Aragorn in the movies

[Evisse the Blue]

Well, the movies are over and gone are the days of feverish anticipation. We can step back now and see the big picture casting a critical (but not necessary disaproving!) eye over the entire thing.

In this topic I want to talk about Aragorn and how he is different in the movie from the book version we've all grown to know and love (more or less ).

To spark the discussion, I'm gonna state two points of mine:
1. his excessive humility in the movie vs his pride in the books;
2. lack of screen time in all three movies in scenes central to the character's development turn him into a little more than a secondary character, like Eowyn, Faramir...

So I want to know your opinions. How is Movie Aragorn different from Book Aragorn? Is he being slighted in the movie? Or is he made into a more complex and believable character, even though it takes away from the spirit of the book?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think he is far less complex. He is the action hero of the film, who saves the day and gets the girl.

But you are right to point out the lack of screentime needed to even vaguely get across the subtleties of Book-Gorn. Movie-Gorn was portrayed well, I thought, definitely within the context of the film. However, I do think that he (necessarily) came across as rather simplified and consequently not so interesting.

[Turin]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I think he is far less complex. He is the action hero of the film, who saves the day and gets the girl.

But you are right to point out the lack of screentime needed to even vaguely get across the subtleties of Book-Gorn. Movie-Gorn was portrayed well, I thought, definitely within the context of the film. However, I do think that he (necessarily) came across as rather simplified and consequently not so interesting.

I echo that thought!

[The Saucepan Man]

I would not describe Book Aragorn as proud. Far from it. That is a word which generally, in Tolkien’s works, has negative connotations. And Aragorn is self-evidently not a negative character.

I would, however, describe him as stretching perfection to the bounds of credibility. For a while, this did irritate me about him. He was just too perfect for my liking. In re-reading the Book as part of the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion, it has been interesting to note that he does show flaws. During the period from Gandalf’s fall in Moria through to Boromir’s death he suffers quite deeply from self-doubt. And there are times, particularly in the earlier chapters, where his judgement is slightly off the mark. But these instances take up only a handful of pages, proportionate to the overall length of the Book, and I think it is fair to say that, while he is not perfect, he is just about as near to being perfect as it is possible to get. Then again, this is a fantasy story, a myth if you like, and a reader who buys into this is probably not going to have much problem with a noble and heroic Ranger-cum-returning King.

But the average modern film-goer is different. People may be prepared to accept fantasy in its broadest sense (Wizards, Hobbits, Elves etc), but they still, in general, expect their “heroes” to reflect themselves to some degree. And a hero who is near-perfect in every respect is unlikely to be as appealing to them as one who has some flaws in his personality which he needs to overcome in order to win through. While Tolkien did not have commercial considerations in mind when writing LotR, or at least they were not his foremost consideration, commercial appeal was necessarily a factor for those producing the films.

So, in Film Aragorn they took an aspect of Book Aragorn’s personality which is portrayed momentarily in the Book and expanded it to become one of his defining characteristics in the films - his “character arc” to use film-parlance. It is something that he has to overcome to become a worthy King and it fits in well with one of the themes that they chose to bring to the forefront, namely the “weakness of Men”. It makes him a more credible character to modern audiences than Book Aragorn would have been, although, in the process, he admittedly loses a large part of his “mythic” quality.

Now whether we agree with it or not, that is what they chose to do. And, having made their choice, I think that, in terms of direction and Viggo Mortensen’s portrayal, they realised it pretty well. Film Aragorn may not have been as noble or kingly as Book Aragorn (throughout most of the film trilogy anyway), but he was, in a sense, more “human”. And I think that he works well as a character in the context of the films, just as (having got over my irritation at his “perfection”) I think that Book Aragorn works well as a character in the context of the Book.

As a side-note, it is interesting to note that they updated Aragorn for modern film audiences, giving him a more credible persona in modern terms, while reducing Denethor, one of the most psychologically compelling characters in the Book, to little more than a pantomime villain. Does this, I wonder, reflect the differing expectations of modern audiences from their heroes and “villains”? Sean Bean’s wonderful portrayal of Boromir might suggest otherwise, although he was portrayed both as a hero and a “villain” (and then a hero again) in the films, just as he is in the Book.

[Doh! I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in any more Film Discussions .]

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A brief interjection, in the book/chapter commentary "King of the Golden Hall" an
(arguable) character flaw is cited much later then Book One, when Aragorn
stubbornly doesn't want to accede to Theoden's "no weapons in my pad" rule.
And recall his bemused observation earlier on the lowish esteem in which Breelanders hold him.

Oh yeah, and SPM has finally isolated movie Denethor's character:
He's Snidely Whiplash!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Sauce, don't deny us your contributions, please!

I think it is a shame to see the characters being pushed into the middle. This is shown more with Frodo, but it applies to Aragorn too.

Any pro-wrestling fans will know what I'm talking about. The problem with WWE at the moment is that every character is the same, and no-one stands out from the rest, like our heroes should do. Why should the audience care about them if they are all essentially the same characters with the same flaws? Aragorn's 'kingly-ness' is what distinguished him in the book.

In the film, he is not as special because he has been overly humanised. It's a fantasy, and he is a hero. There is nothing that needs changing.

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

I must confess that it has been a long while since I have read the books, so my memory of Aragorn's book character has been blured a bit, but I do seem to remember that to others, especially the Hobbits at first, Aragorn truly did seem to be little more than a regular Ranger with nothing "special" about him. His true heiritage and kingliness only showed itself, at least in the first book, on occasion, where Frodo would notice how suddenly he had "changed," as is demonstrated in this quote when Aragorn beholds the Argonath on Anduin:

"...Frodo turned and saw Strider, and yet not Strider, for the weatherworn Ranger was no longer there. In the stern sat Aragorn son of Arathorn, prould and erect...his hood was cast back...a light was in his eyes: a king returning from exile to his own land."

Perhaps for the movie, they decided to bring out more of the "weatherworn Ranger" into Aragorn's character. I just wish they would have had a few moments like the one above in the movies. I think it would have added so much. Although modern audiences tend to relate more to struggle than perfection, I think that to have glimpsed a few moments of "perfection" in Aragorn's movie character would not have been unwelcome to a non-book audience.

[Kuruharan]

Moviegorn was a bit emotionally unstable.

To me it seemed that after he became king he might be apt to whalloping off the heads of his advisors when they tell him things he does not want to hear.

Of course, this could be argued that this makes him more "human."

[Essex]

One of the only things in the book Character or Plot wise that bothers me is why Aragorn doesn't follow Frodo and Sam. I know how Tolkien explains it, but it still doesn't ring true to me.

Now in the film we have another reason for Aragorn letting him go. His DOUBT towards whether he is strong enough to resist the Ring.

Do you think this could have been one of the main reasons why Aragorn's character was 'changed' by the scriptwriters? To give us a more fluid reason why Aragorn let Frodo go.

PS if you can take a listen to the commentary on the EE section of this part. This is when I realised that it wasn't Jackson who was the main force behind the Scriptwriting, but Boyens (and Walsh to some extent) who put him right when he makes an absolute blunder in describing what happened in the book at this point!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Essex

Do you think this could have been one of the main reasons why Aragorn's character was 'changed' by the scriptwriters? To give us a more fluid reason why Aragorn let Frodo go.

That would make sense to me. Another theme that they chose to emphasise was the power and corrupting influence of the Ring (and this, too, ties in with the "weakness of Men" theme). This was the primary reason for the Faramir changes in TTT.