No real discussion of Lord Of The Rings?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 20:03
VIEWED: 9473
PAGE 4 of 5

Quote:

---

BUT, they completely screwed up my Faramir!!! I have an entire rant about it somewhere in this thread.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=8358
I haven't quite forgiven Jackson for that.

---

I chimed in on Montanagirl's previous thread about the same things. Farimir was utterly violated in the Two Towers. His character was the stronger in will where Boromir was the greater in battle and leadership. But Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson totally compromised that by allowing him to succumb to the temptation of the ring. I get so angry every time I revisit this issue. That along with the "Sam go Home" sequence in RoTK makes me want to tear my hair out.



Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I disagree that Faramir comes across as power hungry in the movie. His interest is not in power at all. Faramir's one interest in the movie is pleasing his father. He so wants to please his father, that he's willing to die in order to do so.

My reading of Faramir in the book is that he is a dutiful and loyal servant of his father. He's not tempted by the ring, and that shows him to be of great virtue.

I don't see how that was changed that much in the movie. Yes, he orders that the ring be taken to to his father... not because he wants it, but because that is what he feels his father would want. HOWEVER, once he sees the true effect of the ring he understands the power involved, and he turns it down. To me, that shows even more virtue.

As it is in the books, "Isildur's Bane" and "The Ring of Power" has reached the status of legend... some don't even believe that it exists.
Faramir shows virtue by letting Frodo go.

In the movie, pon hearing that it does exist, he wants to do his duty and bring it to his father -- the duty that his brother died trying to accomplish. After seeing its true power, Faramir shows virtue by letting Frodo go.

Which is more virtuous-- letting something go that you've only heard of; that could possibly help your kingdom? Or letting something go that you've seen the power it possesses?

Think back to the flashback where we see Boromir's victory at Osgiliath-- one can assume this to be the greatest victory in Boromir's life. We see his father's pride over this physical victory by his oldest son. This sets up beautiful visual symmetry for Faramir -- his greatest victory also comes at Osgiliath. His victory isn't one of physcial strength, however. It is one of strength of character and strength of virtue. And this goes to not only strengthen the character of Faramir, IMO, but to strengthen the importance of Osgiliath as a thematic location.

How does the entire LOTR movie begin? With the physical victory over Sauron. The victory is one of strength, while at the same time, a loss because of Isildur's lack of character. The same way that Isilur couldn't turn away from the ring, Boromir couldn't turn away.

Move to end... Frodo and Sam are able to get the ring to Mount Doom because of a strength of character... the same strength of character demonstrated by Faramir in Osgiliath when he allows Frodo to leave.

If you see LOTR as the tale of Middle Earth passing from the Second Age to the Third Age, this makes perfect sense. Boromir represents the Second Age man- who wants to rule by power. Faramir represents the Third Age man, who wants to rule by strength of character (much like Aragorn).

By having Faramir's "victory over the ring" come in Osgiliath, rather than in a secret mountain hiding place, the Boromir/Faramir relationship is put into a more mirror-like representation to the Isildur/Aragorn story-line of strength of arms vs strength of character.

I, for one, feel like the characters of both Boromir and Faramir were fleshed out more in this way on screen than in the book. Faramir had other things in the book - a lot more at the houses of healing in specific - that were sadly left from the book.

As for the Arwen/Aragorn stuff added for the movie -- almost all of this is actually located in the Apendix to the LOTR. I believe it is appendix #2.

The addition of the Elves at Helm's Deep I don't have an explanation for. It was just a decision made by the filmmakers. I don't like or dislike the change either way, because I don't think it really impacts things. If men had not won the battle of the Pellenor Fields that would be different.

As for the difference in the amount of time Gandalf is gone from the Shire before returning with news for Frodo to leave with the ring... I think this is the best change made. My biggest complaint about the book is that it seems for its first 150 pages that there is no urgency. The ring that could allow Sauron to take power and control all of Middle Earth has resurfaced, but it takes years for

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

And I thought I was the only person who wrote long posts. I have written long ones in the buffy and angel forums about strong feelings I've had regarding issues in those series. If I can get worked up about those shows, in comparision I go totally insane when I discuss the things about LOTR that upset me. I have held this series up in my mind as perhaps the greatest fiction work in the 20th century. I've studied it since childhood and I've even role-played in it under the old rules for MERP in the 80's. I know a LOT about it. This post is about many things. True, it's about the series itself but it's also about what the heart of good storytelling is. It's about the responsibility of authors and filmakers. And ultimately, I'm writing this on a site dedicated to a work of Joss Whedon's, a man I feel has honored his duty to his readers and fans.

The greatest sin a writer or filmmaker can commit is to violate a character. I rant on and on about Willow in season 7 buffy (refer to the buffyverse board if you care) as having been violated in buffy season 7. Here I'm going to focus on LoTR. I understand that filmmakers are forced to make choices when adapting a book to film. They have to avoid "pitfalls" or rather events that transpire in the book they're adapting that would not work well in a film verson. I know LoTR was a supreme challenge to make, I understand and respect that. But I cannot abide violations of core character values. In the 3 films there exist exactly 2 moments when core character traits are compromised.
1. When Faramir succumbs to the temptation of the ring in what I term the "Ring goes to Gondor" scene.
2. When Frodo orders Sam to leave in what I term the "Sam, go home" scene.

Tolkien had carefully established character developments twixt Farimir and his brother. The two TOGETHER represented what a man of Numenor was in the early second age. Strength of body & a leader of men(Boromir), and Strength of will & humility combined with purity of heart(Faramir). Apart they represent what the men of Numenor became after Sauron corupted their hearts and their island was cast into the sea by the Valar after the king dared to set foot on Valinor. We see these traits expressed in their reactions to the Ring of Power, the physical expression of corruption. Boromir is tempted and succumbs to the ring. Ultimately this leads, indirectly, to his death, though he repents at the end. Faramir too is tempted, but read carefully his statement to Frodo in the book(see Montanagirl's post above for exact wording). He does not seek the glory that the ring could bestow. He sees the ring for what it is: the physical expression of evil in the world that must be destroyed. It is because he represents the purity of the men of old that he sees the ring truely. To say that Farimir's actions in the film to "do his duty and take the ring to his father" was honorable is incorrect. To argue that Boromir's actions to likewise take the ring to Denethor were honorable are also incorrect. Boromir was not seeking the ring for Gondor, he was seeking it for himself, regardless of how he lied to himself about it. That is the power of the ring and what it does to the hearts of those who seek glory. Farimir's purity in the book is correctly protrayed. His actions in the film to take the ring to his father are not.

Farimir's intentions aside, what one has to completely understand is not what Farimir's character is doing, but rather why Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens had him do it. They explain in the film's commentary that this change was made because TTT is a book that moves slowly for Frodo and Sam. Also, since the events of the hidden stair and Shelob's lair occur during the events of RoTK for everyone else, they had a major writing pitfall to overcome. The change was made, NOT because Faramir wanted to take the ring to his father, but because the film needed more screen time devoted to Frodo and Sam. It's a book-to-film translation issue. My response to that problem? They should have still done nothin

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I think you misunderstood my point regarding Faramir deciding to take the ring to his father out of duty. It's my assertion that he gave no real thought to the ring... it was simply what his father wanted. He wasn't taking "it" for himself because he was giving no consideration to what "it" was... only to the desire of his father to have "it," and his duty to provide his father what he wanted. In the scene where Frodo is confronted by the Nazgul, Faramir sees the ring as the ring, as what it actually is. As you put it, "the physical expression of evil in the world that must be destroyed." Upon actually being confronted with the ring as what it is, he maintains his purity from the book, by letting it go.

I understand why people get upset at the idea that Faramir's character has been ruined if he wants the ring. I just don't see it as him wanting the ring. I see it as Faramir wants simply to please his father... no consideration is given to the ring, because he doesn't really have an understanding of what the ring is. He knows of it through legend. I would say Faramir's decision to take Frodo to Gondor is done out naivety more than anything. A naivety removed in Osgiliath by actually seeing the ring for what it is.

The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is that this movie had to be accesible for those had not read the book. My guess is that the real reason for this, as well as the "Sam go home" scene is simply to create tension for those who are not familiar with the book. If you think Faramir wants the ring, it creates tension. If you think Sam is leaving Frodo, it creates tension. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the idea of changing things for the sake of creating tension...

I didn't much care for the "Sam go home" scene. But I had no problem with the way Faramir was dealt, because, as I said, the way I see it, when Faramir was actually faced with the decision of what to do with the ring, he let it go. Whether that takes place at Osgiliath or in the secret cave doesn't matter (to me). And, to me, he wasn't actually making a decision as to what to do with the ring in the cave... he was making a decision to please his father with no consideration given to something that he didn't understand.

Certainly there are things that could have been done better by the filmmakers. I personally think that it is not made clear why Denethor has gone insane. In the book we know that the palantir is responsible. Why not show him using the palantir? The houses of healing is one of my favorite scenes in the book. Why is it glossed over? Ultimately I concentrate on the things done well, which is a lot... because for me, the book is still the book (and Peter Jackson says this a lot), and I can go read my copy any time I'd like. The movie is a cliff's notes version, done better than I could possibly have imagined. I understand the idea of wanting to protect the intent and character of a story. I think there are ways of accomplishing that goal that differ from the way they are in the book. And I feel that is how Faramir's character is dealt with.

Brian

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nxojkt:
I just don't see it as him wanting the ring. I see it as Faramir wants simply to please his father... no consideration is given to the ring, because he doesn't really have an understanding of what the ring is. He knows of it through legend. I would say Faramir's decision to take Frodo to Gondor is done out naivety more than anything. A naivety removed in Osgiliath by actually seeing the ring for what it is.

---

I get what you are saying. I guess I can accept that as an explaination and I don't begrudge it. But honestly, I really think the film would have been a better experience had Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens not changed things.

One thing I marveled at though was the incredible similiarities between Sean Bean and David Wenham. When you see them together there in the Flashback sequence in the extended Two Towers, it actually FEELS like they truely are brothers. What great casting.


Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by est120:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
"Are you trying to develop a sense of humor or am I going deaf?" Ah Temple o' Doom!!! Sigh!!

---

i loved those movies too. just a side note, the actor who played mola ram passed away recently. :(

that is a great line you quoted. too funny.

"that belongs in a museum."
"so do you."

"well jones, at least you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time."

---

"Street Vendor: Water?
Marcus Brody: No thank you, fish make love in it."

You know I could quote these all day….

What was the name of the actor who played Mola Ram – he looked kinda familiar?

Have you see a site:
www.findadeath.com/

Its run by a friend of mine, Scott Michaels, (well, I say friend, I met him a few times at the pub while he lived in England – Haven’t seen him for a couple of years)!! Its very good and he always likes to be told if actors die….

And now back to the in depth discussion of Faramir’s psychological motivation ….

“You're gonna get killed chasing after your damn fortune and glory!”


***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
"Street Vendor: Water?
Marcus Brody: No thank you, fish make love in it."

---

here is a link to the actor:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0700869/

does anybody here speak english? or even ancient greek, how about that?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by est120:

Quote:

---

does anybody here speak english? or even ancient greek, how about that?

---

Thanks for link!

And for quote - as classicist myself, well schooled in Ancient Greek - know just how he feels!!

I'm going home to Missouri where they never feed you snakes before ripping your heart out and lowering you into hot pits!

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME