First look at Evangeline Lilly in 'The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug'

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

When you say that "Tolkien hits it" I really have no idea what you mean except that you approve of or like the characters--which of course is your right.

I meant that that scene seems to pass the Bechdal Test.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Melian is more consistent and I like her trait of singing but even there I am bothered by the concept of her "girdle" which maintains the peace and serenity of Doriath. Again, this is my own personal grudge about the idea of a magical barrier that keeps a place safe. I don't believe that 'good' can be maintained against 'evil' that way. It's possible Tolkien didn't either because every time he uses the concept, it fails.

Didn't Galadriel maintain her "realm" in a very similar fashion, with the power of Nenya? She seemed to have had some success. Notice in each case it is the female who ultimately defends the home, despite armed might being in the hands of the males.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Now, if The Silm had given us an extended passage where the two--Galadriel and Melian--discuss the fate of the world, that would have been something which would have demonstrated their intellect and wisdom. But we don't get that. Mostly we are told of their wise decisions rather than seeing how they negotiate the correct stance. Ultimately, we get a mum who really does not defend her daughter against an overbearing and autocratic husband/father. She never challenges the patriarchy for the sake of her daughter. Again, this is my personal value rather than a guideline for discussing how characters are presented.

Interesting. How would you characterize Melian's dealings with another mum, Morwen?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I will say that at least Tolkien didn't indulge in pyrotechnics with Galadriel, which a certain director did. With Gandalf, we get exposition about his attraction to the ring. With Galadriel, we get fireworks. I would much rather have seen the actress emote.

Would that be an overreaction on the part of PJ, akin to warrior-princess Arwen? As in the only way to show power in a woman is physical demonstrations?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Makes me very dubious about this Tauriel. Perhaps her red hair is supposed to be a joke about all those Mary Sues?

Is PJ really subtle enough for that to be the case?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I meant that that scene seems to pass the Bechdal Test.

Originally Posted by Inzil

Tolkien hits it with Melian and Galadriel, if not in LOTR.

My bad! I misread that as a reference simply to the two characters and not to the brief descriptions of their meetings in The Silm. But let's see how the actual "scenes" do hold up.

Originally Posted by The Bechdal test

1. It has to have at least two women in it,
2. who talk to each other,
3. about something besides a man.

Originally Posted by Of the Return of the Noldar

Galadriel his sister went not with him to Nargothrond, for in Doriath dwelt Celeborn, kinsman of Thingol, and there was great love between them. Therefore she remained in the Hidden Kingdom, and abode with Melian, and of her learned great lore and wisdom concerning Middle-earth.

This does not satisfy the test, to my mind, for several reasons. First of all, we do not have a real scene with conversation or dialogue between the two women. We have a report of their relationship. Thus, their relationship is filtered by the narrator. Second, the passage highlights Galadriel's reason for staying in Doriath--the great love between her and Celeborn. Nor is there much characterisation of the two women. So, nope, this episode does not pass the test.

Originally Posted by Of the Noldor in Beleriand

And at times Melian and Galadriel would speak together of Valinor and the bliss of of old; but beyond the dark hour of the death of the Trees Galadriel would not go, but ever fell silent. And on a time Melian said, " There is some woe that lies upon you and your kin. That I can see in you, but all else is hidden from me; for by no vision or thought can I perceive anything that passed or passes in the West: a shadow lies over all the land of Aman, and reaches far out over the sea. Why will you not tell me more?"
"For that woe is past," said Galadriel; "and I would take what joy is here left, untrubled by memory. And maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may seem bright."
Then Melian looked in her eyes, and said: "I believe not that the Noldor came forth as messengers of the Valar, as was said at first: not though they came in the very hour of our need. For they speak never of the Valar, nor have their high lords brought any message to Thingol, whether from Manwe, or Ulmo, or even from Olwe the King's brother, and his own folk went over the sea. For what cause, Galadriel, were the high people of the Noldor driven forth as exiles from Aman? Or what evil lies on the sons of Feanor that they are so haughty and so fell? Do I not strike near the truth?"
"Near," said Galadriel; "save that we were not driven forth, but came of our own will, and against that of the Valar. And through great peril and in despite of the Valar for this purpose we came to take vengeance upon Morgoth, and regain what he stole."
Then Galadriel spoke to Melian of the Silmarils, and of the slaying of King Finwe at Formenos; but still she said no word of the Oath, nor of the Kinslaying, nor of the burning of the ships at Losgar. But Melian said: "Now much you tell me, and yet more I perceive. A darkness you would cast over the long road from Tirion, but I see evil there, which Thingol should learn for his guidance."
"Maybe," said Galadriel; "but not of me."
And Melian then spoke no more of these matters with Galadriel; but she told King Thingol all that she had heard of the Silmarils.

Now this seems closer to the test! We have a bit of conversation between the women, even if it falls into report about the Silmarils. We can gather a bit more of motivation or characterisation here as well, with Galadriel's reticence to speak all and Melian's subtle prompting.

Does this present the scene I had spoken of, >>>Now, if The Silm had given us an extended passage where the two--Galadriel and Melian--discuss the fate of the world, that would have been something which would have demonstrated their intellect and wisdom. But we don't get that. Mostly we are told of their wise decisions or thought rather than seeing how they negotiate the correct stance.<<< ?

Well, yes, it does appear that Melian learns something significant from this conversation. Yet can we say that essentially Melian's role is to be almost Thingol's spy here? She reports it to Thingol, so that the entire conversation serves Thingol's needs, precedes the report of a spreading rumour about the Noldor, and in fact antagonises the King against the visiting Finrod. The events in the chapter become an explanation for the decline of one language and the supremacy of another. The women are small potatoes in that, no matter how ironic their role in the events may be.

And of these effects neither Galadriel nor Melian have any control. They are passive conveyors of details rather than characters with full agency. They are women negotiating their position within the patriarchy and as such I think that is a kind of representation. But they are still discussing men--the haughty and fell nature of the sons of Feanor and Thingol's need for guidance.

This is indeed far closer than anything in LotR or TH, but the women are still passive and inadvertent bearers of story details that really are about the men in their lives. Not quite what I had in mind, but I might be too strict in my interpretation of the Test.

Didn't Galadriel maintain her "realm" in a very similar fashion, with the power of Nenya? She seemed to have had some success. Notice in each case it is the female who ultimately defends the home, despite armed might being in the hands of the males.

Yet it is a stereotypical defense and unrelated to the Bechdal Test, which, as Agan has pointed out:

Originally Posted by Agan

and it doesn't work to determine a film's feminism value, but rather it brings attention to how underrepresented women are.

The feminist values of the representation are indeed another topic to which I must not stray, however much I dallied around them in the previous post.

Interesting. How would you characterize Melian's dealings with another mum, Morwen?

We aren't given any specific scenes of Melian's dealings with Morwen, are we? We are told that Morwen is "fey" and "distraught" and refuses the counsel of Melian but again, that is reported narrative and not an actual conversation. And it would have been about Turin anyway.; There really isn't enough material to generate any kind of generalisation about how Melian treated motherhood.

Originally Posted by Inzil

Tolkien hits it with Melian and Galadriel, if not in LOTR, and to me that alone sets him above PJ's observed work in the matter.

You are right to seek in The Silm for some of Tolkien's representations of strong women; what I would have liked to have seen is Haleth leading her people in more detail, because there is a woman who is sole leader, no consort. However, we do have to remember that PJ has but LotR and TH to work with. I don't think he has access to The Silm, so that all he has to work with are the fewer representations in LotR and TH; I'm not sure how much of the Appendices he can touch at length.

Would that be an overreaction on the part of PJ, akin to warrior-princess Arwen? As in the only way to show power in a woman is physical demonstrations?

I like Agan's reply to Mithalwen about power in protagonists in an action flick. But I also think it was a mistake to change Arwen's character. Personally, I also think PJ likes to go with the big boom, as that is a large part , if not the main part, of action flicks, which are as much an influence on his film-making as Tolkien, if not more.

Originally Posted by Inzil

Is PJ really subtle enough for that to be the case?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't think it's really a joke.

lol, But he does favour fairly rank forms of humour in inappropriate places.

Originally Posted by Agan

I'm bothered by her taste in men.

Oh, no question!

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I do mind her being a woman or at least having a woman imposed on a book character - though from the barrel scenes and the casting we have clearly lost my favourite scene of Galion getting sozzled with the captain of the guard.

Now that we shall have to wait to see. Would PJ dare show a Marion Ravenwood?

And I do believe this is the longest post I've made in ever so long.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bethbery

This is indeed far closer than anything in LotR or TH, but the women are still passive and inadvertent bearers of story details that really are about the men in their lives. Not quite what I had in mind, but I might be too strict in my interpretation of the Test.

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

On the other hand–

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I understand it in an adventure film where bearing arms is what all the protagonists do. She'd hardly be 'equal' to the adventurers, or a relevant part of their story, if she didn't do the same.

Indeed. No offence to Mith or Zil or anyone else, but I’ve often heard this “why can’t they show true, feminine strength” argument in relation to action/adventure heroines, and it sounds fine until you ask yourself what, in practical terms, the lady is then meant to *do* in the story.

See, one hears a lot about the “the need for strong female characters”, but obviously it’s a bit more complicated than that when, even in such a small group, we can’t seem to reach any real agreement about what the phrase means in the first place. (I also find it to be of some concern how restrictive the various criteria are– male characters are always given a lot more leeway.) For my part I’d be reasonably satisfied if this Tauriel’s portrayal doesn’t turn out downright embarrassing– and I think that has more to do with issues other than such relatively abstract ones. Will she get any real characterisation at all, or just be a cardboard cutout? Will she spout allegedly hilarious one-liners? Will her scenes feature endless cheesecake shots? Will we be subjected to the threatened Elf/Dwarf romance?

...Will she *really* look this silly? (“Hmmn... looks like the Costume Department's already over-budget, so we’ll just hire an elf-ranger outfit from Partyland down the road. I’m sure no-one’ll notice...")

[Inziladun]

Meh, I probably shouldn't even be posting here, as I haven't seen AUJ, and I have no plans to watch DOS.

I'll just leave off by saying that if Tolkien fails in his presentation of what one perceives as a "strong" female character, I am not at all confident that the movies, geared as they are toward mass modern audience appeal, will accomplish that better.

[Mithalwen]

Are male characters only strong if they bear arms? Why not have a woman ruler of Laketown? Surely because she would be older and morally ambiguous and wouldn't be hawt enough for the desired demographic. Don't be under any illusion that Tauriel is there for the girls. If there had been a genuine place for a female role model the role wouldn't have changed with the availability of the actress.

I don't get the problem with the Girdle of Melian. We aren't talking about Spanx. If you take the verb formof gird it has rather more positive associations with Knighthood which incidentally I think the gifts in Lorien to Boromir and the younger hobbits are more significant than they may fiirst appear (I am very slowly writing a paper on this so I will spare you further ramblings). Idrll is perhaps the one female character who is unreservedly admirable and it is her wisdom and preparedness that save some of her people and without which even the valour of Glorfindel et all would have been futile.

Finally I reject the suggestion that objecting to Tauriel makes me somehow anti feminist. I care about the story not the gender of the protagonists.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

On the whole I agree with this– however, now that we’ve seen the character, well, she does look like a distillation of every Elf-Mary Sue ever, doesn’t she?

She does. But I still want to see her on the screen before passing my judgment.

Originally Posted by THE Ka

- Serve as a device to bust the dwarves out of prison, since apparently our merry drunken duo and most of Bilbo's crafty reconnaissance and stealth have been dropped out of the film.

This makes me sad because that's the part I had been really looking forward to. Apparently PJ doesn't have the guts to portray the elves as Tolkien did (never mind that the Hobbit can't be seen as canon in every respect). Ah why do they have to be so... first age?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

See, one hears a lot about the “the need for strong female characters”, but obviously it’s a bit more complicated than that when, even in such a small group, we can’t seem to reach any real agreement about what the phrase means in the first place.

Oh but Peter Jackson and his wonderful sense of nuances have already defined it to us! In his world, strong = physically strong and able.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Don't be under any illusion that Tauriel is there for the girls. If there had been a genuine place for a female role model the role wouldn't have changed with the availability of the actress.

Ditto.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

But I think there is a difference between “talking about men” and “talking about a series of events in which men were involved”.

Originally Posted by Mith

Finally I reject the suggestion that objecting to Tauriel makes me somehow anti feminist. I care about the story not the gender of the protagonists.

Well, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that, Mith. However, I do think there has been an overreaction to the mere fact of this character's being a girlie– which doesn’t, in itself, break the universe as far as I’m concerned. Neither does her bearing arms, in my opinion– of course it’s not the only way for a woman to be “strong”, but it’s a way, isn’t it? What I think matters anyway isn’t how closely a female character fits any given viewer’s or reader's ideal (feminist or otherwise) but how well-written and portrayed she is– and *that’s* where I fear it’s all going to come unstuck.

Hmmn. Seems I’ve got myself out on a limb here. Ah well.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't get the problem with the Girdle of Melian. We aren't talking about Spanx. If you take the verb formof gird it has rather more positive associations with Knighthood which incidentally I think the gifts in Lorien to Boromir and the younger hobbits are more significant than they may fiirst appear (I am very slowly writing a paper on this so I will spare you further ramblings).

Oh, it's not the 'girdle' that bothers me; nor it's reference to a woman. I know Tolkien well enough to understand that he often was recovering an early meaning of word almost lost and he cared little if it required educating readers about the lost meaning. And we've all had our fun following Aragon, Legolas and Eomer in the van. And I know what 'gird up one's loins' means.

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that one can barricade or wall oneself in from danger or evil. I know this was well the case with many medieval walled cities and indeed with many 'gated' communities in the US these days. I believe that action simply exacerbates the social problems. The moment we claim some places are bad, we also fall prey to treating everyone there as bad and start expecting trouble. And vice versa, everyone in a good place as good. It's not a concept that resolves the difficulties but which makes rapproachment more difficult. So it is hard for me to see this as a positive activity and to regard the character who does it as a champion. There is in LotR--well, I think so, anyway--some suggestion that Galadriel's attempt to hold back time in Lorien was a mistake.

Idrll is perhaps the one female character who is unreservedly admirable and it is her wisdom and preparedness that save some of her people and without which even the valour of Glorfindel et all would have been futile.

Indeed, she does have the foresight to build a way out of the enclosed city, which makes an intriguing contrast with Galadriel and Melian, but the actual building of it and escape through it is little dwelt upon. It's there and a salvation, but it is almost little more than a plot device. She is also largely represented as a possession and one of the motivations for Maeglin's malice and betrayal. Her character is admirable but her role in the narrative, grand as it is, is ultimately driven by men's attitude towards her: she cannot stop Maeglin, only escape from him. Maybe that's all the agency most women have ever had in history. I really wish we heard more from her. And perhaps this is one of the problems with discussing the Silm: it is not truly a novel with characterisation explored through dialogue, so how are we to evaluate the characters who are not thoroughly represented as characters are in realistic novels.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Actually, Beth, I rather think you are a bit– or rather, perhaps, not strict enough– I doubt “talking about a man” was meant to be stretched that far. After all, it tremendously limits the topics women are “allowed” to discuss– which was surely not the original intention. (Besides, isn’t the point of the test pretty much that it *shouldn’t* be terribly hard to pass?)

Originally Posted by Agan

There are different versions, but I don't think B-berry's (I should probably stop using this acronym because I pronounce it 'Bieberry' in my head) interpretation was off. Of course women can talk about men, but since the male characters don't only talk about women either, it would be justified to show women speaking of something that adds something to them as characters instead of to the male characters.

Oh, I hope that doesn't make me as yummy as a berry pie.

Yes, that's what I meant. The conversation is more a plot device that an expose or exploration of their characters.

Originally Posted by Inzil

I'll just leave off by saying that if Tolkien fails in his presentation of what one perceives as a "strong" female character, I am not at all confident that the movies, geared as they are toward mass modern audience appeal, will accomplish that better.

Aye, there's the rub. I happen to think that Ioreth is one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters and as best as I can recall there's nary a sign of her in PJ's RotK.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that one can barricade or wall oneself in from danger or evil. I know this was well the case with many medieval walled cities and indeed with many 'gated' communities in the US these days. I believe that action simply exacerbates the social problems. The moment we claim some places are bad, we also fall prey to treating everyone there as bad and start expecting trouble. And vice versa, everyone in a good place as good. It's not a concept that resolves the difficulties but which makes rapproachment more difficult. So it is hard for me to see this as a positive activity and to regard the character who does it as a champion. There is in LotR--well, I think so, anyway--some suggestion that Galadriel's attempt to hold back time in Lorien was a mistake.

I think you're right earlier in the thread when you say you suspect that Tolkien had the same objection--virtually every one of his "gated communities" fails spectacularly: Nargothrond, Gondolin, and Doriath rather obviously; and you've mentioned how Tolkien censures Lorien and Rivendell as proceeding from the wrong ambitions--and thus the Elves failed. Likewise, with Gondor: Gandalf criticises Denethor's strategy of remaining behind guarded walls and it is only when Gondor marches out of itself to the Morannon that it can truly be said to contribute positively to the salvation of Middle-earth. Even Valinor, though it never falls in its isolation, fails from it.

Also, a brief hiccup of a thought:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...she cannot stop Maeglin, only escape from him.

Substitute a couple characters and you get:

...they [all good folk] cannot stop Morgoth, only escape from him, which reads rather like the entire Silmarillion in microcosm--though Túrin's story, at least, suggest that the flight is ultimately impossible (and Gandalf says as much about the recurring waves of evil).

And this makes me think about the chief contrast between Idril and Lúthien--or is it their point of convergence?--namely that she does the complete opposite of her mother: where Melian guards against Morgoth, she goes on the attack. Not, obviously, in a military manner, but certainly in a proactive one.