire evil?

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.

But is movie Frodo saying the same thing as book Frodo? Different Frodo, different struggle, I'd say. Movie Frodo has been broken by an external force, but has no reason to blame himself or feel like the 'broken failure' Tolkien says he does by the end of the story. Book Frodo has (in my reading) willed evil by surrendering to the Ring.

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.

It is a mischaracterisation - one which the movies have exacerbated, & just because the majority of readers don't grapple with these themes is no reason to pretend they don't exist & reduce the work to an action adventure.

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.

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.

[Rimbaud]

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.

The argument is moot, then, if you would rather they had not been made.

I think what SpM and myself are trying to say, with our jaunty practical caps on, is that there is no way the books could have been translated to the screen in the manner you describe - not with the responsibility of the large budget, and constraints on running length and the necessity of appealing to a younger audience (the perception thereof being of limited attention spans for something without a special effect).*

This is not to say that even under these regulations, the films are unimprovable - I would love to see a complete re-edited version, cut to my whimsy, but such changes that could have been made whilst staying within the requisite profit zone would not bring about the dramatically differen motion picture you outline.


*This is not to hold that these regulations are accurately posited, nor to justify the commercialisation of sub-creation, merely to state that they and that exist in the major release cinematic oeuvre.

[Essex]

Davem,

Book Frodo has (in my reading) willed evil by surrendering to the Ring.

I do not believe this in my reading of the book. In what he says here

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.

the line "I am almost in its power". To me this is not a statement of Will. This is a statement of the ring's CONTROL over him as he neared the Crack of Doom. He did not will evil onto him. The Ring controls people into desiring it.

To me, and I've stated this before on this site a few times, I'm lucky enough to love the films enough that Movie Frodo is the "same" as Book Frodo. I can pick and chose paticular parts of his (and any other character's) traits that tie in with the book, which makes my Movie watching pleasure all the more greater.

And to me at the end of the film, movie Frodo is feeling the same as book Frodo. His well known 3 wounds he endured during his adventure leads him to need healing, something he won't get in the Shire. His mental healing is maybe something greater, because the Ring was TAKEN from him, not given up, is to me the reason he feels he must leave Middle-earth for Healing. Not because of guilt. (yes before anyone corrects me I know its been mooted by Tolkien himself that Guilt was one of the main reasons he left) It's just the way I read the story.