Faramir and the Ring

[Corwyn Celesil]

This is not a movie question, though I will make reference to the LoTR movies. In the movie appendices to The Two Towers, one of the writers states that she thought Faramir's 'easy' refusal of the Ring in the books rather stripped some of the reader's view of the Ring's power to corrupt. The reader would cease to view the Ring as quite as powerful as it was since Faramir could refuse it so thoroughly, saying he wouldn't even pick it up if he saw it by the roadside. In my opinion, Faramir's total refusal of it demonstrated his nobility and purity of heart, not the Ring's lack of power. What do you think?

[Iris Alantiel]

I think the power of the Ring was demonstrated clearly enough in the book in the instances where it that it doesn't have to completely overpower every character. It doesn't have to affect every single character with an insane desire to possess it in order to be a powerful agent of corruption.

It makes sense that the Ring would affect different kinds of people in different ways. It's probably a pretty good test of one's character to see how they react to the Ring. By the point in the story where we meet Faramir, we already know that the Ring is powerful and corrupting. Tolkien chooses to make this a time for us to get to know a bit about Faramir's character through his actions.

[Gilbo]

I agree. Faramir's refusal evinced his strength of character. By that point in the book, the Ring's power was evidenced on alternating pages.
If the reason for changing Faramir in the movie was to show the power of the Ring, why did Faramir not claim it for his own. He was sending it to Denethor. Which is to say, he STILL resisted the Ring's power. Although the movie shows Boromir being sent by his father to bring back the Ring, Boromir claimed it as his own. Faramir did not! So then, as I understand it, they demeaned Faramir's character and turned him in to a weasely little turd for NO REASON WHATSOEVER!! [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] Thanks for the update.

[Kalimac]

Well, for one thing, Faramir originally made his "not if I found it in the highway would I take it" remark before he had any idea that he would come within shouting distance of the Ring itself. This sounds realistic enough to me; he dislikes the idea of using Sauron's own equipment to fight him, and he's not being immediately tempted by it. Boromir takes a practical-minded approach that any weapon in a desperate situation is a good one; Faramir is more introspective, it's just in his character.

It's worth pointing out also that Aragorn seems to hold out against the idea of using the Ring pretty well also, and nobody ever said it was "easy" for him - he just thought it was the right thing to do, and did it. Faramir was probably the same way - we don't *know* that his refusal to take the Ring didn't bother him, or give him some sleepless nights, but like Aragorn, he refused because he thought it was the right thing to do. Faramir also had comparatively minimal exposure to the Ring - even with Boromir, who was more naturally disposed to use it, it took several months before he succumbed to temptation, and Faramir was only near it for a few days. Furthermore, I'm not even sure if he ever actually saw the Ring (though I might be wrong about that); certainly he never touched it.

Considering those circumstances, and Faramir's temperament, I'd say his refusal is realistic. "Easy" is perhaps a bit much, but then, just because Faramir doesn't make a big show of it doesn't mean he wasn't at least slightly tempted. He's just good at controlling himself [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Surely the filmmakers could have depicted him just hesitating slightly, or something subtle to show that regardless of his convictions, it was hard to give it up without a second thought. There must have been better and quicker ways to do that than having him go all Weak!Faramir and drag the hobbits all the way to Osgiliath, for crying out loud.

[Finwe]

I think that they wanted to show that it is extremely difficult to get over the realization that your parent loves your sibling more than you. He had spent his life trying to win Denethor's affection and even though it really conflicted with his morals and ethics, Faramir probably subconsciously thought that Denethor would finally love him, if he brought him the Ring.

[Arothir]

Denethor must have loved Faramir. He didn't want his son to suffer, so he burned him in hopes of him dying. They would have been together at death. The film should have shown that not all men are weak and greedy. The film's portrayal of him makes him less Numenorean. But anyway, I think that Faramir refused the Ring because he is a Numenorean in a sense. Most Numenoreans before Tar Atanatar probably wouldn't take the Ring. I think some people are born with the power to refuse it.

[Corwyn Celesil]

Denethor did indeed love Faramir to an extent, but I doubt Faramir ever knew it. I can somewhat understand the movie makers' desire to emphasize the psychological effect that such favoritism as Denethor showed has on children, even grown ones. I wish they had left Faramir as Tolkien wrote him, but they certainly did highlight the tension Faramir must have felt. Boromir must have felt it as well, for he wanted to bring back the Ring to please his father, really.

[Firefoot]

I don't think that having Faramir refuse the Ring in the book was showing a lack of power by the Ring. That was always something I liked about Faramir - that he was very noble and as Sam said "You showed your quality - the very highest." or something like that. I might have mixed up the book and movie quote for that and if that was the movie quote there was something like that in the book. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I have to say I was SO MAD when they had Faramir try to take the Ring to Minas Tirith but after seeing the TTT EE I understood where they were coming from. They were trying to show that Faramir wanted approval and love from Denethor, etc.

I would have to agree with Kalimac that it was sort of like with Aragorn. It wasn't necessarily *easy* for Faramir to not take the Ring and just because he let Frodo go doesn't mean he wasn't tempted - he almost had to be; such was the power of the ring.

[The Saucepan Man]

one of the writers states that she thought Faramir's 'easy' refusal of the Ring in the books rather stripped some of the reader's view of the Ring's power to corrupt.

I think it was Fran Walsh. And, to be fair to her, she was not saying that it had that effect in the book. She was saying that, having built up the immense power of the Ring, it wouldn't have worked on film to have had a character like Faramir, who had only just been introduced and about whom the (non-book reading) audience knew very little, give the Ring up (whether for himself or his father) so easily. The Ring would have lost a lot of its power, in the minds of the audience there and then. I tend to agree with her.

In the book, Faramir's refusal of the Ring is much more credible, because Tolkien has time to build up his character in the wonderful dialogue between him and Frodo at Henneth Annun. I tend to agree, however, that, had Faramir been exposed to the Ring as long as his brother, he would have been tempted to take it, even though he may not have acted on that impulse in the way that his brother did. Such is the nature of the Ring.

Edit: Firefoot, I didn't see your post before posting myself. I didn't copy your last point intentionally. Honest. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 8:05 PM January 05, 2004: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Lord of Angmar]

A oft-recited criticism of Professor Tolkien has been that his characters have lacked depth and true internal conflict (I have just been reading through the Psychological Depth in Tolkien's Characters thread, perhaps the most thoroughly readable - and my own personal favorite - thread that I have come across since I have been a part of the Downs). Faramir and Aragorn seem to be the characters most commonly cited by the critics, because of their Christ-like virtues of self-sacrifice, wisdom and denial of (or lack of experience of) all sinful temptations. In defense of the book, I thought Faramir's refusal of the Ring was fine; remember, he had been at least somewhat under the guidance of Mithrandir, who also passed up the Ring when given an even easier opportunity, and furthermore was of noble breed and bearing, being of the line of the Stewards of Gondor and thus a descendant of the Numenoreans and the Three Houses of the Edain.

For all practical purposes, as Saucepan and others have said, Faramir outright refusing the Ring would not have been as credible in the movie. First of all, Jackson wanted to bring to light the conflict of Faramir and Denethor, and, although Faramir's motivations for taking the Ring were unclear in the theatrical version of The Two Towers, Faramir coming upon Frodo and the Ring and not being tempted by it would come as a surprise to most (if not all) viewers of the Extended Edition who were unfamiliar with Tolkien's books. Aside from the obvious power of the Ring, people would wonder why on earth Faramir did not seize (or at least consider seizing) the opportunity to prove his worth to his father ("He knew his dad would want the Ring, and he was already in his father's doghouse, so why not even consider taking the Ring?" would be along the lines of what I would expect to hear). The way Peter Jackson did it, Faramir comes off as very troubled and conflicted (a trait movie viewers can relate to) because of his father, but at the same time illustrates that he is more wise and less proud than his brother, and is willing to forfeit personal gain for the (uncertain) common good.

Secondly, Faramir's character is too close to Aragorn's (albeit on a smaller scale), so much so that it could, in the eyes of some, detract from Aragorn's role as the wise, savior-like hopeful ruler of Gondor. As someone said in another thread (I believe it was Lush, though I could be mistaken), there can only be so many characters who out-and-out resist any temptation (Gandalf, Aragorn, even Merry, Legolas and Gimli on a smaller scale - and don't forget Tom Bombadil, who shows more resistance to any kind of human temptation than any character I have ever read of). It presents a strange situation for Frodo to interact with a character like Faramir in the wilds of Ithilien, since there seems no real purpose in this part of the book except to give Frodo and Sam a rest and introduce Faramir for The Return of the King (and perhaps show the point at which Gollum ultimately decides to betray his master, feeling betrayed himself). To have Frodo and Sam trapped at the mercy of a Ranger of Ithilien (and Boromir's brother, no less!), and yet essentially have there be no conflict with the Ring, feels almost too strange. Certainly from a cinematic perspective it would have drawn skepticism.

The Ring would have lost a lot of its power, in the minds of the audience there and then. I tend to agree with her.

Well, Saucepan Man has come around to the same conclusion as I have in far fewer worlds. Ultimately, I think Faramir's book character simply would not have flown with modern audiences (although I do think that perhaps his situation could have been explained a bit better in the Two Towers theatrical release). It would have detracted from the believability of Faramir's newly introduced character, the power of the Ring, and, arguably, the believability of Aragorn.

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Kalimac is right. Faramir never saw the Ring. And when he guessed that Frodo bore "Isildur's Bane," he suggested they stop speaking about it. He didn't know what exactly "Isildur's Bane" was, but he knew it was an "heirloom of power and peril ... a fell weapon" that would appeal to Boromir. In this context, his "refusal" to take the Ring was not implausable and spoke volumes about his intelligence, discretion and self-awareness. Faramir knew Frodo had something powerful, but he didn't want to be tempted by it, so he didn't ask to see it and didn't want to discuss it further. When Sam let slip that Frodo had the Ring, Faramir understood what he had initially refused, but stood by his previous decision, saying:

"But I am not such a man (as to desire the Ring). Or I am wise enough to know there are some perils from which a man must flee."

Again, he didn't want to be tempted because he was humble enough to realize he might fall.

PJ & co wrote themselves into a corner by making the Ring so alluring and by letting Faramir see it. At that point they had no choice but to make him go for it. This really weakened Faramir's character as others have said, because Boromir could withstand the call for months, but Faramir fell after only seconds.

Faramir was also weakened in the movie by being a son desperate for his father's approval. Book Faramir wanted his father to approve the good things he did on his own -- the things he would have done anyway even if Denethor hadn't approved. Movie Faramir changed his actions to appeal to his father, which I felt was spineless and pathetic.

Book Faramir: I did the right thing, why don't you approve of me?

Movie Faramir: You don't approve of me, so I'm going to do whatever goofy thing you want just to get a crumb of affection.

Those are vastly different things.

-Lily

[Lord of Angmar]

Book Faramir: I did the right thing, why don't you approve of me?

Movie Faramir: You don't approve of me, so I'm going to do whatever goofy thing you want just to get a crumb of affection.

That is a rather stark way to look at it.

[davem]

I still can't understand the moviemaker's decision re Faramir. Faramir is, admittedly a very subtle character study. He is, as i said in the Psychological depth thread, both an individual, & a kind of 'living symbol' of Gondor/Numenor. We've seen, up to that point, what the west is fighting
against - Orcs, the Balrog, the Nazgul, we've heard a great deal about the 'Glory of Gondor' & the 'Wisdom of Numenor', but we've seen precious little that's in any way admirable. In fact, we see very few likeable Gondoreans - Imrahil, Beregond. We need to see Faramir, a living symbol of what is being fought for - wisdom, compassion, self sacrifice. We need to know that Gondor can still produce men like him. The War of the Ring is not just a simple fight for survival. Its a fight to preserve a way of life, a philosophy. Faramir shows us what Gondor can be. Faramir's example inspires his men & his people far more than the haughty dignity of Denethor, & even more than the victories of his brother. Faramir inspires them with a vision of how the world could be after the War. I think they fight because they have him as an example - he shows them that there's a full life to be had after the war - that war, the sharp sword & the swift arrow, the heroics of Boromir are not the point of life. Faramir is wiser, more spiritually aware than either his Father or his Brother.

He refuses the Ring because as a Numenorean he remembers how seductive the weapons of the Enemy are. He knows enough to see that using the Ring is the same thing as Ar Pharazon bringing Sauron to Numenor. He knows the Ring will bring about the destruction of Gondor. As Galadriel does, even knowing that the choice seems between one form of destruction - being destroyed by Sauron in war by not using the Ring - or another - using it & going the way of Numenor by replacing him, he is forced to choose. And his choice is that if he must see everything he loves destroyed he can at least achieve a moral victory, by not giving in.

I think the film makers made a major mistake in what they did with Faramir. He is a sad, pathetic character in the movie - too 'delicate' even to look while his men beat Gollum. How could such a man effect the real healing of Eowyn, leading her to see that a 'glorious' death in battle is both primitive, simplistic & barbaric? Faramir is a healer, as Aragorn is, as Sam is, as Gandalf is. Tolkien's wisest characters are healers & stewards.

[Man of the Old Hope]

Well-put, Davem.

In his book, The Gospel According to Tolkien, Prof. Ralph Wood writes of those who refuse the Ring's seductions,

"Like Faramir and Sam - but unlike Boromir and Saruman - Galadriel is able to refuse the Ring's magnetic lure. Bilbo had also used the Ring many times without permanent damage. [Wood does discuss the ill effects the Ring had on Bilbo, as well his greed in wanting to see it again.] Whence the difference? Why can some resist the fatal temptation while others yield to it? Boromir and Saruman both see themselves as leaders and heroes ; their loves are disordered by their own lust and ambition. The others, by contrast, possess something akin to what Jesus calls purity of heart. They have preserved their integrity of soul and conscience. They regard themselves as servants rather than lords. All four of them have properly ordered their loves to the Good. Bilbo lives to write his books and poems, and to translate works from the elvish for the benefit of hobbits. Sam serves his master Frodo above all others. Faramir seeks to preserve Gondor in readiness for the king's return. Galadriel wants only to protect Lórien from the assaults of the evil one. Because their loves and thus their lives are rightly ordered, the Ring does them little harm" (pp. 63-4).

I would only add to Wood, along the lines that davem has suggested, that Faramir seeks, as one of the latter-day Faithful, heir to those in Númenor of old who saw through the blandishments and the trickery of Sauron, to preserve Gondor for the returning king.

Farther along in his discussion, Wood remarks on the appeal of Evil to virtue rather than to vice, as in the desire of Boromir to use the Ring to oppose the Enemy, or in the temptation of Galadriel to do the same. He goes on to say that,

"Tolkien is close to Paul and Augustine and their long train of followers who argue that real freedom is the liberty to choose and do the good, and that to do evil is to act unfreely, to exercise an enslaved will...Not all evil is chosen. For while evil can subtly seduce, it can also brutally enforce its will. When the Ring thus bullies its victims, it can work its spell on even the most resistant will. This is the bitter truth that Frodo discovers in the Company's first encounter with the Ringwraiths..." (p. 70).

In the end, I have to conclude that regarding Faramir, as with a number of other characters and situations, Jackson and his writers just didn't seem to get it.

[Kronos]

PJ & co wrote themselves into a corner by making the Ring so alluring and by letting Faramir see it. At that point they had no choice but to make him go for it. This really weakened Faramir's character as others have said, because Boromir could withstand the call for months, but Faramir fell after only seconds.

I did not see it like that at all. Remember that in the film Faramir and Boromir's positions are very different. Faramir outnumbered the Hobbits 50 to one at least and was able to do what he wished with the Ring.

Boromir on the other hand was alone and surrounded by people all who had the opinion that the best option was to destroy it. Had Boromir had 2,000 men of Gondor with him at Rivendell then he might have taken the Ring then and there. As it was we do not know when he really fell to temptation. The only thing we do know is the point at which he tried to take it. The party was due to split, he would be seperated from the Ring, it was his last chance and best opportunity. Had the party split at Lorien it is quite possible he might have taken the Ring earlier.

[Kronos]

She was saying that, having built up the immense power of the Ring, it wouldn't have worked on film to have had a character like Faramir, who had only just been introduced and about whom the (non-book reading) audience knew very little, give the Ring up (whether for himself or his father) so easily. The Ring would have lost a lot of its power, in the minds of the audience there and then. I tend to agree with her.

Couldn't agree more! We already had Legolas, Gimli, Sam, Pippin, Merry, Aragorn, all of whom had been able to resist, most with no visible effort.
To have Faramir turn up with little intro, say "hey you've got the one thing that could turn around the war for Gondor, now let me help you on your way" would not have seemed credible.

[Kalimac]

I like that quote, Man of the Old Hope - perfect analysis of the situation.

One more thing; I wouldn't say they made Faramir quite as bad as Boromir; for one thing, with a lot more personnel and much more vulnerable hobbits, even in the movie he didn't actually try to take it for himself. (Contrast Boromir, who very clearly says "Give it to ME" in both versions). He was taking it to deliver to his father, which arguably is an iota more noble than just grabbing it personally. But I don't believe they had to make him take the hobbits on a pointless detour to make the point that the Ring is tempting even to the noble; a few hesitations and ruminations on how much good one could work with the Ring were it not for the fact that it's innately evil - that would have been enough to do the trick, in my opinion.

[Lord of Angmar]

Davem: Very nice post about Faramir, although I am still skeptical that Faramir's part would have worked in the movies.

we've heard a great deal about the 'Glory of Gondor' & the 'Wisdom of Numenor', but we've seen precious little that's in any way admirable. In fact, we see very few likeable Gondoreans - Imrahil, Beregond.

What about Aragorn? He may not be 'Gondorian' in the sense that he didn't grow up there, but he is after all the descendant of Isildur and thus heir to the throne of Gondor. He certainly conveys the said virtues; the 'Wisdom of Numenor' certainly, and in a very real sense he does subtly radiate the idea and the meaning of the 'Glory of Gondor' as well, even before he is crowned King. That, combined with the kindness of Beregond and Bergil, the lore and obviously proud lineage of Denethor (who, yes, I still pity for his folly even after his deranged portrayal in the movie), and the obvious valor of such characters as Prince Imrahil, should suffice to give the impression of Gondor's superiority over other Men of the period and convey - and this is especially with Aragorn in mind - the wisdom and heritage that still lives in the people of Gondor. I think the plot could stand for Faramir to be at least momentarily tempted. It does not really hurt the plot, in my opinion, for Faramir to get caught up in the idea of pleasing his father and go overboard, as long as in the end he is revealed as more wise than the rash action he took would seem to suggest, and is able to overcome that temptation with a decision that shows his wisdom.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 6:21 PM January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Corwyn Celesil]

To get back to the original idea of this thread (though the discussion of Faramir and co. is quite grand!), I just realized that Sam also had the chance to take the Ring, an even better chance than did Faramir. Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and even Boromir's chances to take the Ring were few, given the checks and balances of all the members of the Fellowship, but both Faramir and Sam were put in a place where the Ring was before them, tempting them, and both refused. Faramir had almost total power over the fate of Frodo and Sam in that moment, but in no situation did anyone have the power that Sam did when he had the chance to take the Ring. Frodo was unconscious or near-dead; no one else was around; how easy it would have been for Sam to just leave, taking the Ring with him. But Sam had already built up a strength of character and virtue that could overcome temptation. So had Faramir. Someone mentioned the psychological depth thread in relation to all this, and I agree that it is very applicable (I encourage all of you who are having fun analyzing Faramir to read the thread) here. Those good characters such as Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf, Galadriel, Sam, and Faramir, who can 'easily' withstand the temptation of the Ring, don't do so because they are simply good and without the depth of inner struggle but because they have already worked through their struggles and come to a foundation of virtue and strength. It's not that the temptation is light or that the Ring is without power; it is that they have already overcome that within them that might have surrendered to the temptation. Which was the thought I was originally trying to work out when I started this thread.

[davem]

Lord of Angmar,
Ok, we've met Aragorn, but we haven't met any Gondorians. We don't know what they're really like. We need to see one who lives up to the ideal that everyone is talking about. Aragorn doesn't show the reality of Gondor as it is. He shows what it should/could be. Up to meeting Faramir the only Gondorian we get to know is Boromir. Faramir is necessary, because through him we gain an understanding of Gondor before we get there. Beregond, Bergil & even Imrahil, are very much secondary characters, who we barely get to know, & I think that without their being 'illuminated' by the light Faramir has shed on Gondor for us, we wouldn't feel as impressed with them as we do.

I think Faramir's struggle is not Boromir's - 'Do I take & use the Ring or not?' but rather 'How do I find the strength to do what I know is right, & let it go?' Boromir doesn't know what the right thing to do in regard to the Ring is, Faramir does. Boromir can only see the physical conflict. The War is a matter of who beats who. Good guys versus bad guys. Faramir realises it is good against evil. Faramir sees that there is a spiritual conflict going on as well as a physical one, & they are to be fought in different ways. He realises that the spiritual war is a war of moral victories & moral defeats, & that a physical victory can also be a moral defeat. Boromir doesn't see any difference - until, perhaps, the end - & even then it takes Aragorn to tell him that he has conquered in order for him to get it. Only at his death does Boromir realise what Faramir knows - Moral victories are what are truly important, & are the only victories we can really hope to achieve in life. The Ring offers the opposite - physical victories, overwhelming & unstoppable - but brings only moral defeat. So, it takes away the possibility of achieving the only victory, moral victory, which truly matters.

[Corwyn Celesil]

The Ring offers the opposite - physical victories, overwhelming & unstoppable - but brings only moral defeat. So, it takes away the possibility of achieving the only victory, moral victory, which truly matters.

Davem, I really like what you had to say about the Ring here. I agree with your insights about it and about Faramir and Boromir.

[Firefoot]

No problem Saucepan. Great minds think alike! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] That was sort of a while ago...I've been really busy. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Davem - two excellent posts!

PJ & co wrote themselves into a corner by making the Ring so alluring and by letting Faramir see it. At that point they had no choice but to make him go for it. This really weakened Faramir's character as others have said, because Boromir could withstand the call for months, but Faramir fell after only seconds.

I would agree. By making the ring so powerful they could not just let Faramir get off without (apparently) being tempted by it. If he let it go it would basically be downplaying everything else the movie said about the ring. In relation with the psychological depth, I would say that Legolas and Gimli are not really developed enough for us to say whether they wer tempted by it or not. I don't think Tokien ever mentioned it. I suppose that leads us to believe that they were not tempted to any great extent.

[doug*platypus]

It would have detracted from the believability of Faramir's newly introduced character, the power of the Ring...

Scenario A

Faramir swears that not if he found It in the road would he take It. Later he finds out that the One Ring is before him and he has the ability to take it. His sworn word and his wisdom tell him not to take It. He lets It slip through his fingers, despite knowing this is against the wishes of his father and the law of his country. Rather than bringing the weapon of the Enemy to Gondor, he allows two hobbits and one Sméagol to prance willy-nilly with It into Mordor.


Scenario B

Faramir, eager to gain acceptance from his father and to save his city, takes Frodo and Sam prisoner. He sees the One Ring and It calls to him, tempting him to take It into his possession. He does not take It from Frodo or handle It at any point. Called back to reinforce Osgiliath, he decides to bring Frodo, Sam and the Ring with him. He is convinced for the moment that Gondor must have the weapon of the Enemy, as his father previously told Boromir. Once in Osgiliath, he sees the evil power that the Ring has worked on Frodo, who attempts to give the Ring up to a Nazgûl (but with Sam saving the day). Faramir then decides, "er actually, no, maybe I don't want this thing in Gondor" and lets them go. He takes them to a sewer (which for some reason runs underneath the river instead of straight into it [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) and commits them to the care of Gollum, who he b****slaps a few times for good measure.


These are the two versions as I see them. Which is more believable? I have tried to present the good and bad points of both versions, but I know which one I think is more believable and consistent.

By the way, I think there are two separate discussions going on in this thread, and one was more suited to the Movies forum.

[davem]

Thanks, Corwyn. When I post I just kind of write what comes to me at that moment. Its nice to be told that it makes some sense [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .

I think Tolkien is setting up Faramir's attitude against Boromir's - Boromir seems to feel 'We're the Good guys, so whatever we do must be good, because we're the ones doing it. Hence, its OK for us to use the Ring, because our use of it would make it good'. So, Good & Evil are subjective judgements, not objective realities for him.

Faramir, on the other hand, sees Good & Evil as objective states/realities, & the individual's moral choices will align him/her with one or the other. So, while Boromir could take & use the Ring & still remain true to his own moral code, Faramir couldn't. Boromir is a 'materialist', & judges every course of action purely on its effect in this world (but for all his 'realism' he gets it wrong). 'Good' & 'Evil' are just definitions of the way the 'West' on the one hand, & the forces of Sauron on the other, behave. He doesn't seem capable of recognising eternal moral absolutes which exist outside an individual people or race's temporal/societal standards . The irony is that Boromir's hard-headed pragmatism almost brings the Quest to ruin, while Faramir's idealism helps it to be successful. Boromir is very much an 'end justifies the means' type, while Faramir knows that the End reached is determined by the means used.

[elenquesse]

I think Faramir's refusal had two effects. One was that it made the strength in Men more evident, that they were not all as weak and easily-corrupted as, say, Boromir in his fleeting moment of madness. The other would be to distinguish him from his overshadowing brother.

In the books it had already been firmly established that the Ring was the ultimate symbol of evil, and further display of this--embodied by Faramir--was, for the most part, unnecessary. For clueless moviegoers, however, this may not have been as clear. It is a shame, though, that some would think less of Faramir because of his movie appearance. I'm very pleased that the tension between he and Denethor was in the Extended and in RotK, shedding more light on his decision.

[Essex]

Doug, your quote:

Rather than bringing the weapon of the Enemy to Gondor, he allows two hobbits and one Sméagol to prance willy-nilly with It into Mordor.

He did not let them go willy nilly. He let them go to Mordor, just as his Mentor, Gandalf, his King, Aragorn, and the Wise decided to. Hardly a bad decision. To bring the ring to Gondor was the bad decision.

Your other scenario:

He is convinced for the moment that Gondor must have the weapon of the Enemy, as his father previously told Boromir. Once in Osgiliath, he sees the evil power that the Ring has worked on Frodo, who attempts to give the Ring up to a Nazgûl (but with Sam saving the day). Faramir then decides, "er actually, no, maybe I don't want this thing in Gondor" and lets them go.

Just because Frodo almost gave the ring to a Nazgul? He then decides to let him go? What will stop another nazgul picking it up down the road? In this scenario, it makes the movie Farmair's u-turn even worse than his decision to bring the ring to Gondor!!!!! (Jackson's one and only BIG mistake in the films)

Sorry, talking Movies in the book section. Naughty me!

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 4:19 PM January 08, 2004: Message edited by: Essex ]

[doug*platypus]

it made the strength in Men more evident

Absolutely, elenquesse. The weakness and corruptibility of characters in the movies is something that has been lamented before, in this thread on the Movies Forum. I just realised that the movie doesn't really give us much hope. Once the Eldar and Gandalf have gone, there aren't many good role models left! Only Aragorn, who is considerably less noble and confident than in the book, although he finishes much stronger than he starts.

The movies give us a very cynical view of the world of Men, and show the Elves (and Gandalf) as being the only noble and worthy citizens of Middle-Earth (although nassty daddy Elrond certainly has his low points). Therefore it becomes much more like pulp fantasy, where the alternative reality that is presented (i.e. the existence of Elves and Wizards) is far superior to our own. Tolkien, I believe, showed us a world that was much more comparable to ours. True, the Elves were still there to embody the qualities of the pure and righteous, but there were also many fine examples of leaders among Men (even Denethor in his own way).

With the changed characters of Faramir, Denethor and Théoden, and the disappearance of Halbarad and Imrahil, I count only one good man (i.e. someone from the race of Men) in the movies: Aragorn. But even Aragorn is shown to be something more than a man in the TTT EE when Éowyn goes all silly over him being one of the Dúnedain, and a resident of Rivendell. Éomer is not given enough credit as future King of Rohan, Éowyn is shown as quite weak, she shirks her duty readily, and doesn't really come into her own as a leader of her people (particularly since we haven't yet seen her new role as Princess of Ithilien). Even the down-to-earth goodness and strength of Barliman Butterbur is missing, and all the inhabitants of Bree are ferret-stroking, evil-looking creatures.

[Eothain Elfwine]

Sorry to be a spoilsport and all that, but oughtn't this thread stay to the original subject just a little and leave the movie stuff to the movie forum?

[doug*platypus]

True, Eothain Elfwine! In that case...

In my opinion, Faramir's total refusal of it demonstrated his nobility and purity of heart, not the Ring's lack of power. What do you think?

I think that Faramir's refusal shows both of these things. First and foremost it shows his ability to stick to his word (as Gimli the Wise tells silly old Elrond, "sworn word may strengthen quaking heart"). It also shows that he desires peace over war, and has the wisdom to see that the Ring will bring only evil. But lastly I believe it shows that the Ring can be refused, at least by certain individuals.

Samwise, Gandalf, Galadriel, Faramir, Aragorn and Elrond all refuse the One Ring. Surely this indicates that it does not have an absolute power to corrupt, and that the decision to accept It depends largely upon the individual. That's not to say that Frodo was a weak individual; after all, he carried and used It many times, even into the Sammath Naur (I love that name!!) before the temptation overcame him fully.

I think this is a point made by Tolkien. That we as individuals do have the power to choose right over wrong. I only wish that he had lived long enough to see the New Zealand government completely ban nuclear warships from our waters. I have a feeling the Professor would have liked that.