The Good and The Bad - a Quick Look at the Movies

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

People do not like it when I say this, but its true just the same - the reason you do not see Book Boromir in the movies is because its the movie and not the book. I do not mean that in a wiseguy sort of way - its just the simple reality that a book and a movie are two different things with two different masters to serve.

Lets face it - the Dorothy Gale in the book WIZARD OF OZ was clearly not the same character in the movie. The character of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was not the one his own brother knew from real life. They were not meant to be. They were characters which worked on the screen within the world they inhabited on the silver screen. The characters in the book- regardless if real or imaginary - do not have to have all the same qualities, characteristics, and components of what works in a book.

I think many Downers recognise that a comparison of apples and oranges has its problems, StW, and many of us here grant that a different medium will necessitate changes. However, surely there is more going on than merely this.

Why would Tolkien not make Boromir as glamorous as Aragorn? Why did PJ sex Boromir up? One hypothesis is that the two men had different visions of hero, adventure, moral failing.

Tolkien had a particular aesthetic about beauty. I think there's a letter where he even discusses the nature of beauty and evil and that in certain aesthetics, the two are never mixed. (I could be wrong about this, been awhile.) His beautiful characters (in LotR) are those who are not perfect but who are morally correct. Book Boromir is a character who has a clear moral failing--his pride, his ambition (for Gondor as well as for himself), his hubris. This is not to deny that he wins redemption. He clearly does. Nor is this to say he is a villain. Tolkien is too subtle for that.

Yet the subtly of Tolkien's vision is such that he does not want his readers to find those who clearly do have a moral failing too attractive. This is in sharp contrast to modern tastes, where beauty can be very twisted and where moral culpability tends to glamorised and treated with great compassion.

PJ glamorised Movie Boromir because that is the way of blockbusters and Hollywood. But I doubt Tolkien would have wanted Boromir to be glamorised. He would want readers to feel pity for Boromir, but not to be infatuated with him. he would have found Boro fangirls midguided if not ludicrous.

This is a question of the ethos of Middle-earth. PJ accomplished many things in translating LotR to the silver screen, but as he mixed Middle-earth with Star Wars he lost certain aspects of Tolkien's ethos. The question is, did he need to do that? And it is more than just the difference between apples and oranges.

So, would this hypothesis account for the differences between Book Boro and Movie Boro, more than simply the book/movie dichotomy?

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

PJ glamorised Movie Boromir because that is the way of blockbusters and Hollywood. But I doubt Tolkien would have wanted Boromir to be glamorised.

You bring up many good points about JRRT and his writings. I cannot take issue with them. I do think that the statement of yours that I printed above, is an oversimplification of things and the usual demonization of the Hollywood film industry.

First, the LOTR films were not a creation of Hollywood and were different in many ways from the traditional fantasy blockbuster. They did not follow the usual thud and blunder script and were more subtle in many ways despite the battle scenes and action material aplenty.

Second, I do not think I would use the word "glamorised" to describe what Jackson did to Boromir as much as I would use the word "humanize" him. Over the past six years I have read many posts on several sites where people say the following in different ways:

"Boromir was not a very sympathetic or likable character in the books but I gained a btter appreciation of him from the movies".

Those are my words and I am trying to summarize what many have said. Jackson succeeded in making the character more likable and someone who you really cared about once he made the sacrifice for the hobbits and died. It meant more then because the audience actually cared about him and liked him.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Second, I do not think I would use the word "glamorised" to describe what Jackson did to Boromir as much as I would use the word "humanize" him. Over the past six years I have read many posts on several sites where people say the following in different ways:

"Boromir was not a very sympathetic or likable character in the books but I gained a btter appreciation of him from the movies".

Those are my words and I am trying to summarize what many have said. Jackson succeeded in making the character more likable and someone who you really cared about once he made the sacrifice for the hobbits and died. It meant more then because the audience actually cared about him and liked him.

This is what I meant by glamorised. Perhaps you are right that humanised is a preferable word. Still, my point is that an aesthetic which requires viewers/readers to "care about and like" a character is not an aesthetic which Tolkien adheres to. Even moving Boromir's death to the end of FotR, rather than making it the start of TTT, is giving the character too much dramatic attention. The end of the Fellowship is what is significant, not Boromir's death, hence that is what concludes Book-FotR. And it is Boromir's pride and ambition that forces Frodo not only to flee, but to put on the Ring. It is the terrible power of Sauron and the Ring that should be dramatised, not the denouement of Boromir. In Tolkien's ethos.

However, this is getting away from the topic of the thread I suppose.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

Still, my point is that an aesthetic which requires viewers/readers to "care about and like" a character is not an aesthetic which Tolkien adheres to. Even moving Boromir's death to the end of FotR, rather than making it the start of TTT, is giving the character too much dramatic attention.

You are right about this and I cannot disagree one iota............. as long as we are talking about the book and what was right for JRRT in writing that book. Tolkien had every right to construct charactes to his own sensibilities, his own style and his own liking. And he produced the book he wanted to. That is great.

The movie is a different medium entirely and as such requires different treatment.
What works in a book may not work in a film. Boromir is one example. JRRT himself said the book was probably unfimlable - and maybe some of his character construction was one reason he felt this. Who knows for sure? Perhaps he recognized himself that a character such as book Boromir would never work as film Boromir.

The death of a major character is a big deal in films. As such, it is a hook to get the audience to buy in to the film. It is necessary to use the full vocalulary available to screenwriters and a director to make this happen.

In the end, the only true test is "did it work on screen". Or another way to put it is "did the audience buy into it?"

I think the success of the film showed that it did. Of course, each individual viewer has to make their own decision for themselves and the overall success of the film then means nothing to them. And that is as it should be.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tolkien had a particular aesthetic about beauty. I think there's a letter where he even discusses the nature of beauty and evil and that in certain aesthetics, the two are never mixed. (I could be wrong about this, been awhile.) His beautiful characters (in LotR) are those who are not perfect but who are morally correct. Book Boromir is a character who has a clear moral failing--his pride, his ambition (for Gondor as well as for himself), his hubris. This is not to deny that he wins redemption. He clearly does. Nor is this to say he is a villain. Tolkien is too subtle for that.

Yet the subtly of Tolkien's vision is such that he does not want his readers to find those who clearly do have a moral failing too attractive. This is in sharp contrast to modern tastes, where beauty can be very twisted and where moral culpability tends to glamorised and treated with great compassion.

What about the whole "fair and foul" thing?
Does that mean that Aragorn was not morally correct?

edit: woops. MatthewM already said that.