Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Elfhelm]

Ye ol' read only half the post syndrome.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
No, I'm afraid on the whole Aragorn's decision to permit the Ring Bearer to go alone without guidance to Mordor was not a "wise" one, even in the book. That it worked to the good, of course, proved that it was the correct decision, but that is only through the virtue of 20/20 hindsight!

We agree on this point. But I would add that Tolkien -- and Jackson -- came to the same realization. Which brings up another theme of the books and the films: religion: the sense that there is a greater power or fate that controls our destiny. An example was Gandalf's line to Frodo, "there are other forces in this world besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. Therefore, you also were MEANT to have it--and that is an encouraging thought." While others may question Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen, both Tolkien and Jackson imply that the fates have a way of intervening, thus "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" and "even the wisest cannot see all ends."

[Elfhelm]

I'm only repeating myself because it was ignored. Sorry.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Aragorn's decision of which pair of hobbits to follow, when forced to choose, was to help the ones in real peril. Not because they could give up the game to Saruman, but because they were weak and he has a code of chivalry.

"Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions."

For Aragorn the "church" is Gandalf.

"Thou shalt defend the Church."

Again, this would be Gandalf, with whom he collaborated in the defense of the North all the years leading up to the War of the Rings.

"Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them."

See the Rangers thread over in Books. But especially, this is why he would not have sent a hobbit alone into the hands of The Enemy.

"Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born."

And isn't that exactly why he is so perplexed about whether he can serve it properly as King, and why we all want him to return?

"Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy."

of course not

"Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy."

The Infidel in this case is Orcs.

"Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God."

Here is Aragorn's flaw and one driving force behind the whole story.

"Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word."

That's Aragorn! And Faramir, too!

"Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone."

Which we'll see in scenes to come, hopefully.

"Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil."

of course

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It seems "wise" and "kingly" only in retrospect. Frodo was almost helpless in the wild. Even his months of "experience" on the trail had not turned him into a battle hardened veteran. As it was, the two hobbits almost perished in the Emyn Muil and probably would have had not they managed to snare Gollum who led them through the obstacle.

And remember, it is well to note that Aragorn was more than aware the Gollum continued to follow the Fellowship. Letting Frodo and Sam go alone into the Wild also meant leaving them to the tender mercies of a being who had done murder (Aragorn already had experience himself with Gollum, so he knew the murderous nature of the creature) and lusted for the Ring. Even had they been able to avoid or resist Gollum, the creature could easily have brought orcs down upon the Bearer as a means of stopping him.

No, I'm afraid on the whole Aragorn's decision to permit the Ring Bearer to go alone without guidance to Mordor was not a "wise" one, even in the book. That it worked to the good, of course, proved that it was the correct decision, but that is only through the virtue of 20/20 hindsight!

Thanks for the reply, but I still see it differently.

[Elfhelm]

Aragorn did not permit Frodo to go alone. He acted on his principles until they brought him to an impass, then made a difficult decision.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Aragorn did not permit Frodo to go alone. He acted on his principles until they brought him to an impass, then made a difficult decision.

If you are speaking about the situation as it is presented in the book, you are quite correct. However, if you are speaking of the film, it is quite apparent that Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo's leaving alone when he tells him that he "would have" gone with him to Mordor - to the end - to protect him. That's when Frodo asks if he could protect him "against yourself", an obvious reference to Jackson's fallacious plot ploy about Aragorn's neurotic concern with his "weak blood"....such nonsense!

Anyway, whatever one thinks about Aragorn's choice in the book, the sequence of events is quite different from that which occurs in the film. Of course, in the film, Jackson's Aragorn remains true to the form into which the Director has cast him: he wimps out again!

[Elfhelm]

Exactly! And you know why? Because a man who makes millions catering to the bloodthirst of the public has no concept of chivalry.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
If you are speaking about the situation as it is presented in the book, you are quite correct. However, if you are speaking of the film, it is quite apparent that Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo's leaving alone when he tells him that he "would have" gone with him to Mordor - to the end - to protect him. That's when Frodo asks if he could protect him "against yourself", an obvious reference to Jackson's fallacious plot ploy about Aragorn's neurotic concern with his "weak blood"....such nonsense!

The only difference is that Jackson gave the audience a scene between Frodo and Aragorn as a way to bring closure to their partnership. But to use Mrs. Maggot's terminology, Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" too. You can sit and argue all day about the how Boromir's death, the orc attack, and Merry & Pippin's capture changed everything. The reality is that the quest was always THE number one concern of all. So if Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo by choosing to follow Merry & Pippin, what's the REAL difference between the two versions?

You can give me excuses like "oh, it was Aragorn's chivalry," "But Merry & Pippin would have spilled the beans," "The danger to Merry & Pippin was more immediate," and on and on, but if all agree that everything pales in comparison to the quest of the Ringbearer, then there is NO difference.

[Elfhelm]

You always think the end justifies the means, and that's the whole difference.

[Wayfarer]

The real difference is that the film involves completely different characters, behaving in a completely different way, under markedly different circumstances.

[Ruinel]

I actually came to this forum looking for something else, but found this thread and couldn't resist reading. Wow, we've got some different opinions here.

I'd like to just go on record as saying that it is quite impossible to follow the book when putting a movie together. A lot gets scrapped (ie, Tom B.) and some things get changed a bit. I was totally pissed about Arwen taking Frodo to the Ford, totally. And was not too happy that it is not made clear that Frodo is about 50 years old when he leaves Crickhollow, not the Shire. And I wasn't pleased about the little character changes, as well. But after I thought about it, in the end, I feel that the essence of JRRT was preserved. And I was alright with it. After all, wouldn't it have been a shame if someone else with less insight had taken up the cause and cast Tom Cruise as Aragorn (ick!).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
The real difference is that the film involves completely different characters, behaving in a completely different way, under markedly different circumstances.

Amen! You are quite right. With a few exceptions (including Gandalf, Bilbo, Boromir, Sam and Frodo - except that he has been made too weak), the film characters are often diametric to their book counterparts. So, of course, they will be operating on a very different "wavelength"! To suggest that there is little or no difference between the Parth Galen sequence in the book and the film simply illustrates a failure to understand exactly what happened - and even more importantly, why it happened.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The only difference is that Jackson gave the audience a scene between Frodo and Aragorn as a way to bring closure to their partnership. But to use Mrs. Maggot's terminology, Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" too. You can sit and argue all day about the how Boromir's death, the orc attack, and Merry & Pippin's capture changed everything. The reality is that the quest was always THE number one concern of all. So if Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo by choosing to follow Merry & Pippin, what's the REAL difference between the two versions?

You can give me excuses like "oh, it was Aragorn's chivalry," "But Merry & Pippin would have spilled the beans," "The danger to Merry & Pippin was more immediate," and on and on, but if all agree that everything pales in comparison to the quest of the Ringbearer, then there is NO difference.

Is it just me, or does this sound an awful lot like "What? You actually have answers? Well, I won't listen to them!"

[BeardofPants]

Can I insert a gratuitous farty noise right about here?

[Lizra]

Ok, but no smell!

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is getting rather tiresome, but for the sake of clarity or understanding or whatever, I will reiterate that I found Tolkien's "reason" for Aragorn's desertion of Frodo not terribly excuseable either. Indeed, the first time I read the book, I was actually astonished at his decision. I later understood that Tolkien had to have Aragorn make that choice in order to develop the story in the way it was in fact developed. However, I recently was involved in a debate in which I was on the side that said Aragorn was in fact wrong to permit Frodo to go to Mordor without him. We won!

Of course, it was the "correct" decision in the end. Had Aragorn accompanied Frodo it would probably have been disastrous at least for Rohan and Minas Tirith. And then, too, we have the man's obvious prescience as already illustrated in his warning to Gandalf before the Company entered Moria. This may go some way to explain why he could make such a fatalistic statement as "the fate of the Bearer is no longer in my hands". Nevertheless, however questionable the book Aragorn's decision was under the circumstances in which it was made, the film's Aragorn's was worse under less excusable circumstances and for definitely less acceptable reasons.

And for those reasons alone the two "decisions" are decidedly different although they produce the same result: Frodo and Sam going forward alone on the quest.

[Black Breathalizer]

I do think that our "Aragorn's Parth Galen decision" discussion minimizes Frodo's role in this whole affair.

Frodo was chosen by the Council of Elrond as the Ringbearer, not Aragorn. Gandalf's and Aragorn's roles were to guide the Ringbearer, not lead him and tell him what he had to do. It was Frodo who made the decision (in both the book and the film) to go alone. Was it Aragorn's responsibility to stop him? Would Gandalf, Elrond, or Galadriel have counciled a different course? As Gandalf and Galadriel said, even the wisest cannot see all ends.

It seems to me that one of the themes of Tolkien's book was that even the smallest person can make a difference. I can still recall the strong feelings I had when I first read the end of FOTR at age 14. I remember thinking, "how can Frodo DO that?!?!? How in the world can he THINK he can go to Mordor WITHOUT Aragorn and company to PROTECT him?!?!?!?" That is exactly what Tolkien wanted me to think. It was a very important aspect of the story to him. Jackson understood this and created the same emotions for his FOTR audience. I heard many people who had never read the books wonder how Frodo was going to be able to make it to Mount Doom considering how much he depended on the rest of the Fellowship throughout the first film.

Chalk this one up as yet another example of Peter Jackson getting it right.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I do think that our "Aragorn's Parth Galen decision" discussion minimizes Frodo's role in this whole affair.

Frodo was chosen by the Council of Elrond as the Ringbearer, not Aragorn. Gandalf's and Aragorn's roles were to guide the Ringbearer, not lead him and tell him what he had to do. It was Frodo who made the decision (in both the book and the film) to go alone. Was it Aragorn's responsibility to stop him? Would Gandalf, Elrond, or Galadriel have counciled a different course? As Gandalf and Galadriel said, even the wisest cannot see all ends.

It seems to me that one of the themes of Tolkien's book was that even the smallest person can make a difference. I can still recall the strong feelings I had when I first read the end of FOTR at age 14. I remember thinking, "how can Frodo DO that?!?!? How in the world can he THINK he can go to Mordor WITHOUT Aragorn and company to PROTECT him?!?!?!?" That is exactly what Tolkien wanted me to think. It was a very important aspect of the story to him. Jackson understood this and created the same emotions for his FOTR audience. I heard many people who had never read the books wonder how Frodo was going to be able to make it to Mount Doom considering how much he depended on the rest of the Fellowship throughout the first film.

Chalk this one up as yet another example of Peter Jackson getting it right.

Jackson couldn't have gotten it any "wronger". He has Aragorn knowingly and willingly permitting Frodo to go off alone - and I mean alone since at this point, it is obvious Frodo does not even intend to take Sam. Tolkien made Aragorn's decision take place after Frodo has already gone off - and with Sam.

Jackson's Aragorn is obviously concerned that he will be unable to resist the lure of the Ring at least at some point, if he continues to be involved with it. True, he "escapes" that temptation at Parth Galen, but at what cost? The cost of allowing Frodo to go off unguided, unaided and unprotected. Tolkien's Aragorn never has the problem and so the Ring plays no part in his eventual decision not to follow Frodo and Sam. Rather that decision is motivated by a belief that "fate" has decided that he is no longer responsible for Frodo and the Ring coupled with his very real obligation (as leader of the Company) to Merry and Pippin.

In the end, Jackson brings about the same situation, but in a way that underscores either his lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the story or his boast that he could "tell it better" than Tolkien. Either way, the story loses.

[Elfhelm]

Return of the King, Appendix A:
"It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."

However, in Dungeon Magazine in the early 80's on the AD&D race of dwarves it was similarly declared that dwarven women were not inclined to go on adventures, and it was specifically stated that they had beards.

Now that the AD&D thing has been added to the Tolkien thing by the screenwriters, I suppose it's not going to be questioned.

[druss]

surfer legolas????? the only theme that represented was to appease the "Xtream" kiddies. It really ruined what is one of the best cinemagraphic scenes I have ever seen...shame.