Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Hold it. That's what you think. I saw Frodo about to give the Ring to the Nazgul.

All that work... answering BB's each and every post... and he ignores it.

Ha, NO ONE could ever ignore you, Elf Girl!

But you are dead-wrong about the Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgilith scene. Trust me, I've studied that scene VERY carefully. He is not offering up the ring.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Ha, NO ONE could ever ignore you, Elf Girl!

O no!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But you are dead-wrong about the Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgilith scene. Trust me, I've studied that scene VERY carefully. He is not offering up the ring.

But PJ did not make the movies for someone who is going to study it very carefully. He made them for someone who will glance at it and say "Oh, Frodo's doing this." And to me, at first glance, it looked like Frodo was offering the Ring to the Nazgul.

[Elf Girl]

Here they label one shot "Frodo offering the Ring to a Nazgul". Just thought you might be interested that I am not alone on this.

(Hover your cursor over the closeup of Frodo lifting the Ring on it's chain.)

[Elf Girl]

O, and I will add one more thing:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...please provide specific examples...

Emphasis mine.

[IronParrot]

Scrolling down this massive thread, I came across a post by Wayfarer that grabbed my attention because it was in colour. It is worth a response:

I challenge BlackBreathalizer, no I DEFY him, or ANY OF YOU to answer the following three questions:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

Time for me to step up to the plate here.

In The Books:
Frodo spends months, almost a year, planning to leave the Shire, working out the smallest details, hardening his resolve to leave everything behind and make a journey from which he was not sure he would return. He takes his friends along, planning to abandon them in Crickethollow

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo spends perhaps five minutes packing, before he and Sam are literally sent off by Gandalf. There is no planning or resolve, and very little effort on his part.

1.) The necessity of the change in pace is obvious. In a book, you can push and pull with the pacing all you like. In a film, you need a consistent dramatic rhythm that can furthermore be presented in a visual sense. How would we show Frodo planning everything out, selling Bag End and all that jazz? There obviously isn't enough time to flesh everything out into a scene of its own, and a montage of all his preparations would not only seem cheesy - it would in fact seem even more rushed.

2.) No, this does not weaken Frodo's character at all. Given the urgency of the situation, I would say that Frodo was placed in a particularly difficult situation of having to make a decision quickly. If anything, Frodo's procrastination in the book was weakness on his part. Note that Gandalf instructed him to leave earlier, only those instructions never reached the Shire.

3.) Yes, unless you can demonstrate that this change suddenly makes Frodo a "likely place" for strength and wisdom. Because it is indeed out of his own strength and wisdom that he accepts the responsibility that has been laid upon him, regardless of the fact that Gandalf advises that he does so. Remember, even in the book, Frodo didn't come up with the idea of leaving the Shire all by himself.

In The Books:
Again, Frodo had planned out his journy from the shire. He knew where he was going, and how he was going to get there. When a horseman came up the path behind them, he cheerfully suggested that they should get off the road. When the Black Riders begin hounding him he immediately showed initiative by taking them on a 'short cut' cross country.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo was, as previously stated, merely shooed out the door. Rather than take his friends with him, he runs into Merry and Pippen by accident. When a black rider comes along the path, he becomes progressively more panicked until he screams at the others to get off the road. When it becomes clear that the black riders are following him, he is unable to face Merry, who broaches the subject. As they are leaving the shire, he demonstrates no initiative, and needs to be told that they should take the ferry.

1) Never mind the fact that these two examples are only loosely related, let alone diametrically opposed, but no matter. This is a necessary change because... actually, I don't see that it's changed at all. Because of the simultaneity of Gandalf's ride to Orthanc, his goal was to get to Bree, and nothing more, while in the book, much more is revealed earlier. He also does not need to plan for Crickhollow in between. Therefore, there's no reason why he should have incorporated the ferry in his travel plans, and it's clear that geographically, the Black Rider threw him off. The claim that Frodo demonstrates no initiative is founded only on the point that Merry is the one who suggests the ferry, which doesn't make any sense, as you pointed out one sentence before that Frodo was the one commanding the others to get off the road. Just because Merry employs his knowledge of the area in a time of need doesn't suddenly make Frodo useless. You'll also note, again, that there was a greater sense of urgency involved here; the Black Rider got closer to catching him than in the book, for visual dramatic tension's sake, and that demands immediate and impulsive action.

2) I believe the burden of proof is on you here to demonstrate how Frodo has been significantly weakened. Right now, there's nothing for me to refute.

3) Can strength and wisdom be found in unlikely places in this scenario? Certainly. For example, Merry broaches the subject and suggests the ferry as "the nearest crossing." Expected Frodo to say that, didn't ya?

[IronParrot]

In The Books:
Frodo agrees to go into the Old Forest, and sings a song to ward off the gloom. Then, he and sam try to rescue merry and pippin from the Willow, until Bombadil comes along.
After leaving bombadil, and a brief period while frodo takes them back to say goodbye to goldberry, the hobbits become seperated and captured. Nevertheless, Frodo shows enough courage to attack the wight and save his friends, though he'd rather run. Then he calls bombadil and they are rescued.

In Jackson's Films:
Entire Sequence was Cut

1) Time, pacing, focus, and every other screenwriting rule in the book.

2) Considering that this is an omission, not a change, it's really not possible to say whether or not it severely weakens Frodo as a character. If you claimed that it was so, then you would be arguing something along the lines of, "if Frodo didn't save his friends in the Downs, he would have been a useless wimp." Bollocks.

3) Yes, courage and wisdom can be found in unlikely places, and the whole Bombadil tangent was a pretty likely place to cut.

In The Books:
On weathertop, Frodo draws his sword and attacks the Witch-King, uttering the name of Elbereth and turning a blow which would have stricken his heart into one which merely struck his shoulder.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo draws his sword, allright, then drops it and falls on his butt, and then offers the ring to the wraith for a moment before taking it back and getting stabbed in the shoulder for some reason.

1) As there is no way in the film to demonstrate their psychological impact without using visuals, it was only natural that fear and intimidation be presented by showing the impact on the victim. It was a visual atmosphere of fear. Furthermore, the Elbereth thing would make no sense, as the encounter with Gildor was excised. And remember, in the book, that was what most threatened the Ringwraiths.

2) This change perhaps doesn't make Frodo weaker as much as it makes the Ringwraiths a more imposing presence, as you'll notice with how they loom over him, almost as if their shadows push him to the ground. Wouldn't want to break the flow of a nice shot like that.

3) Here, strength can still be found in an unlikely place - namely, Sam. Theme remains intact.

In The Books:
Frodo endures the wound for two weeks, and manages to walk most of the way to rivendell under his own power.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is unable to walk and is near death later that same night (or so it is implied).

1) By having the wound affect Frodo to that extent, the sense of urgency is heightened, and the pacing of the film is thereby kept consistent. Furthermore, Frodo's pain can only be described visually, which naturally forces it to be presented more strongly in a visual sense. Remember, this is that one lasting scar that he succumbs to year after year (Shelob aside). That might as well be believable on the screen.

2) I fail to see how making the impact of the Morgul-blade stronger suddenly makes Frodo a significantly weaker character. You're also factually wrong, in that he did not walk most of the way to Rivendell - he spent a good deal of it atop Bill the Pony, as I recall.

3) You'll hate me for saying this, but Arwen was a pretty unlikely place to find strength and hope in this time of need... funny how that one sequence suddenly makes her a warrior princess, and Frodo a useless weakling, eh?

[IronParrot]

In The Books:
Glorfindel sets Frodo on his own horse, with orders to flee if they are attacked. Nevertheless, Frodo is hesitent to abandon his friends in danger, so Glorfindel is forced to have the horse flee across the fords on its own. Frodo passes within feet of the nazgul, but manages to reach the ford. Upon crossing, he turns, draws his sword, and defies the assembled nine- "By elbereth and luthien the fair, you shall have neither the ring nor me!" In answer, the witch king renders him mute, breaks his sword, and knocks him from his horse. He lies unconscious and barely sees the nazgul as they are swept away.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is carried, half conscious, by Arwen, who fights through to the fords where she turns, draws her sword, and defies the assembled nine- "if you want him, come and claim him". The witch king replies by trying to cross the fords, while arwen begins chanting a spell. The nazgul continue anyway, and are swept away, but frodo is too busy fainting/trying to die, and Arwen has to use elven magic to revive him.

1) I've already discussed the Elbereth issue. The other changes - specifically, the degree to which Frodo succumbs to the wound - are merely an extension of what I have already explained above. There's also the whole bit with finding an appropriate place to introduce Arwen in a format where appendices don't exist, which is an overdone discussion of its own. And where in the heck does Arwen use Elven magic to revive him? Remember, her calling upon the Bruinen and everything is no different than Elrond doing the same in the book, and does not reflect on Frodo whatsoever.

2) Again, just because the wound appears to be stronger doesn't make Frodo, as a character, a weaker person. Are we to judge the strength and weakness of characters solely by their resistance to wounds? If that's the case, then please don't even presume to discuss Frodo, as even in the book, he's about as poked and prodded as a central character can be.

3) I have a lot of trouble filling out these #3s, you know, because the cited examples of changes are so irrelevant to how intact the theme of "strength and wisdom in unlikely places" remains. I suppose that holds if you tautologically define "Frodo" as "an unlikely place" - but seeing as how he's arguably the main character and all, Frodo would be one of the first places I'd look.

Perhaps the key line to understanding Frodo as a character, in both the book and the film: "I will take the Ring to Mordor - though I do not know the way." The film in no way absolves Frodo of the same challenges and responsibilities he undertakes throughout the course of the story. You will notice that by the time ROTK rolls around, Frodo breaks down to become exactly the character you claim he isn't supposed to be. And fundamentally, a line has to be drawn between physical strength and courage, and that which belongs to the heart. The cited examples of Frodo crying out "Elbereth" in precarious situations are not the best case for demonstrating Tolkien's theme of courage in unlikely places: instead, that lies in his continued ability to do the right thing - no matter the cost. Watch that scene where Frodo, thinking his part in the tale was over just a few scenes prior, demands to be the Ring-bearer - three times. Is that not courage? Is that not strength? Try claiming that it isn't while maintaining a straight face. You'd have better luck juggling palantir, all seven of'em.

[Wayfarer]

...

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
But PJ did not make the movies for someone who is going to study it very carefully. He made them for someone who will glance at it and say "Oh, Frodo's doing this." And to me, at first glance, it looked like Frodo was offering the Ring to the Nazgul.

I am right about what Frodo was doing in that scene but you make a good point. PJ made the scene ambiguous and needlessly created doubt in the audience. Score one for Elf Girl.

[Elf Girl]

Aha! Score one for me! *exultant*

...and I still don't think he was merely being tempted to put it on. Maybe if other people tell us what they think, we can see if maybe PJ didn't just not make it clear?

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Just to set the record straight since its been mentioned more than once in this thread: Frodo did not show the ring to the Nazgul in TTT. He was tempted to put on the ring - not show it off -- or worse yet, give it -- to the Nazgul.

What the audience sees is Frodo holding up the ring to put it on since it was still attached to the necklace around his neck.

Actually the way I took it is that the Ring was using Frodo to reveal itself to the Nazgul, unfortunatly my friends who have not read the books saw Frodo as being a weak pansey who should have never been allowed to carry the Ring in the first place. Everybody I know who has not read the books saw it as Frodo giving into the power of the Ring.

[Rían]

I'm very familiar with the books, and I thought in that scene in the movie that Frodo was giving in and offering the ring to Sauron (via his servant the Nazgul). Very out of character for a ring-bearer.

[Rían]

OK, just watched it, and Frodo is at first holding the ring up, then he goes into that eye-rolling-hand-shaking-put-the-ring-on-his-finger mode. So he's definitely (but slowly) putting it on.

[Black Breathalizer]

For the record, PJ is quoted as saying that he patterned that scene after the one where Frodo and Sam are standing near the bridge crossing over to Minas Morgul when the Lord of the Nazgul and his army leave the fortress to join the war against Gondor.

[Elf Girl]

Does that mean that scene will be cut?

[Elf Girl]

Does that mean that scene will be cut?

[Wayfarer]

unfortunatly my friends who have not read the books saw Frodo as being a weak pansey who should have never been allowed to carry the Ring in the first place.

Which is why excessive justifications like those IronParrot provided (and, for the record, I do think much of what he said is reasonable) don't do any good. The character of Frodo /is/ weakened, and the most obvious indicator of this is the number of people who hold the abovequoted opinion.

He is weakened because he is made to appear weak, and the fact that such lengthy justifications are nescessary in order to show otherwise only makes the weakness more obvious.

Frodo is, of course, the central figure of the tale. Part of this weakening is that he has been made merely an accessory figure in the films, and the focus has been taken /off/ the halflings, and put onto the 'wise' and the 'great'. Exactly the antithesis of the story as it should be.

[Elfhelm]

Sam is, not Frodo. Just because Frodo says "I will take the Ring" doesn't make him the central character. Frodo is weak so Samwise can be strong. I never understood JRRT's choice of Frodo as Bilbo's heir because he's such a wimp. But once I realized the hero is Samwise, it all made sense. Frodo is just the cape you wave in front of the bull, while Sam is the sword.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In many ways, I agree with you that Sam is the hero, but Frodo's strength of will to carry the Ring so long is certainly admirable, and I wouldn't call him a wimp.

[Elfhelm]

That's cool. I didn't choose the word wimp here. I'm just saying the characterization is not, in my opinion, totally inconsistent wit the book in this case. The wimp word you'll have to take up with whoever said it first.