How Faramir got Slighted (Movie-Book Comparison)

[ethuiliel]

Sometimes that's the only way to watch a movie and truly enjoy it... forget what it's based off of. For me, the first time or two, I am ALWAYS really disapointed, but after a while I either get used to it, or learn to ignore the changes and enjoy it for what it is... a good movie. I'll always be disapointed with these (very wonderful) movies if I don't force myself to take them by themselves, as seperate from the books.

[Wayfarer]

*pokes* Except for little things like the fact that even if you have never read the books that TTT and RotK were based off of, the character Faramir in the movie was incredibly badly done.

Ultimately, the problem with Faramir (specifically) wasn't that he was 'dumbed down' from the books. It's that the character as presented was one-dimensional to the point of being unbelievable. He's the amazing cardboard-cutout man, who shuffles onto the stage from one side and spouts some cheesy lines before doing a complete 180 and heading back the way he came.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I agree with that 100%! I mean, the other characters in the movie- books and creator notwithstanding- have some form of depth: history, conviction, reasons to be there. Faramir lacks even a reason to be there! Remove him from the story (here I am taking RotK:EE out of the equation- most people don't even know the EEs exist anyway), and what do you have? So he didn't detain the hobbits, and they would have had a slightly easier ride to Mordor; he wouldn't have been there to loose Osgiliath (that would have fallen to some other insignifigant character); he wouldn't have been there to attempt to regain the city, which doesn't change the story either... the list goes on. What good, really, is inserting a 'cardboard-cutout' of a character into these movies?
-Actually, on retrospect, I suppose the hobbits did need to be detained in the movies, because of another one of PJ's oversights- Sam didn't spur Gollum to keep his deal with Shelob, as he does in the books. In the movie, it is because Frodo supposedly betrayed Gollum into Faramir's rough hands that he (Gollum) ended up going to Shelob. Argh!
Here is another point of Faramir's getting slighted/burned/whatever: in order to save Sam's character a heap of degrading (Despite the fact that his being cross with Gollum was, at heart, innocent, it was Sam who set Gollum's resolve to keep his deal with Shelob.), we give this dirty job to Faramir, and make him out to be the bad guy. And then, on top of all of that, Pete expects us to turn around and like the guy after he says "I think we understand one another." WHAT?! So, in order for us to feel more compassion for Faramir's situation, what do we do?- We make Denethor into a really mean, crotchety old man, lacking almost all of the nobility and pride he has in the books. So, instead of having Gandalf and Denethor duke it out on an intellectual level, with the fencing between the eyes and all that, we reduce GANDALF to whacking Denethor in the face and taking control of Minas Tirith by brute force (although I must admit that that moment in the movie was pretty cool). And all this is to make Sam look a little better- which, seeing as he is my second-favorite character, doesn't sound like such a bad proposition on the face of it. But is it really worth all the change?
True, I am drawing things to gargantuan conclusions here, but it's the little things Pete messed with in the beginning that made for big problems in the end.

Don't get me wrong, here- I do think that PJ did a great thing when he created a visual Middle Earth. However, I think that all his messing with the characters and the story really hurt it. Even from a movie standpoint.

[ethuiliel]

The sad thing is that I agree with you guys about 99.9%. It's just the .1% of me that's arguing... I do think that Faramir was portrayed pretty badly.

[ethuiliel]

I watched the new 6 minute trailer, and basically, I began to agree with you completely. My reaction to it was basically: "Wow!! Faramir acts like Faramir!! He stands up for himself!! He says he would never take the ring!! He's finally Faramir!!!!" So, basically, while most of the movie he was okayish (barely) he wasn't truly Faramir, as he was in that one, short, clip in the trailer.

[Manveru]

ya i cant wait to see that scene
but some of Faramir's best parts in the book are in TTT and now those are really screwed up

[Jon S.]

Believe it or not, I joined this forum specifically to post this link. Perhaps some of you have already read it though I don't see any indication of that in any of the posts so far.

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

[Elemmírë]

Nice link, Jon S.

So... instead of destroying Faramir's character, they mess around with Frodo's instead, speeding up his corruption by the Ring, and for no apparent reason manage to screw up the plot. Typical.

By the way, welcome to the Moot.

[Jon S.]

Thank you, Elemmire. To be frank, I'm not sure this is the best place for me despite my being a huge Tolkien fan for 30+ years ago. Basically, I'm an optimistic kinda guy and look at the glass as half full whenever it's possible to do so.

From my lurking here to date, the prevailing spirit here, at least as far as the films go, is to focus heavily on the negative.

My approach to the films is simple. The book version of the LOTR is an adaptation of the Red Book of Westmarch compiled by the Hobbits. As such, it is hardly surprising that their version of history would whitewash their heros, including Faramir. Jackson's take on Faramir, to me, is frankly more honest-feeling than the books.

The bottom line is, myself, I view Jackson's movie version not as a failure to follow the "truth" of the book but more as an alternate channeling of the common "historical truth" underlying both. So I truly am not bothered by virtually any of his changes because the films are fun and life is short. I would guess this makes me an iconoclast in this neck of the woods.

[Elemmírë]

Don't worry about it, Jon. Your not the only one who likes the movies, and definitely not the only one who's read the books and likes the movies anyway.

Of course, there are less purists who do... Myself, I don't appreciate most of the changes, and downright can't stand some of them, but all in all I enjoyed the movies (I can't deny that, even when I'm in a particularly movie-bashing mood. The number of times I've watched them speaks for itself )

Don't worry, most of us won't attack you for it.

[Nurvingiel]

No worries Jon S. Welcome to Entmoot, I hope you post other places too.

I read part of the link, but it's 3am. I will post one comment for you though - I think Faramir knew enough of the Ring to know not to try to take and/or use it.

In the books, that's where Faramir succeded in resisting its evil, and Boromir failed.

In the movies, they both fail, and that's where one dimension of a vastly complex world is lost.

The movies are entertaining, but the reason it seems that we focus on the negative is because that's more fun. There's only so many times you can say the sets were really beautiful, but as you can see from this thread for example, the more negative aspects lead to an interesting and involved discussion.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I read part of the link, but it's 3am. I will post one comment for you though - I think Faramir knew enough of the Ring to know not to try to take and/or use it.

So you're 6 hours ahead of me. I was wondering.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The movies are entertaining, but the reason it seems that we focus on the negative is because that's more fun. There's only so many times you can say the sets were really beautiful, but as you can see from this thread for example, the more negative aspects lead to an interesting and involved discussion.

Nurvi's got a point. Bashing things is always fun.

Maybe we're just contrary.

Does someone want to pull this back On Topic now....?

[Nurvingiel]

Hey, my last post was totally on topic.

*re-reads post*

Crap.

[Elemmírë]

btw, I still agree with Nurvi. Wait... I never agreed with Nurvi in the first place.

Yes. I agree. In the movie, it seems that both Faramir and Boromir fail.

I am covered

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hey, my last post was totally on topic.

*re-reads post*

Crap.

Ah, at least yours was somewhat on topic.

Mine on the other hand spun directly away...

So that's why I was saying to bring it back on topic.

And now we're talking about how it's not on topic.

How sad.

On the bright side.....

This is post #400!

A sad way to waste my 400th post...

But just 100 more and I can annoy SGH with a title...

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

The films make Faramir seem more part of Denethor's and Boromir's family. However they still had Denethyor despising Faramir, which didn't go with the way they changed Faramir's character.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

No worries Jon S. Welcome to Entmoot, I hope you post other places too.

The movies are entertaining, but the reason it seems that we focus on the negative is because that's more fun. There's only so many times you can say the sets were really beautiful, but as you can see from this thread for example, the more negative aspects lead to an interesting and involved discussion.

Thanks for the kind words and you're right, too, I understand completely.

I was thinking more about the issue of how Jackson handled Faramir overnight (in my dreams, I guess ) - Aragorn, too - and an analogy that came to mind was perhaps to compare "official" and "unofficial" biographies of men like President John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

The view we'd get of the men from the former would be much more akin to the view we get of Faramir and Aragorn from Tolkien (via the Hobbits, considering the "source" material).

The view we'd get of the men from the latter would be much more akin to that of Jackson, i.e., the men are less pure, noble, and self-less, more conflicted, imperfect, mistake-prone, and - I'd argue - human.

At first, an admirer of Kennedy or King who had, for years, only been exposed to the official version might well react with anger and disdain to the unofficial biographies, if not reject their varying content entirely. Over time, however, the same person might begin to accept the latter and even begin to harmonize the two internally as, for example, the guy who wrote the analysis of Faramir in the link I posted initially has done and as I've done.

Kennedy and King are still Kennedy and King even with their womanizing, mob issues, and financial breaches. Their essential characters and achievements are not lessened as a result in my eyes but perhaps even magnified because the true meaning of courage is not being fearless or incorruptible but to conquer your demons and move forward even in the face of doubt and fear.

Faramir - and Aragorn - they're still big-time heros to me in Jackson's rendition.

[Elemmírë]

I understand your argument, Jon S., and I appreciate your take on the situation:

Originally Posted by Jon S.

My approach to the films is simple. The book version of the LOTR is an adaptation of the Red Book of Westmarch compiled by the Hobbits. As such, it is hardly surprising that their version of history would whitewash their heros, including Faramir. Jackson's take on Faramir, to me, is frankly more honest-feeling than the books.

The bottom line is, myself, I view Jackson's movie version not as a failure to follow the "truth" of the book but more as an alternate channeling of the common "historical truth" underlying both. So I truly am not bothered by virtually any of his changes because the films are fun and life is short. I would guess this makes me an iconoclast in this neck of the woods.

It makes sense, really. All history seems to be glorified by the victors. It seems likely that the Hobbits would prefer to let it be believed that Faramir had never been tempted at all, and thus could have made a minor change in the plot. I see where you're coming from.

From the article you provided, it doesn't seem to me that either one is a more honest account of Faramir's character. As was written, he is simply responding to different situations in different ways, and yet still being faithful to his own character.

I would question which accounting of Frodo's character is more faithful.

Even if we want to theoretically put the differences down to the Hobbits' compilation of the events, however, I do have a problem with some of the other change, partly Arwen's horse race in LotR and the Elves' surprising, uncharacteristic, and somewhat unrealistic appearance at Helms Deep in TTT...

That, however, would fall under an entirely different thread, so I'm done.

[ethuiliel]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

The films make Faramir seem more part of Denethor's and Boromir's family. However they still had Denethyor despising Faramir, which didn't go with the way they changed Faramir's character.

If anything, Denethor hated Faramir more... Well he seemed even meaner in the movie than in the books... not that I liked him in the books...

Basically, a lot of the character were changed a little, and I think I agree that more faults are shown in the movies than in the books. But I like the characters the way they are in the book. They're not without fault, but those faults are less... bad...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Thank you, Elemmire. To be frank, I'm not sure this is the best place for me despite my being a huge Tolkien fan for 30+ years ago. Basically, I'm an optimistic kinda guy and look at the glass as half full whenever it's possible to do so.

From my lurking here to date, the prevailing spirit here, at least as far as the films go, is to focus heavily on the negative.

Don't let that stop you from posting. You may find some opposition here but I still have to see something on which all of us agree on this board.

Originally Posted by Jon S.

My approach to the films is simple. The book version of the LOTR is an adaptation of the Red Book of Westmarch compiled by the Hobbits. As such, it is hardly surprising that their version of history would whitewash their heros, including Faramir. Jackson's take on Faramir, to me, is frankly more honest-feeling than the books.

The bottom line is, myself, I view Jackson's movie version not as a failure to follow the "truth" of the book but more as an alternate channeling of the common "historical truth" underlying both. So I truly am not bothered by virtually any of his changes because the films are fun and life is short. I would guess this makes me an iconoclast in this neck of the woods.

I have the feeling you'll get along fine with Olmer, one of our 'mooters here that like to think 'outside the book' too (in other words take the book at more than face value).

You and I probably won't agree on everything but I'll be interested in reading your view on things. So welcome to the Entmoot!

[Manveru]

i found a really interesting quote about faramir from tolkien, which he said to his son i think "I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him . . . but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien . . ."