Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[IronParrot]

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.

And if that's why you can't call him a wimp in the book, for the exact same reason, you can't call him a wimp in the movie.

I'd go on, but I just wanted to post something short to claim the "500th reply" position.

[Black Breathalizer]

Even the smallest (and meekest) person can change the course of the future.

This is certainly a key theme of the book. If some here want to argue that the characters are "a theme" unto themselves, then it seems to me that Jackson still had to design his movies -- and characters -- with this larger theme in mind. If Frodo stood out from the others due to his daring, courage, and bravery, he would have had the audience viewing him as "the special one" rather than the "everyman" character Tolkien created. I believe Tolkien would have preferred an audience reaction of "geez, Frodo didn't act much different than I would have in that situation" versus, "wow, what a hero!"

The more we see ourselves in Frodo the closer Jackson brings us to Tolkien's own vision.

[Elfhelm]

Haven't we already established that Frodo is not an Everyman figure? And it's obvious to me that Sam is more significant even for Jackson.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There is a big difference to me. It seemed to me that Frodo carried the Ring out of bravery; he's always seemed like a sort of "Suffering Hero" to me. Elijah Wood only seems to me to carry the Ring to stop everyone from arguing. And his mannerisms and portrayal of Frodo (his or Jackson's, I don't know which) just make him seem weaker to me, like someone who is just doing something he is forced to do, while in the book it seemed to me that he was carrying the Ring out of willful desire to stop the evil and save the Free Peoples from enthrallment or destruction of the Dark Lord.

[IronParrot]

"There is a big difference to me. It seemed to me that Frodo carried the Ring out of bravery; he's always seemed like a sort of "Suffering Hero" to me. Elijah Wood only seems to me to carry the Ring to stop everyone from arguing."

And how is that not bravery? How is that not a sacrifice of his central interest to return to the Shire, in favour of doing what's right?

"And his mannerisms and portrayal of Frodo (his or Jackson's, I don't know which) just make him seem weaker to me, like someone who is just doing something he is forced to do, while in the book it seemed to me that he was carrying the Ring out of willful desire to stop the evil and save the Free Peoples from enthrallment or destruction of the Dark Lord."

I would argue that in the film, Frodo demonstrates a certain awakening to the fact that it is his burden and responsibility, after confronting a tremendous amount of self-doubt. Perhaps this awakening comes a little later in the film than it does in the book, but note a key scene.

At the end of The Fellowship of the Ring (film), he has a flashback to an earlier conversation with Gandalf:

Frodo: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

It is at this precise moment that, with absolute finality, he firmly decides to face his responsibility as the Ring-bearer, and go off to Mordor alone. That, to me, is the final sign that Frodo has accepted the nature of his burden. It takes him all of the second half of the film (the equivalent of Book II) to realize this, but he does. That, to me, is growth as a character. It is furthermore in line with the book, as I will demonstrate below.

One thing you must note is that in the film, the possibility of even destroying the Ring isn't introduced until the Council of Elrond, whereas in the book, it was brought up as early as "The Shadow of the Past". This is a critical difference because in the first half of the film, Frodo does not know that the destruction of the Ring is even possible. Therefore, the defeat of Sauron cannot be his motive. But instead, his motive for leaving the Shire is saving it from peril.

In the book, the Cracks of Doom are mentioned early on, and there is ample opportunity for this little gem of dialogue:

'I do really wish to destroy it!' cried Frodo. 'Or, well, to have it destroyed. I am not made for perilous quests. I wish I had never seen the Ring! Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?'

'Such questions cannot be answered,' said Gandalf. 'You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and hearts and wit as you have.'

'But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'

As you can see, Frodo has self-doubt. Frodo needs a kick in the pants from Gandalf to get a sense of the responsibility laid upon him. The only reason why such dialogue in the same vein does not appear in the film until Moria is because that is the first opportunity for Frodo to contemplate the task of the Ring's destruction, which was not part of his mandate until after he sets out from Rivendell.

[Black Breathalizer]

Excellent post, IronParrot!!!!!

As IronParrot clearly pointed out, PJ can only be accused of taking a longer time to show Frodo's resolve than Tolkien did. But movie Frodo came to the same conclusions and showed the same resolve by the end of FOTR as book Frodo. Achieving THAT was considerably much more important to the telling of the tale than whether Frodo dropped his sword in fear on Weathertop.

[Mrs. Maggott]

But the whole point of the story is that Frodo willingly accepts the burden of the Ring WITHOUT a "kick in the pants" by anybody! After offering the Ring to Gandalf in Bag End, Frodo's actions are completely voluntary. Even in the Council of Elrond when there is dead silence as each member tries to determine how to accomplish the destruction of the Ring, it is Frodo who steps forward and offers to take the Ring although no one is "looking at" him or in any way suggesting that he has any more obligation to the Quest than that which he has already accomplished in bringing the Ring to Rivendell.

In the film, Frodo also "volunteers", but it is more in the nature of someone who doesn't like the noise attempting to stop a loud argument. There is nothing in that scene of the selfless acceptance of one's "cross" without any external considerations such as takes place in the book.

These may appear to be "small" distinctions, but their meaning is "large". It is not enought to "end up" in the same place if the means of getting there has changed the vision of the tale. And that is what has taken place in these films.

[Elfhelm]

I think you're trying to hard to find things you don't like. Most people, even readers like us, think the way he showed the Ring manipulating people to argue was just awesome.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I think you're trying to hard to find things you don't like. Most people, even readers like us, think the way he showed the Ring manipulating people to argue was just awesome.

No, it is not a matter of "trying to find things" not to like. It is an understanding of the original story which apparently was beyond Jackson and perhaps some others as well. Simply because the difference between the two appears to be "trifling", does not make it so! It makes a tremendous difference whether or not Frodo chooses of his own free will and without constraint or coersion to accept this burden. If he is coerced or forced in any way, then Tolkien's whole story about simple, ordinary people rising to great heights of heroism is simply "gone". It may not make much of a difference to those who are merely looking at externals, but if one is following the true meaning of the tale as intended by its creator, it makes fully as much difference as it would have if Frodo refused to take the Ring at all! A deed coerced is not the same as one freely done and a burden inflicted is entirely different from one willingly accepted - and that's what the story is all about or at least it's a major theme within it.

[Elfhelm]

I guess, then, that I could say it is "beyond some people" to realise that Frodo was never the hero of the story. It doesn't even matter to me if Frodo chose out of free will or was manipulated by the Ring, because it is Samwise who carries Frodo up Mount Doom in the end, and Gollum who brings his own end by breaking his vow and that's how the Ring is destroyed. Frodo is, in my arrogant opinion, just the porter.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I guess, then, that I could say it is "beyond some people" to realise that Frodo was never the hero of the story. It doesn't even matter to me if Frodo chose out of free will or was manipulated by the Ring, because it is Samwise who carries Frodo up Mount Doom in the end, and Gollum who brings his own end by breaking his vow and that's how the Ring is destroyed. Frodo is, in my arrogant opinion, just the porter.

I would defer in this matter to the opinion of the author for whom Frodo and the other hobbits are in fact the heroes of the story.

However, Frodo may be in your opinion, "just the porter", but Samwise would never had been in a position to carry anyone up Mt. Doom had Frodo not freely accepted the burden of the Ring and managed to get to Mt. Doom in the first place, admittedly with the help of Sam and the rest of the Fellowship. However, without Frodo, Sam is back cutting the verge.

[Elfhelm]

Once again, if we must always defer to the opinion of the author, why bother discussing anything, since the Letters are some sort of inarguable truth?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the film, Frodo also "volunteers", but it is more in the nature of someone who doesn't like the noise attempting to stop a loud argument. There is nothing in that scene of the selfless acceptance of one's "cross" without any external considerations such as takes place in the book.

I view that scene from the movie COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than you, Mrs. Maggot. I see Frodo staring at the ring and suspecting that it is causing the strife that has overcome this distinquished council of elders. Then he sees a vision of flame leap across the ring and KNOWS in his heart that the ring is up to no good.

Frodo's volunteering to take the ring to Mordor had nothing to do stopping a loud arguement and everything to do with realizing -- as book Frodo did -- that he is less suspectable to the ring's influence and is the one to "see it through to the end."

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Once again, if we must always defer to the opinion of the author, why bother discussing anything, since the Letters are some sort of inarguable truth?

To whom would you defer if not the author? You seem ready enough to "defer" to Jackson's interpretation as far as the films are concerned, so why not at least as far as the book is concerned, defer to Tolkien?

Oh, and by the way, I am sorry that you misunderstood my earlier post. I did not mean you when I said that some of the nuances had "escaped" Jackson "and others". Rather, I was speaking of those film critics who had nothing but glowing praise for his work, many of whom declared that he had "faithfully" interpreted the original. Obviously, they know little or nothing about the "original".

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I view that scene from the movie COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than you, Mrs. Maggot. I see Frodo staring at the ring and suspecting that it is causing the strife that has overcome this distinquished council of elders. Then he sees a vision of flame leap across the ring and KNOWS in his heart that the ring is up to no good.

Frodo's volunteering to take the ring to Mordor had nothing to do stopping a loud arguement and everything to do with realizing -- as book Frodo did -- that he is less suspectable to the ring's influence and is the one to "see it through to the end."

There is a world of difference between the book's silent contemplation of fundamentally committed allies trying to determine how to achieve the destruction of the Ring and the free-for-all among rivals and feuding parties which takes place in the film.

In the book, Frodo steps forward simply because he realizes that no one - even these most powerful persons of Middle-earth - has a ready answer to the problem and that it has become increasingly clear the burden is his alone to bear by virtue of the decision of some Higher Power.

In the film, it is apparent that what remains of the free peoples of Middle-earth are about to engage in suicidal internecine warfare as illustrated by the image of the bickering elves, dwarves and men reflected in the fiery surface of the Ring (and thus does the Director inform the audience of their ultimate fate even without the Ring). It is in light of this situation that Frodo steps forth to volunteer. In other words, he is "coerced" and "influenced" by the obvious dischord that exists among the free peoples of Middle-earth and therefore, his decision to bear the Ring is no longer one of personal obligation to the fate of the Ring because he has become enmeshed therein. Instead it is presented as an attempt to forestall inevitable destruction arising not from Sauron's Ring (or even from Sauron himself), but from long-standing petty jealousies and rivalries that have nothing whatever to do with hobbits or Sauron or the Ring!

The result of the decision is the same, but the reason for it is completely different.

[IronParrot]

"But the whole point of the story is that Frodo willingly accepts the burden of the Ring WITHOUT a "kick in the pants" by anybody! After offering the Ring to Gandalf in Bag End, Frodo's actions are completely voluntary. Even in the Council of Elrond when there is dead silence as each member tries to determine how to accomplish the destruction of the Ring, it is Frodo who steps forward and offers to take the Ring although no one is "looking at" him or in any way suggesting that he has any more obligation to the Quest than that which he has already accomplished in bringing the Ring to Rivendell.

In the film, Frodo also "volunteers", but it is more in the nature of someone who doesn't like the noise attempting to stop a loud argument. There is nothing in that scene of the selfless acceptance of one's "cross" without any external considerations such as takes place in the book."

Then you're not criticizing the film at all, but rather your interpretation of Frodo's motives in that scene. I see nothing in that scene that explicitly outlines his motives as such. I see no contradiction between his willingness to take the Ring there and the similar situation in the book. It looks like you're reaching for contradictions. The part in the first paragraph that I highlighted in bold - that is exactly what happens in the film, and this - unlike your interpretation of Frodo "trying to stop an argument" is explicit.

Pick an easier target next time. You complain about people misunderstanding the book - yet at the same time, you commit what can be construed to be a misunderstanding of the film.

Frodo takes the Ring, and the argument ends there, yes - but this does not contradict the fact that it is a selfless and willing action that goes far, far beyond the call of duty! There is no conflict here! If Frodo isn't taking the Ring willingly, then he must be taking it unwillingly, no? So wouldn't that imply that everybody else was arguing as to intentionally force Frodo into taking it? No! He... still... claimed... the... burden... HIMSELF! Independently! Responsibly! (puff puff, pant pant)

To whom would you defer if not the author? You seem ready enough to "defer" to Jackson's interpretation as far as the films are concerned, so why not at least as far as the book is concerned, defer to Tolkien?

As I said about a hundred pages ago, yes, defer to Tolkien regarding his written material. Do not defer to Tolkien in the analysis of the filmic material, because a) Tolkien hasn't seen the film or commented on it, since he's dead, and b) Tolkien doesn't know a darn thing about filmmaking.

As for works like Letters, the reason why they are so valuable to us is because they are completely open to analysis! Not only do we get a sense of what Tolkien thought - but we are able to deconstruct and read between the lines so we can get a sense of what kind of person he was.

Oh, and by the way, I am sorry that you misunderstood my earlier post. I did not mean you when I said that some of the nuances had "escaped" Jackson "and others". Rather, I was speaking of those film critics who had nothing but glowing praise for his work, many of whom declared that he had "faithfully" interpreted the original. Obviously, they know little or nothing about the "original".

The same can be said for a lot of film critics on the other side of the fence. This is not just present in the praise of the film, but also among the few detractors. A lot of film critics - even the most reputed ones, who are excellent at analysing cinematic material eloquently and thoroughly - fell into the trap of pretending they knew the book. Even Roger Ebert (whom I respect a lot, though I only agree with him about 60% of the time) had a great review of LOTR's cinematic qualities, but he complained about the apparent lack of focus on Hobbits and clearly had no idea what he was talking about (even stating, in a contradictory passage, that he was not well versed enough in the book to nitpick about the adaptation).

Therefore, leave the critics out of the equation. Their purpose and mandate is to analyse LOTR as a film - which is the deciding factor of what we would like to term "quality".

This thread here has nothing to do with cinematic quality, but rather the connections between book and film.

[Elfhelm]

So you're really complaining that the hostility between the peoples is enacted at this point instead of revealed through the narrative? It's been a rule of drama for a long time to show not tell. Tolkien does a lot of telling. If you are going to hate the movie for every time Jackson shows through action something Tolkien describes in the narrative then you are basically prejudiced against the medium.

[Wayfarer]

Do you think the shouting match that Jackson portrayed was faithful to the spirit of Tolkien?

I did not. I thought the entire treatment of the races was more taken from D&D than it was directly from middle earth.

[IronParrot]

There is a world of difference between the book's silent contemplation of fundamentally committed allies trying to determine how to achieve the destruction of the Ring and the free-for-all among rivals and feuding parties which takes place in the film.

In the book, Frodo steps forward simply because he realizes that no one - even these most powerful persons of Middle-earth - has a ready answer to the problem and that it has become increasingly clear the burden is his alone to bear by virtue of the decision of some Higher Power.

In the film, it is apparent that what remains of the free peoples of Middle-earth are about to engage in suicidal internecine warfare as illustrated by the image of the bickering elves, dwarves and men reflected in the fiery surface of the Ring (and thus does the Director inform the audience of their ultimate fate even without the Ring). It is in light of this situation that Frodo steps forth to volunteer. In other words, he is "coerced" and "influenced" by the obvious dischord that exists among the free peoples of Middle-earth and therefore, his decision to bear the Ring is no longer one of personal obligation to the fate of the Ring because he has become enmeshed therein. Instead it is presented as an attempt to forestall inevitable destruction arising not from Sauron's Ring (or even from Sauron himself), but from long-standing petty jealousies and rivalries that have nothing whatever to do with hobbits or Sauron or the Ring!

The result of the decision is the same, but the reason for it is completely different.

Okay, so in the book, nobody has a ready solution. In the film, nobody has an acceptable solution on which they can all reach a consensus. In both cases, Frodo comes forward and solves the problem. What is this so-called fundamental difference?

And if the arguments of others were the major thing that "coerced" him to take the Ring (and I say "coerced" mockingly): how come, immediately before, he hears the beckoning of the Ring? Is that not a factor that awakens him to the fact that this task was appointed to him?

And if he is willing to settle an argument between everybody else by taking on the responsibility himself, is that not leadership? Is that not bravery? Above all, is that not the sacrifice of his own interests? Think about what it says about Frodo's character. The fact that his line, "I will take the Ring!" settles an argument adds to his existing motives in the book. It doesn't nullify them!

Your entire argument rests on the claim that somehow the book is nullified, and you have failed to demonstrate this.

And one thing that Elfhelm is indeed right about: at this point, we are not yet aware of the fundamental cultural conflict between Elves and Dwarves. That has not yet been revealed, because in the film, there has been no opportunity to do so. We don't even see Dwarves until the Council of Elrond. So where else do we establish this historically-motivated emnity? Are we to assume that there is complete trust between them? Wouldn't that draw complaints from the purists who would claim that the Elf-Dwarf relationship has been undermined?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
So you're really complaining that the hostility between the peoples is enacted at this point instead of revealed through the narrative? It's been a rule of drama for a long time to show not tell. Tolkien does a lot of telling. If you are going to hate the movie for every time Jackson shows through action something Tolkien describes in the narrative then you are basically prejudiced against the medium.

I beg you to reread The Council of Elrond. Aside from two comments about the elf-dwarf feud, there certainly is no such contretemps as occurs in the film. Indeed, it is quite a civilized gathering. Jackson makes it into a bar-room brawl in order to give Elrond another chance to be "catty" about men in general and Aragorn in particular.