Aragorn and Arwen: More than kissing?

[Lalwendë]

About Aragorn being alone with Eowyn, I found that they presented her as leading a less 'sheltered' life than Arwen; she is seen serving drinks in a hall full of shouting drunken men immediately before the 'sleeping' scene in the Hall, which would suggest she is more used to being around such company. Though it did seem as though she'd been turfed out of her bedchamber and made to sleep on the sofa!

The scenes dealing with Aragorn/Arwen/Eowyn do make it clear just who he loves, and Aragorn is shown to behave in a gentlemanly fashion to Eowyn. I did not detect any instance in the films where he could have been accused of leading her into thinking he might have had feelings for her. It is also made clear how much Aragorn and Arwen love one another, and the nature of Arwen's sacrifice can be deduced. That I found to be handled well. Yet a few people have asked me why Aragorn didn't choose Eowyn once he had met her; perhaps that says a lot more about those viewers than about either film or book!

[Mithalwen]

I would have said there was a fairly obvious chemistry in TTT - far more than between Aragorn and Arwen - although I have warmed to Liv Tyler since I have learned more of how she put the breaks on the distortion of Arwen's character - I think it is one area where the late cast change shows up. While I would never swap back, for me Vggo IS Aragorn, I think Liv and Stuart Townsend would have been a more convincing couple, and I would love to see Miranda Otto and Viggo in a film where they were a couple....

[the phantom]

I did not detect any instance in the films where he could have been accused of leading her into thinking he might have had feelings for her.

Ha.

Remember in TTT when he rides off to meet the warg attack? He turns his horse around for a bit to lock eyes with her before he goes. I would definitely consider that "leading".

I mean, my friends are always ribbing me about liking some girl or flirting with some girl, and when I ask why in the world they think that, they give me lame answers like "Oh- you were looking at her. We saw you." I answer "Um, yes, it's hard to talk to someone and not look at the same time," and they say, "No, you glanced at her sometimes even when she wasn't talking." When they say that I just have to throw my hands up in disgust. I'm sure there are others who have had similar experiences.

For some people, all you have to do is glance at someone to be "leading", and Aragorn did more than glance. He gazed back at her before doing something dangerous. You can read quite a bit from that. It easily qualifies as leading in most people's books. His look said "This might be the last time I see you- just in case I die- I just wanted you to know that, um, well, you know..." or at the least his look said "I don't want to part with you, I hope I see you again."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Remember in TTT when he rides off to meet the warg attack? He turns his horse around for a bit to lock eyes with her before he goes. I would definitely consider that "leading".

Thinking about it, I can see what you mean about this 'look'. There was a definite chemistry between the two actors, but a lot of the time I interpreted Aragorn's treatment of Eowyn in the film as more that he was concerned for her, a quite determined yet fragile young woman thrown into the midst of conflict. Remember his concern for Arwen when she turned up to 'rescue' Frodo (he was also probably wondering which broom cupboard she had locked Glorfindel in, sorry...couldn't resist that... ) . Reading the characters as they are presented, his 'looks' could easily be seen as him expressing concern. In this respect, looking back at Eowyn before the warg attack could also be that he wishes to impress upon her the danger she is in; after all, she has just expressed her objection to being asked to lead the women and children to Helm's Deep.

When a person interprets a 'look', which as you say can be entirely innocent, as something 'more', doesn't that say a lot more about the person who is receiving the glance than the person giving it? Like you say, you've been accused of 'giving looks' where they have not been intended.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Thinking about it, I can see what you mean about this 'look'. There was a definite chemistry between the two actors, but a lot of the time I interpreted Aragorn's treatment of Eowyn in the film as more that he was concerned for her, a quite determined yet fragile young woman thrown into the midst of conflict. Remember his concern for Arwen when she turned up to 'rescue' Frodo (he was also probably wondering which broom cupboard she had locked Glorfindel in, sorry...couldn't resist that... ) . Reading the characters as they are presented, his 'looks' could easily be seen as him expressing concern. In this respect, looking back at Eowyn before the warg attack could also be that he wishes to impress upon her the danger she is in; after all, she has just expressed her objection to being asked to lead the women and children to Helm's Deep.

I'm agreeing with the phantom - PJ definitely (and purposely) muddied the waters in regards to the Arwen-Aragorn-Eowyn triangle. As I remember, this was to add tension to the second movie as non-readers might wonder, "which woman is Aragorn going to choose? (and just when is Gimli going to say something funny again?)"

The losing and regaining of the Evenstar necklace (I guess) was to show Aragorn reconsidering the Arwen deal. Luckily for all of us he had some really nice dreams while floating unconsciously down the river, and so he retakes the Evenstar as Eowyn looks on.

When a person interprets a 'look', which as you say can be entirely innocent, as something 'more', doesn't that say a lot more about the person who is receiving the glance than the person giving it? Like you say, you've been accused of 'giving looks' where they have not been intended.

Agreed. Obviously 'the look' is in the eye of the beholder, or beholdee, or something. But on the other hand, sometimes you don't realize what you yourself are communicating via your facial expressions. The sage Bonnie Raitt once sang "...We stare just a little too long...Maybe they're seeing something we don't, Darlin'."

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm agreeing with the phantom - PJ definitely (and purposely) muddied the waters in regards to the Arwen-Aragorn-Eowyn triangle. As I remember, this was to add tension to the second movie as non-readers might wonder, "which woman is Aragorn going to choose? (and just when is Gimli going to say something funny again?)"

The losing and regaining of the Evenstar necklace (I guess) was to show Aragorn reconsidering the Arwen deal. Luckily for all of us he had some really nice dreams while floating unconsciously down the river, and so he retakes the Evenstar as Eowyn looks on.

I've found this thread very interesting, alatar, because it considers how we go about interpreting movies and books, even if you do suppose that hoary age interferes with what we think!

The point about Jackson wanting or needing some dramatic tension in TTT is well taken. The movie lags and, I would venture to say, while hoping not to be inundated with rotten tomatoes, that the book does also. (I notice that our Chapter by Chapter reading group certainly has bogged down and lost its former enthusiastic rate of posting.) But this could not be the only reason.

Now that I have people's hackles raised, let me get back to your main idea, the depiction of the romance of Arwen and Aragorn. As you suggest, this is the high romance of fantasy. It is not particularly well represented in modern fiction, where
faithful, unconsumated love is not high on the agenda these days. Nor, for that matter, is even faithful consumated love. Modern notions of chastity are vague and where they exist, they tend to be more limited than medieval concepts of chastity, which involved more than simply sexual self control or physical virginity. In a culture where even the Church finds pre-marital celebacy a hard sell, what's a poor film maker to do to put forward the idea without drawing ridicule and laughter?

I wonder if Jackson didn't spice things up suggestively in order to make the relationships have a more modern 'feel', just as he souped up Arwen to make her appear less traditional and passive. A matter, as you suggest, of the filmmaker trying to help his audience appreciate something a bit beyond ordinary realism.

Just a thought!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I must say that I kind of read some of the scenes between A & A somewhat differently -- given that the expectation of modern audiences is that the lovers will have sex, it's interesting to note how PJ perhaps suggests that they are not as frankly and openly sexual as we might expect. Where are the revealing dresses? At what point do they kiss, embrace and then fall backwards into pillows? They are always fully clothed around one another and NEVER kiss in a private space (i.e. a room with a closed door) but out in the open where all the eyes of Rivendell (or Minas Tirith) are upon them.

It's almost as though PJ is taking it as a 'given' that they are sexual with one another and then working against that. Their most passionate scenes are upon the bridge when Arwen gives Aragorn the Evenstar (and I can guaranteed you that that moment didn't get beyond a kiss -- can you imagine what Daddy Agent Elrond would think looking out his window and seeing anything more?) and when they kiss each other at the coronation with thousands of people there gazing on. Again, not much more happening than a kiss.

Just occurs to me that the only moment in the films that is somewhat obviously sexual (that is, "these two are going to have sex now") comes at the very end when Sam and Rose go into their hole and shut the door. Yeah, they've got the kids with them, but they're purposely leaving the camera outside and so as soon as the kids are asleep, who's to know what happens?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I've found this thread very interesting, alatar, because it considers how we go about interpreting movies and books, even if you do suppose that hoary age interferes with what we think!

Not with how we think (though there is that) but how we perceive. My take on this issue would be different if I would have viewed the films as a young man - assisting in the birth of my three children obviously has changed my perspective on relationships etc. And I started the thread with a note stating that I didn't want this to be a post-pubescent "Arwen is SO hot!' thread.

Not that she's not...

The point about Jackson wanting or needing some dramatic tension in TTT is well taken. The movie lags and, I would venture to say, while hoping not to be inundated with rotten tomatoes, that the book does also. (I notice that our Chapter by Chapter reading group certainly has bogged down and lost its former enthusiastic rate of posting.) But this could not be the only reason.

I would disagree. PJ could have left TTT more like the book for me as I knew that Aragorn was already 'spoken for.' And compared to the 'Frodo/Sam Walking to Mordor' chapters, the adventures of the 'Three Hunters Who Lose Their Horses But Gain a White Wizard' weren't that bad. The ents in both cases were a bit of a drag, though.

Now that I have people's hackles raised, let me get back to your main idea, the depiction of the romance of Arwen and Aragorn. As you suggest, this is the high romance of fantasy. It is not particularly well represented in modern fiction, where
faithful, unconsumated love is not high on the agenda these days. Nor, for that matter, is even faithful consumated love. Modern notions of chastity are vague and where they exist, they tend to be more limited than medieval concepts of chastity, which involved more than simply sexual self control or physical virginity. In a culture where even the Church finds pre-marital celebacy a hard sell, what's a poor film maker to do to put forward the idea without drawing ridicule and laughter?

But we already have wizards, Little Folk, Elves, a Burning Eye, a Balrog, etc - why not go completely 'unreal' and throw in some high romance? But you're right, modern audiences can only accept so much fantasy (sigh).

I wonder if Jackson didn't spice things up suggestively in order to make the relationships have a more modern 'feel', just as he souped up Arwen to make her appear less traditional and passive. A matter, as you suggest, of the filmmaker trying to help his audience appreciate something a bit beyond ordinary realism.

In other threads it's been suggested that PJ 'humanized' the main characters somewhat in order to appear to a larger audience and to allow for Aragorn to shine.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I must say that I kind of read some of the scenes between A & A somewhat differently -- given that the expectation of modern audiences is that the lovers will have sex, it's interesting to note how PJ perhaps suggests that they are not as frankly and openly sexual as we might expect. Where are the revealing dresses? At what point do they kiss, embrace and then fall backwards into pillows? They are always fully clothed around one another and NEVER kiss in a private space (i.e. a room with a closed door) but out in the open where all the eyes of Rivendell (or Minas Tirith) are upon them.

Weren't the films rated PG-13 (in USA)? To me this would mean that the 'hit the pillow topless' scene would be excluded a priori. But my original question was that is it common for modern possibly abstinent couples to behave with such familiarity around each other, and was more being suggested (to those viewer slightly older than 13) by PJ? Were A&A in a state of high romance, were they courting, or were they an old couple that just hadn't gone legal?

Being somewhat older and married may be skewing my insight, and so I wondered what others (younger, older, single, married, etc) saw. Was PJ shooting for 'unconsumated lovers' and failed? Or did he intend on showing a less fantastic relationship?

It's almost as though PJ is taking it as a 'given' that they are sexual with one another and then working against that. Their most passionate scenes are upon the bridge when Arwen gives Aragorn the Evenstar (and I can guaranteed you that that moment didn't get beyond a kiss -- can you imagine what Daddy Agent Elrond would think looking out his window and seeing anything more?) and when they kiss each other at the coronation with thousands of people there gazing on. Again, not much more happening than a kiss.

And there's exactly my point. I wouldn't have considered that PJ would have figured that it was 'a given' that they were sexual. Maybe it's me or my generation, but did not think that.

Just occurs to me that the only moment in the films that is somewhat obviously sexual (that is, "these two are going to have sex now") comes at the very end when Sam and Rose go into their hole and shut the door. Yeah, they've got the kids with them, but they're purposely leaving the camera outside and so as soon as the kids are asleep, who's to know what happens?

That's funny, as I never saw that at all. And I assume that children only sleep 'in the movies.'

Thanks all for your thoughts.