Help Please!

[Mister Underhill]

I think it also makes sense because the movie is so driven by the Ring. Basically what happens is that the prologue raises the question, "Will Sauron be able to get his Ring back?" The films become the story of the Ring, and so they logically must soon end when the Ring is destroyed and the question is answered. Jackson doesn't have the time -- or perhaps the temperament -- to deploy subtle themes about evil and the nature of evil and war and the effects of war. When the Ring starts to work, your eyes roll back in your head and you're basically out of it, end of story.

I'm sorta going off the top of my head here, but that logically leads me to the conclusion that the books are about more than the story of the Ring. Sure, the Ring is the maguffin that drives the plot, but the story is, in a more primary way, Frodo's story. And it's a story about impossible, lose-lose situations. To do good you must give in to evil. To save the world, you must lose your soul. To save your home, you must abandon its defense.

I'm sorta shooting around in the dark here, but I think the thing that makes the Scouring important in the book is that it foreshadows, or mirrors, Frodo's own healing. The Shire started out pure, but after the War is ended, it is the one remaining place that is stained, just as Frodo starts out pure, but in the end perceives himself as a failure. I think the Scouring, that last, "internal" cleaning up, is symbolic of what Frodo must undergo. He sails West to put his own house in order, so to speak.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Lego, who makes some great points, and with Fordim, who, as always, speaks true on these matters.

EDIT 2: Oh, also something about they ran out of money and Elijah was already committed to Sin City... you know, Hollywood stuff.

[The Saucepan Man]

In my view, it would have been a big mistake to have included the Scouring of the Shire in the films. Don't get me wrong. Being a Hobbit (and especially Merry and Pippin) fan, it is one of my favourite chapters. It works wonderfully in the book, bringing a resolution to the development of the Hobbit characters and providing a fitting ending for Saruman and Wormtongue. But the pacing of a book is very different to the pacing of a film.

To have done the Scouring justice on screen would have required at least 15 minutes of screen time, most probably more. In my opinion, it simply would not have worked on film to have the main climax to the film, folowed by 15 minutes plus of build-up to a second (mini) climax. As it is, one of the only consistent points of criticism that I have heard from (non-Tolkien fan) film critics of RotK (and, by implication, the trilogy) is that it took too long to end. It is some 20 minutes from the destruction of the Ring to the moment the final credits start to roll. That is pretty unheard of in films of this nature. I think Jackson just about got away with it although, as I said, he did attract criticism from professional reviewers for it. To have included an additional 15 minutes plus of "ending" (bringing the conclusion to something like a seventh of the running time) would have been something that no director would have done (*anticipates citation of obscure films with prolonged endings ...* ). The Scouring would have replaced some of the Shire scenes, but we need to see the Fellowship reunited, we need to see Aragorn crowned, we need to see him reunited with Arwen, we need to see the Hobbits honoured, we need to see Sam get together with Rosie and, of course, we need to see the Grey Havens (imagine the furore if that had been left out ). That doesn't leave much room for the Scouring.

Originally Posted by Legolas

The 'time problem' with the ending going on too long could've been solved easily by removing the unnecessary Jackson-conceived scenes (such as Aragorn going over the cliff, Elrond and Arwen debating). This would've allowed the story to remain in sync with the book's pacing.

I am afraid that I have to disagree. Freeing up time earlier in the trilogy does not get over the problem of the prolonged ending. The book can take the Scouring because the book is longer and, in any event, the optimum pacing of a book is, as I said, different from the optimum pacing of a film.

Originally Posted by Legolas

This meant both the encounter with Shelob (Frodo/Sam's climax of TTT) and Orthanc's end (the conclusion of the Rohan path) had to be moved to Return of the King (or in Saruman's case, deleted).

I agree that the Orthanc scene should have been included at the end of TTT (to conclude Saruman's role in the story). But, given that Jackson (sensibly, in my view) adopted a chronological approach to telling the two strands of the story, rather than adopting the book's sequential approach, it was necessary either to move Shelob to RotK or to move the run-up to the Siege of Minas Tirith to TTT. The reason being that Frodo's encounter with Shelob occurs at about the same time as the Siege (or at least, the run-up to it). Personally, I think that the whole Cirith Ungol sequence makes a sensible addition to what would otherwise be a rather uneventful journey (in film terms) through Mordor.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

EDIT 2: Oh, also something about they ran out of money and Elijah was already committed to Sin City... you know, Hollywood stuff.

Is that right, Mister U? I would be surprised if money was an issue. Surely the Scouring would not require a great deal of money to film (comparative to many of the other scenes in the films). And, as for Woods' other committments, why would that have been a problem given that all three films were pretty much filmed together? My understanding is that Jackson and his fellow writers made a decision pretty early on to exclude the Scouring, for pretty much the reasons that I have outlined above. But I may well be wrong. If you are able to tell more, Mister U, please do.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

For my money, an interesting thing to see in a research paper on this topic is how, perhaps, the movie attempts to address the thematic and conclusive aspect of the Scouring without showing it. I mean, they cut the scouring from the narrative but did they entirely remove that sense of having returned to a changed home?

I've not watched the film with an eye to looking for this, but as I recall the cinematography of that final sequence 'back home' lacked some of the gusto and visual excitement of the introdoction: the music was certainly more subdued and the characterisation was absolutely different (the isolation of the returned hobbits, for example; the more dramatic tone of their performance as compared to the comedy of the beginning). All of this sets a tone that presents the Shire itself as being somehow more 'grown up' than it was during Bilbo's party. It mighy be interesting to follow that thread of an idea -- a visual comparison of the Shire from the beginning to the end: there are probably more children and childish antics in the first view of it than there are at the end. And I suspect (I think I saw it this way) there were subtle seasonal overtones to the lighting and set design which present the Shire as having moved from a high summer of prosperity (in the first film) to a more autumnal and even wintry conclusion.

To that extent it is perhaps possible to see how the film keeps the 'spirit' of the Scouring alive even as they removed the episode itself...

Just a quick thought.

(But wargs still don't look like lemmings, and Balrogs do have wings.)

[Boromir88]

Personally, as a book fan I would have liked to have seen the Scouring, but I do agree that it's not the vocal point of the movies, and to add it in would be disastrous.

As Underhill and the others have said, the driving point of the movie is the Ring. When that's destroyed, there's no point (in the movie) to continue.

Tolkien of course has a bigger point then the Ring. I think it shows how mature the Hobbits have grown, how Frodo can no longer find rest and healing in Middle-earth, and no matter what "evil" will never always be defeated.

Throughout the books we get a sense that something bad is going to happen in the Shire...Tom Bombadil, Galadriel, Elrond wanting to keep Merry and Pippin back as messenegers, running into Saruman and Grima on the way back, all foreshadowing that something will happen in the Shire.

The Movies adds in a quick scene with the Mirror of Galadriel, we don't get this foreshadowing of doom in the movies, as we do in the books. And to add it all this in the movies would take a tremendous amount of time. Tolkien constantly reinforces the foreshadowing of what will happen in the Shire, the movies don't do this, and I don't think they should have.

We always have the books to turn to for the Scouring of the Shire. When going to the movies I think the majority (myself included) thought once the Ring's destruction is the Climax. We have this dramatic (probably too dramatic) fight at Mount Doom, the tension builds and everyones on the edge of their seat, when the Ring's destroyed and you get an uproar from the audience, that's the climax of the movies. I agree with Sauce in that adding the Scouring may have hurt the movies. While I think it's necessary in the books, the Movies conflict was the destruction of the ring, there's a resolution. Tolkien has a much more complex, and multiple conflicts that tie in with the Scouring and after the destruction of the Ring.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

Is that right, Mister U?

Sorry, Sauce -- I was trying to temper what came out as a perhaps overly-philosophical (not to say blowhard) post with a little humor. Very little, as it seems.

Originally Posted by SPM

As it is, one of the only consistent points of criticism that I have heard from (non-Tolkien fan) film critics of RotK (and, by implication, the trilogy) is that it took too long to end.

I don't think it would be impossible to structure the films in a way that includes the Scouring -- though I agree you're right in this case that given some fundamental adaptation choices made by Jackson, it wouldn't have worked in his films. His take is far too action-oriented (*note that I'm not judging here his choice to take this path or the constraints which may have required it) and not much interested in the psychology of Frodo, which I think drives the Scouring, climaxing with his mercy towards Saruman. It's kind of interesting to imagine what the films would have to be like to include a Scouring sequence that would leave audiences satisified.

The reason the ending seems long to most people, I think, is that the story Jackson tells is basically over after the destruction of the Ring -- and especially after the crowning of Aragorn, who in a way takes over the narrative in the last film and becomes the central character. There's no story -- plotwise or thematically -- driving the return to the Shire, so audiences get restless waiting for the credits to roll.

Originally Posted by Fordim

For my money, an interesting thing to see in a research paper on this topic is how, perhaps, the movie attempts to address the thematic and conclusive aspect of the Scouring without showing it. I mean, they cut the scouring from the narrative but did they entirely remove that sense of having returned to a changed home?

Interesting idea, though I think that what is shown is not a changed home, but changed hobbits. I think this is emphasized in the bookend shot of the old hobbit who squinted suspiciously at Gandalf early in FotR, then squints suspiciously at Frodo & Co in their finery on their return.

All those significant looks to each other around the table say to me, "The Shire hasn't changed -- we preserved the Shire -- but we are different." This is further emphasized by another bookend bit with Sam. Sam, formerly too shy to approach Rosie in FotR, now sets down his mug and strides confidently towards the bar. The next shot, IIRC, is of their wedding. The sequence is all about matured and tempered heroes returning home.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I think that what is shown is not a changed home, but changed hobbits.

I would add another detail to that thought; the brief scene with the huge pumpkin at the end emphasizes the fact that the four hobbits of the Fellowship have been away, saving their world, but their world doesn't know it and doesn't care about it. The Shire hobbits are more interested in the things of everyday life then they are in what Frodo and the others would be able to tell. I think this is in the spirit of the book and shows up there in the Gaffer's reactions.

Though I love the Scouring too and have come to appreciate its importance in the written story, I agree that it probably wouldn't have worked in the movie.

[Rimbaud]

When I first heard about the films being made, I remembered the time between the Ring story ending and the book finishing and new the film-maker would have a headache. I imagined, and in fact had resigned myself to, the following sequence of events:

Gollum slips, Ring is destroyed, Mount Doom pops, shots of all character reactions, slow-mo Eagles, Frodo unconsious. Cut to: Frodo, big white bed, Gandalf asking if he's happy to go back home, Frodo explaining tiredly that there is no home for him now, Grey Havens.

The fact that PJ fit so much more in is, as has been said above, remarkable if not even a little foolhardy for a professional film-maker. The Scoruing couldn't work in a film context, especially not with all the extra gubbins between Ring and Havens scenes. However, the financial success of the films means he'll never really be tarred by the myriad critics.

One of the problems with the concluding 20 minutes as they stand is the crowning of the King. It's slow, tacky (he sings!) and tritely cumbersome. A private scene where Aragorn appears in full state to the recovering hobbits and pays them a brief homage would have been, for me, far more powerful.

1000