Frodo v's Elijah

[Turin]

I share your sentiments.

Apart from the fact that (for me) Elijah is way too young to play the Frodo of my own imagination, here's a couple of reasons:

I too was irritated at times by Elijah's voice. It just doesn't sound convincing. I remember the scene when the hobbits arrive in Bree and Frodo/Elijah says "our business is our own". I can't clearly explain why but it just irritated the hell out of me.

Too much eye-rollling and falling over.

Elijah sometimes doesn't exude an air of authority or of being quite intuitive enough.

[Finwe-89]

The way Elijah acts like Frodo doesn't look that good. Elijah made Frodo look like a weakling with that voice of him, and those big eyes. But on the other hand, I don't think that any one else could fullfill the part of Frodo

[Lyta_Underhill]

Well, its a toss-up! Elijah is 5'6" and much younger than Frodo, who is about 3'6" and 50 years old! They're both pretty fast, though, but I think Elijah has a lot of reach on Frodo. He could land more punches that way. Frodo, being a hobbit, has an extraordinary talent of making himself disappear when the 'big' people are around; thus he might elude Elijah for awhile. Also, depending on the point in his career, Frodo has THE ONE RING, while Elijah has a prop! It is interesting to speculate, but I think Elijah would have to corner Frodo if he were to win this bout. If Frodo can keep moving, he could escape, but he doesn't want to match punches with the much taller and younger Elijah!

Sorry, folks! I couldn't resist!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Essex]

One of the strengths of the film for me was the acting, and the quality Jackson got from his Cast just from a look, let alone dialouge

Elijah Wood did a very good job for me. Highlights that stand out:

'I'm here, Sam' at the Cracks of Doom. It still sends a shiver down my spine the way that line was delivered.

the cracks of doom section when he claims the ring.

His smile at the start and end of the Trilogy

his delivery of the 'do not know the way' line at the end of the Council of Elrond

many more to mention, but:

But most of all, when the tear runs down his face when he's lying with Sam at the 'End of all Things', waiting to die.....

PS Apologies if I've got anyone wrong, but just because he's not 'your' Frodo from the books should not cloud your judgment on whether Elijah wood acted well or not, should it?

PPS cross posted with Lyta, but to answer a point. In the book, 33 years for a hobbit is coming of age, ie 18 - 21 in 'real life' Human Years. In the film, we did not have the 17 year gap, so therefore Frodo left when he had come of age, so Elijah's age is perfect.

[Lyta_Underhill]

In the book, 33 years for a hobbit is coming of age, ie 18 - 21 in 'real life' Human Years. In the film, we did not have the 17 year gap, so therefore Frodo left when he had come of age, so Elijah's age is perfect.

A point well taken, Essex! Still, if we take the age offset as 12 years, Elijah would be about 30 to Frodo's 50. Remember how Pippin teased Frodo about being out of shape in the beginning of Fellowship (the book that is...). Anyway, I agree with you about Elijah being the right age, as he would have been preserved at 33 (i.e. 21) due to the effects of the Ring, even if we had not had the 17 year stretch.

Cheers!
Lyta

[mark12_30]

I walk down a long road that lies between the movie and the book, looking left to right, enjoying the differences between the two.

Two Aragorns, very different, both likable for different reasons.

Two Boromirs. Two Faramirs. Two Legoli.

And definitely two Frodos.

But in each case, I am very fond of both of them. In considering each, I learn more about the other that I might not have otherwise noticed. And I remain the richer for it.

[Mithalwen]

I think Elijah did ok with the part as it was written and I forgave him all that gawping into space for the cracks of doom and teh havens where i think he really caught the moment but I have to say - that the film frodo is very different and, I think a bit is lost with the age gap .... Ian Holm in the radio version caught "book" frodo better ... but then it was a very different script..

[alatar]

I would agree that the Frodo in the books is much different from the one on the screen. I prefer the book-Frodo; however, I wouldn't necessarily place all of the 'bad' on Elijah. PJ had control of the story and scenes, and so what could Elijah do? He may have wanted to be a bit less wimpy, but it wasn't his call. Can't remember how many times I thought while watching the movies, "Here we go again. Frodo's in trouble, whining and someone's got to save him." Ugh.

Visually I think that Elijah was fine, and I think that he's a good actor, but his character suffered from PJ-itis.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Essex

'I'm here, Sam' at the Cracks of Doom. It still sends a shiver down my spine the way that line was delivered.

the cracks of doom section when he claims the ring.

...

But most of all, when the tear runs down his face when he's lying with Sam at the 'End of all Things', waiting to die.....

For me all the eye-rolling, knee-buckling and (in parts) weak performance of film Frodo was forgiven by Woods' performance from the "Wheel of Fire" speech through Sammath Naur to the End of all Things. I would say that, during this sequence, he was utterly superb and, for me, spot on. Here, more than at any other point during the film trilogy, book Frodo and film Frodo merged.

[misty's hopping mt.]

in my opinion i think elijah isn't that good as an actor although i dont know if anyone could do a better job. has anyone else noticed that elijah falls over like ever five seconds in the movie.

[Child of the 7th Age]

PS Apologies if I've got anyone wrong, but just because he's not 'your' Frodo from the books should not cloud your judgment on whether Elijah wood acted well or not, should it?

Essex -

My perspective on this is different than your own. I find it difficult to separate the character from the actor. This is not only true of LotR, but of other movies as well. If am ill at ease with the way a particular character is depicted in a film, then it is difficult for me to say that the individual did an excellent job in acting. For me, a great or even good performance is made up of two elements. One is "behind the scenes" and is the responsibility of the screenwriter and director. The other lies in the hands of the actual actor. Unless the screenwriter and director come through, there is no way that an actor can give a true quality performance.

This is one of the problems I have with Elijah Wood, whom I did find disappointing when compared, for example, with Sean Bean, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, the two Ians, or even Viggo. How much of my disappointment lies with Elijah and how much with PJ and Boyens? That's hard to determine. I only know I found the constant eye rolling and falling to the ground both melodramatic and overly simplistic, lacking the subtlety that I saw in Frodo in the book scenes. I do not think that Elijah came up with all this on his own: the script and the director had to play a major role. Because of Wood's young age at the start of filming and his lack of familiarity with the original material, he was especially reliant on PJ. I will also acknowledge that I've seen Wood in other movies where I actually thought he had a better handle on his role (e.g., Eternal Sunshine). In the end, though, I felt Wood's portrayal of Frodo was uneven. There were scenes where he came through individually and others where I felt I was watching a "canned" sequence from PJ's brain.

As to the question of "your Frodo" versus "Elijah's Frodo"..... Perhaps, we need to think in terms of a three-part scenario: "my" Frodo (I have gone ahead and personalized the term), Elijah's Frodo (actually an amalgam of Wood, PJ, and Boyens), and Tolkien's Frodo. These three are admittedly not synonymous, and you are right to point out that elements of opinion are involved in both "my" version and Elijah's. However, I think it is possible to agree on certain things.

There is little question that the movie Frodo was appreciably different than Tolkien's Frodo in certain key respects. I see this as fact and not opinion. Movie Frodo was primarily portrayed as a victim. The scenes in which Frodo showed "spunk" or willingness to fight were omitted from the film: dancing on tabletops, striking out against the wraith at Weathertop, deciding to stay and fight for his friends at the Barrowdowns, galloping towards the ford and raising his voice in defiance---"you shall have neither me or the Ring"..... This list could go on. Whatever the reasons for these changes, and they may have been legitimate ones from the standpoint of creating a movie, we are left with a very different Frodo.

Moreover, it is clear from the way the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triad is handled in RotK that Frodo has been deeply deluded by Gollum. It is Sam who has the clearest understanding of Gollum and his nature. There is no question of Frodo showing pity because that is the right thing to do, which is one of the central themes of the entire book. In the movie, we are primarily dealing with psychological motives and deceptions. This makes perfect sense in the context of a 21st century audience; it makes far less sense in the context of a book that draws on the legends of the north, the lure of faerie, and the "true" myth of Christianity. Tolkien was a lot more interested in morality than psychological motive; PJ was not.

Finally, there is the question of age. I do not think the issue here is how a hobbit looks at age "33" or "50" under the influence of the Ring. The central question is one of maturity, not physical looks. Frequently, in the early pages of the books, Frodo is shown to be wiser than the other hobbits and in a position of authority. The four hobbits are not "equals" in this sense. Sam looks up to Frodo and virtually idolizes him from a distance; Merry is Frodo's "helper" in the early pages and does what he's instructed to do. Frodo is also able to chastise the others (was it Merry or Pippin?) when they start teasing Sam about the bathwater. Only later in the story, do Sam and Frodo break down class barriers and become friends. Whatever book Frodo may or may not have looked like, he started out on a different footing than his three companions.

We can argue endlessly whether the movie required that certain changes be made in Frodo's role because of differences in format , the need to show a profit, and the very nature of a medium geared to a mass audience. But I don't feel anyone could dispute that the movie Frodo and book Frodo are significantly different. That does not bother some folk at all: other folk, it does bother. I fall in the latter group. Wood's performance for me is lacking. In my opinion--and it is nothing more than opinion, he can never be a strong Frodo because the underlying characterization is severely flawed before he even steps in front of the cameras.

[aelithes]

Well, when I think of Frodo from the book, I'm filled with this incredibly warm feeling of affection for him; I love his quaintness and charm and innocence. But these attributes (in particular the last) are rather difficult to relate via film, as there is so much less 'face time' with the character and the audience isn't as intimately connected to Frodo's day-to-day thoughts and actions. This, it seems, has profoundly affected PJ's casting decision, and I do think certain concessions were made.

I'm not quite as fond of Elijah as Frodo, but the filmmakers had no choice but to pare down the essence of the character to primarily his relationship with the ring, and the other aspects had to be somewhat compromised, as it were. Nevertheless, Frodo's character, in my opinion, is the most complex, dynamic, and most difficult to portray of all those in the novel and Elijah's performance was quite satisfactory for me. Though it wasn't perfect, I certainly can't think of anyone who would've done a better job of it.

[Bêthberry]

Child, you have taken most of the words right out of my mouth. To me, the larger trauma of the effect of the ring is missing in the movie for the reasons you suggest: movie Frodo was depicted as a victim.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Essex -

My perspective on this is different than your own. I find it difficult to separate the character from the actor. This is not only true of LotR, but of other movies as well. If am ill at ease with the way a particular character is depicted in a film, then it is difficult for me to say that the individual did an excellent job in acting. For me, a great or even good performance is made up of two elements. One is "behind the scenes" and is the responsibility of the screenwriter and director. The other lies in the hands of the actual actor. Unless the screenwriter and director come through, there is no way that an actor can give a true quality performance.

This is one of the problems I have with Elijah Wood, whom I did find disappointing when compared, for example, with Sean Bean, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, the two Ians, or even Viggo. How much of my disappointment lay with Elijah and how much with PJ and Boyens? That's hard to evaluate. I only know I found the constant eye rolling and falling to the ground both melodramatic and overly simplistic, lacking the subtlety that I saw in Frodo in the book scenes. I do not think that Elijah came up with all this on his own: the script and the director had to play a major role. Because of Wood's young age at the start of filming and his lack of familiarity with the original material, he was especially reliant on PJ. I will also acknowledge that I've seen Wood in other movies where I actually thought he had a better handle on his role (e.g., Eternal Sunshine). In the end, though, I thought Wood's portrayal of Frodo was uneven. There were scenes where he came through individually and others where I felt I was watching a "canned" sequence from PJ's brain.

As to the question of "your Frodo" versus "Elijah's Frodo"..... Perhaps, we need to think in terms of a three-part scenario: "my" Frodo (I have gone ahead and personalized the term), Elijah's Frodo (actually an amalgam of Wood, PJ, and Boyens), and Tolkien's Frodo. These three are admittedly not synonymous, and you are right to point out that elements of opinion are involved in both "my" version and Elijah's. However, I think it is possible to agree on certain things.

There is little question that the movie Frodo was appreciably different than Tolkien's Frodo in certain key respects. I see this as fact and not opinion. Movie Frodo was primarily portrayed as a victim. The scenes in which Frodo showed "spunk" or willingness to fight were omitted from the film: dancing on tabletops, striking out against the wraith at Weathertop, deciding to stay and fight for his friends at the Barrowdowns, galloping towards the ford and raising his voice in defiance---"you shall have neither me or the Ring"..... This list could go on. Whatever the reasons for these changes were, and they may have been legitimate ones from the standpoint of creating a movie, we are left with a very different Frodo.

Moreover, it is clear from the way the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triad is handled in RotK that Frodo has been deeply deluded by Gollum. It is Sam who has the clearest understanding of Gollum and his nature. There is no question of Frodo showing pity because that is the right thing to do, which is one of the central themes of the entire book. In the movie, we are primarily dealing with psychological motives and deceptions. This makes perfect sense in the context of a 21st century audience; it makes far less sense in the context of a book that draws on the legends of the north, the lure of faerie, and the "true" myth of Christianity. Tolkien was a lot more interested in morality than psychological motive; PJ was not.

Finally, there is the question of age. I do not think the issue here is how a hobbit looks at age "33" or "50" under the influence of the Ring. The central question is one of maturity, not physical looks. Frequently, in the early pages of the books, Frodo is shown to be wiser than the other hobbits and in a position of authority. The four hobbits are not "equals" in this sense. Sam looks up to Frodo and virtually idolizes him from a distance, Merry is his "helper" in the early pages and does what he's instructed to do. Frodo is also able to chastise the others (was it Merry or Pippin?) when they start teasing Sam about the bathwater. Only later in the story, do Sam and Frodo break down class barriers and become friends. Whatever book Frodo may or may not have looked like, he started out on a different footing than his three companions.

We can argue endlessly whether the movie required that certain changes be made in Frodo's role because of differences in format , the need to show a profit, and the very nature of a medium geared to a mass audience. But I don't feel anyone could dispute that the movie Frodo and book Frodo are significantly different. That does not bother some folk at all: other folk, it does bother. I fall in the latter group. Wood's performance for me is lacking. In my opinion--and it is nothing more than opinion, he can never be a strong Frodo because the underlying characterization is severely flawed before he even steps in front of the cameras.

[Essex]

Child, a lot to answer here, but let's give it a go.

Movie Frodo was primarily portrayed as a victim.

But, to me, that's exactly what Book Frodo WAS. To me, he left for the West not because of Guilt or Sin, but because of Pain and the need to heal. He was a Victim of the Ring and of certain people's desire to use him to help save Middle-earth. He sacrificed himself in the Book AND Film. This is what clearly and most importantly comes across to me from the film. He was the sacrificial lamb. The look on his face as he boards the ship in the film is heartbreaking, but at the same time, comforting to me that he is going some place better to heal. (but yes, perhaps to die)

It is Sam who has the clearest understanding of Gollum and his nature.

Sorry, are we talking about book or film Sam here? For me, in both versions, Sam has an understanding of Gollum, but it is VERY centered (if not quite blinkered). It requires Book and Movie Frodo to explain there is more to Gollum, and that he will be needed to fulfil the Quest.

There is no question of Frodo showing pity because that is the right thing to do, which is one of the central themes of the entire book.

Woa, there tiger! Are you saying movie Frodo does not show pity!!!!???? Yes he does on a number of occasions. In the marshes, as Sam tries to kick the heck out of him by the pool, even after Gollum's betrayal in Shelob's lair (this last one is striking and works really well). Frodo's Pity to me is one of the most important themes of the book and film (as is his Sacrifice mentioned above). Without this pity, the Quest would have failed, and through the pity of Frodo (and somewhat Sam on Mount Doom) Middle-earth receives its Redemption. (To me this is clear in the film, but I admit if I had not read the books then maybe I wouldn't have picked up on it)

Frequently, in the early pages of the books, Frodo is shown to be wiser than the other hobbits and in a position of authority. The four hobbits are not "equals" in this sense.

I disagree. To me Pippin and Merry are of simillar stock. Yes, Frodo is wiser, but again, I think we see this in the film, by the filmmaker's giving Pippin and Merry a more 'childish' theme to them. PS, as was pointed out on another thread today, who says Film Frodo has not been kept 'well preserved' by the Ring as Bilbo was?

Sam looks up to Frodo and virtually idolizes him from a distance..... Only later in the story, do Sam and Frodo break down class barriers and become friends.

But this is exactly as it is in the film. We can see this the way Sam speaks to Mr. Frodo, showing him respect in what he says, and also (to me) in his body language. (e.g. just a little thing, but the way he throws pippin and merry off of Frodo when they run into him, and the way he says that he'll look after Frodo as instructed) And then later in the film, we can see the friendship getting closer and the barriers breaking down, culminating in the marvellous scene at the End of All Things as Frodo and Sam are in each other's arms waiting to Die.

But I don't feel anyone could dispute that the movie Frodo and book Frodo are significantly different.

I think I've just done that above! I understand we do not see Frodo standing up to the Nazgul either on Weathertop or at the Fords. But what do we see throughout the film? His utmost COURAGE. A little hobbit volunteers to take the Ring to Mordor. How much more on Middle-earth can he do to show his courage? He carrries on through Sword, Sting and Bite. Isn't he showing his Courage here? He carries the most dangerous weapon on Middle-earth almost single handed across a Continent, and to the middle of his Enemy's Country. He shows Utmost Courage in both Book and Film.