Re-Reading Lord of the Rings 05: a palantir isn't an excuse.

[myaru]

Since I'm supposed to be sleeping so I can get to an early appointment tomorrow, it's time for an LJ post instead.

So like. I don't see that the movie did Denethor any terrible injustice, now that I've re-read him in Return of the King. What the movie did was neglect to mention that he was influenced by a palantir; what it didn't do was change much, really, except the timing of what he did. The events were more or less the same. Faramir was wounded in a different battle, at a different time, but in similar circumstances, and Denethor still says and does the same things, and I'm left with the feeling that the problem with the movies isn't that they changed characterization, but that they neglected to explain the background, and maybe played up what was on the surface - but not to the point of character assassination. Denethor's real motivations don't make me want to punch him any less. Gandalf isn't human and therefore not as fallible as he's depicted when he faces the black rider, but is played off that way because explaining what the Istari are is out of the scope of a movie, even one that tops three hours. Aragorn doesn't run out of Rivendell with his sword already reforged, ready to take over the world, because he's one of our main characters in the movie, and something we need in a main character is a story arc with some visible growth. I suppose I haven't been paying as much attention to Aragorn as to Sam's true, unrequited love, but it doesn't seem to me Aragorn has changed that much over the course of the novels.

Faramir, ditto. I was interested to note that his mini monologue in the movie, which I loved so much - the one where he speculates about the feelings of that fallen southerner just before he takes Frodo and Sam into custody - was actually Sam instead. Faramir doesn't need any character growth, apparently, because he's being contrasted with Boromir, who was everything he isn't, and vice versa. But will that fly in a movie? LOTR has the best Problem ever in the form of the ring, and since everyone else has to overcome it, why not Faramir? Now he looks more heroic, or something! In this I think the book is lacking, actually, because the contrast between Faramir and Boromir would be greater if both were put to the same trial. It's endearing that Faramir cares more about his brother than a stupid ring, but after all the buildup, it's also kind of a let-down that he doesn't even give it a second glance. Good for his quality, maybe, but still a let down. (Sam lecturing him in the middle of the forest, though? So awesome.)

I should probably make the statement that I don't necessarily agree with the changes to the movie versions in all cases (eg. Gandalf), or even think I'm right about why they were made, but... feel like I see why they might've been? What would I do? I don't think I could do it better. Much easier to take it as-is and go back to the book for the real experience.

One thing I do agree with wholeheartedly, though: there was no call for the Witch King shattering Gandalf's staff. That's just ridiculous. Their confrontation could've been averted the same way it was in the books.

Since Gandalf isn't a mortal man, and perhaps not bound by the prophecy, technically (?), I'll just pretend that the Witch King ran off for easier prey because he knew Gandalf's fist had an appointment with his (spectral) teeth, and they wouldn't survive the encounter. In the book, I mean, because the movie treated him too well.

Well, either this will start an argument or it'll be ignored. I hope for the latter, personally, since I'm not saying anything new.

The last stretch in Mordor, which is coming up, is really not my favorite thing. I would love to skim. But Sam will be doing great things, and I wouldn't want to miss that, now would I?

Comments

[amielleon]

Mark had linked me to a fan ranting about movie changes. He criticized Aragorn's weakness and Faramir's corruptibility because he preferred the book version of characters who are above mortal men, above common fallibility.

Whatever, man.

[myaru]

I remember disagreeing on these points the first time I looked at it. While I get the sentiment, I personally don't find characters like that compelling, which may be why I left the novels - the first time - with a weak impression of just about everyone but Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. And now, having seen the elves behaving as badly or worse than Men, I wonder if all of that aboveness isn't just an illusion anyway, even in the context of LOTR.

[mark_asphodel]

I don't agree with the rant-author's contention, especially wrt to Faramir, but I do see somewhat where they're coming from with Aragorn (as much as I like movie!Aragorn) in that he's being put into a more typical Hollywood sort of reluctant hero role, which doesn't make sense given his actual age and history. And movie!Aragorn does let slip that he's over 70 in one EE scene, so what the hell?

And I stand by my contention that Denethor got shoved into an inappropriate role-- even the way his death scene was staged changes the way one perceives him, IMO.

[myaru]

.... true, re: Aragorn. Didn't think of that; he really should have it together by age seventy or eighty, or they shouldn't have mentioned it (like they didn't mention so many other things, for similar reasons).

Denethor: In the books you do get the sense that he was once greater than he is now, and there's a lot more depth to his clashes with Gandalf. But, while he's not depicted as completely batshit insane (because he isn't), his decisions didn't change that much, and deeper understanding of his motivations also doesn't help me that much, personally. You're right, they took his paranoia and despair and ran with it in the wrong direction. I'm not sure it ultimately changed him that much, though, I guess...? It's like they had to put him in, and they needed some dramatic tension because waiting just isn't enough, and POOF, Denethor is suddenly an antagonist.

I will admit I dislike him a little bit. Not a lot, just somewhat. That bias is showing. :/

[samuraiter]

Since I just read it yesterday: Aragorn's character arc does exist, but it happens entirely off the page, relegated to a lonely appendix. :-| By the time we "meet" him in the books, he's already close to the end of his journey, and has already been through most, if not all, of his major trials. Kind of an author fail, IMO, since those trials are, for the most part, not even referenced in the story.

[myaru]

Yeah, that sounds like author-fail. :/ We could've at least heard about some of it, especially when the moment Aragorn and everyone else has been waiting for for years - his wedding to Arwen - is so tied up in it.