(no subject)

[malsperanza]

Asked what could be inferred about God from a study of His works, the British evolutionary scientist J.B.S. Haldane is reported to have replied that the Creator has "an inordinate fondness for beetles." There are over 400,000 species of beetle--some 20% of all species (animal or plant) on earth.



There are approximately the same number of Orcs in Peter Jackson's ROTK.

The man loves Orcs inordinately.

And also, apparently, Sam.

I mean, when did Sam become the hero of the story? Bizarre. And what happened to everyone else?? Lots of wonderful battle scenes, to be sure, but what happened to the ideas? The arguments about fate and free will? The character development? The interaction of individuals?

Jackson: Well, we didn't have time for all that and reallyreallybig battles.

Me: To be sure. I liked the lighting-of-the-beacons scene, though.

Jackson: Yes, the beacons had a lot of character development, I thought.

Me: No question. The Witch-King of Angmar also had some good character development.

Jackson: He lived without a face for 8 weeks of rehersal to really understand the Nazgul perspective.

Me: Wow. Always hire a Method actor.

Jackson: Yes.


Ah well, it was veryverypretty and exciting and in its own way remarkably faithful. Certainly, as a whole, the three films are far better than I had any right to expect. It seems churlish to quibble.

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I mean, when did Sam become the hero of the story?

Unfortunately, for many people, he was always the "real hero" of the story. Even Tolkien referred to him as the Chief Hero, for which I probably never forgive him. I've recently ranted about this in my lj, in fact. It's a sore spot with me.

Bizarre. And what happened to everyone else?? Lots of wonderful battle scenes, to be sure, but what happened to the ideas? The arguments about fate and free will? The character development? The interaction of individuals?

Hmmm. I thought a lot these things were in there. The final Mount Doom sequence was in PJ's words, made more "intentionally vague" for those people who just need to believe there was something more proactive going on there, but I saw the same things happening as always--the ring destroyed by accident because of choices made by characters. This movie actually seemed more ripe with character connection moments to me.

-m

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

I was going to resist the urge to complain, because I really did like the three films very much & am no nitpicker nor a hater of adaptations. I remain largely convinced by the films' overall characterization of the books, by the performances of most of the actors, and by the look of the movies. Aragorn, Gandalf, Gollum, and the Nazgul in particular are deeply satisfying portrayals.

I suppose that in noticing what I didn't like, I am reminded of what I love in the books. So what the hell, here goes. Though I suspect that you don't need to hear any of this :-)

The Mt Doom stuff was, as you say, one of the places where time was taken to explore the ways in which the Ring and the quest have altered a relationship--an important one.

But in the film, Sam is immune to the power of the Ring--just throw it, Mr Frodo etc--when the whole point is that no one is immune. Gandalf at the Crack of Doom would have done what Frodo did, and claimed the Ring. So too would Sam. That is what the Ring is: unconquerable. The whole point--surely a fundamental one--is that the Ring is destroyed because it was its fate to be destroyed, and its fate was set not by Sam and Frodo's friendship, but by Frodo's profound mercy and decency.

Sam and Frodo's friendship is important, of course (not least because it crosses class barriers), but Frodo's mercy toward Gollum is the key to the triumph of Good over Evil, not Sam's loyalty, love, and honest simple yeoman virtue, as the film would have it. (And of course the Ring is destroyed by a combination of many elements, including Sam's doughty loyalty and love. But mercy and pity are the virtues that preserve Gollum and convey him to the edge of the pit.)

So I did object strongly to that shift in meaning. For if Sam alone of all creatures is immune to the Ring, what does that make Frodo but a weakling, a wibbler? And Gandalf and all the Wise as well. Wisdom, according to this structure, is useless, whole blind, simple loyalty is more precious than any other virtue. And that, I think, goes against the grain of the books. (For even orcs may be loyal to their leader.)

As for Tolkien's comment about Sam, I've always thought that was in part an apologia for his own somewhat confused views about class. Sam is chief hero in that he alone rises from servant to (in his own way) king (mayor of Hobbiton). Psychologically and socially, he has farther to travel than any of the others, except perhaps Gollum. He moves from being servant to friend--and, more important than friend, companion; member of the company. In novelistic terms, it's rare indeed for a sidekick to become a protagonist. And of course Sam is the gardener, and gardeners are dear to Tolkien on many levels.

But in mythic terms, there is no question that the characters marked as the heroes are Aragorn and Frodo. These two alone stand at the Crossroads and make the key decision about which road to take, which will affect not only their own lives but the fate of the world. No one else is asked to make that conscious choice, and no one else does it. The Crossroads is the place where a hero stands and decides (cf Oedipus, Odysseus, Saul on the road to Damascus).

I imagine that Jackson elevated the role of Sam in the end because a) he is Everyman, and easy for audiences to identify with; and b) friendship as a motive for why the world is saved is much easier to swallow than mercy. Mercy is imbued with theological resonance; a secular movie cannot risk that without risking overtones of sanctimony and piety--the kiss of death to all enjoyment. I am grateful that Jackson managed to evade pseudo-Christian pieties there.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That's interesting because what I loved about the movie was that PJ made the scene where Sam is tempted by the ring easy to see where so many people ignore it. I get so frustrated by people who honestly do think Sam is immune to the ring after reading the book (he allegedly proves it in that scene where the ring tempts him with being king and he rejects that) and brush off the moments he clearly is tempted, so I was focusing on that as finally somebody taking that fantasy away. So I had the opposite reaction to how PJ portrayed Sam. For all his obvious heroism that's so crowd-pleasing I thought PJ tried to make it clear that this was Frodo's task and he himself wasn't suited for it any more than Frodo was (personally I think he's less suited given his fierce, emotional nature).

So basically, I have the same outlook on the story that you do about nobody being able to destroy the ring and it being only destroyed by the choice Frodo makes early on to show compassion to Gollum, which he still makes here (I also noticed PJ didn't play up Sam later choosing to spare Gollum and someone suggested this was maybe to highlight Frodo's decision on it). I've just had so many arguments with people who insist that Sam is invinceable and the point of the story is that Frodo should have given him the ring, people who actually get angry when I suggest Sam was tempted in the story in that scene that I was totally focused on that moment as the proof of whether or not PJ got it or not.

I hadn't thought about his yelling Frodo to let the ring go as hinting Sam himself could do it...damn, that invincible Sam is hard to beat down! And Frodo is just so difficult a hero for people to understand. Everybody wants the story to be sword in the stone where Sam, the country boy, throws the ring in and thus proves he's The One when the story is all about an impossible task that nobody can do.

I've always taken Tolkien's comments to be along the lines of the way you described them too. But since that line always gets quoted at me by people trying to tell me that Sam is the "real hero" who could have destroyed the ring if not for that whiny, morally corrupt Frodo I remain angry at him for saying it.:-D

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought about his yelling Frodo to let the ring go as hinting Sam himself could do it.

No, I just thought it indicated that Sam didn't see what the problem was. Not that Sam could do it himself, but that he is immune to the lure of the Ring; for Movie!Sam, tossing the Ring is apparently not that complicated a decision.

Jackson also removed all the elements of Gollum in which he struggles to revert to Smeagol, and speaks of himself as "I." In the book it is nice to see Frodo's hope for Gollum bear some fruit (though ultimately it is ineffective against the power of the Ring). In the movie, Frodo appears to be naive and foolish for believing that Gollum is redeemable. In the book, Sam's relentless suspicion of and hostility to Gollum is one of the things that discourages the Smeagol side of him. Sam's failure to understand Gollum's plight and his lack of sympathy are a serious flaw in him, which Jackson got rid of, for the sake of expediency.

Well, ya know, the lovely thing about a really good book (or movie) is that it leaves room for people to interpret in the way that best suits them. It's a bit harder for a movie to leave that sort of interpretive space. Movies tend to be more literal than books.

Agree re Aragorn's ship-exiting skills, btw. Wish there had been more of that. One very brief shot of him executing a fancy turn with a sword in the final battle was not nearly enough for me. I would have traded a good 8 or 10 minutes of CGI orcs for more Hot!Aragorn swordplay. Poor old Anduril, languishing all those long, shardy years only to be upstaged by Grond. Seems unfair.

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

Oooh, very interesting comments. I, too, feel somewhat guilty about nitpicking, because I keep thinking about what an achievement the movies are, even in SFX alone, and how it could have been done so, so much worse.

I was also thinking today about how perhaps the crux of the story's, er, moral message is in the character of Gollum, who represents individual man, torn within himself between good and evil, and that this would carry the meaning that man is doomed to fall victim to his inescapable sin, a depressing message, but one that I think is quite in tune with the Christian way - that man is doomed to evil unless saved by the forgiving grace of God. And then I was reading wayfairer's recent post about how the love of Sam could represent the overall love of God, that is always supportive and never asks anything for itself. But I couldn't reconcile any of these messages with the face that Gollum is not saved by grace, he is not saved at all - and the only reason the world was saved is by a chance occurance(or not really a chance occurance, but one brought on by Gollum's greed). I like the idea that it was mercy that was the key virtue here. But I still have problems with it, because, well, the world was saved, but it was saved because of Gollum's badness as much as Frodo's goodness, and if Gollum hadn't been there, then Frodo's goodness wouldn't have counted for much in the face of the unstoppable evil. And what about Gollum? Gollum isn't saved. One of the things that annoyed me about LOTR, the books, was that Tolkien kept creating this figures stuck at some kind of crisis between good and evil, and though all of them show the potential to be saved, none of them are saved. Denethor. Saruman. Even Frodo at the end. Grrr, moral message, so bleak you are.

Would Gollum have been saved if Sam had been nicer to him? And if Sam had been nicer to him and saved him, then the world would have been destroyed. It's...disturbing.

Aragorn, Gandalf, Gollum, and the Nazgul in particular are deeply satisfying portrayals.

I find both Aragorn and Gandalf more appealing in the movies. I didn't like Aragorn at all in the books. And Gandalf always appeared kind of crochety. But every time ol' Ian McKellen gets onto the stage and does his wrinkled eyes of omniscient benevolence, I just *melt*, man.

But in the film, Sam is immune to the power of the Ring--just throw it, Mr Frodo etc--when the whole point is that no one is immune. Gandalf at the Crack of Doom would have done what Frodo did, and claimed the Ring. So too would Sam. That is what the Ring is: unconquerable.

Ah, I do see what you mean, but I don't think that that was what happened at all. Sam wasn't immune to the power of the Ring, because even though he had it for such a short time, and never even put it on, he still hesitated about giving it back.

In the books, Faramir is as immune to the Ring as movie Sam was, which is one of the reasons I like him so much, of course, but also as I understand the reason that they made him blatantly unimmune in the movies. In the movies, Gandalf is tempted by the Ring but ensures that he never goes near it, Aragorn is also tempted but does the same thing, and the only one of the Fellowship who actually touches the Ring is Boromir, in ye subtle but significant little moment. And Elrond stood where Sam stood and told Isildur to throw the thing in, so he shows as much immunity as Sam does.

And the whole point of hobbits is that they are remarkably immune to the Ring, and Frodo succumbs because he has been carrying it for almost a year, so I do not think that Sam telling Frodo to throw the Ring in means that he is immune, or attributes any great willpower for him. I think it would be different if Sam was actually holding the Ring. And it's still Gollum, not Sam's cheering, that destroys the Ring in the end.

But I agree with you that Sam's loyalty is very important to the quest, if not the virtue that defines it - since, as we see, all his loyalty in getting Frodo to Mt. Doom matters not at all when Frodo succumbs.

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

b) friendship as a motive for why the world is saved is much easier to swallow than mercy.

Hm, I'm wondering if I've missed something. Did Sam hold Frodo back somewhere, or something? It seemed to me like that scene went as it did in the book, though maybe I see through book-tinted glasses. Gandalf did give the pity speech, Frodo repeatedly forgives Gollum(though I got the impression he was doing it more because of empathy for him, than another type of mercy)

sisterm, I'm boggling that people get mad at you over invincible Sam. Sam never seemed invincible to me. I thought that, since he was less under the lure of the Ring because he hadn't worn it as long as Frodo, it made a certain amount of sense for him to share carrying it, but even that one little stint corrupted him enough to require he left to Happy Elf Heaven. *shrug*

Everybody wants the story to be sword in the stone where Sam, the country boy, throws the ring in and thus proves he's The One when the story is all about an impossible task that nobody can do.

Ah, I think Sam is just the perfect sidekick. He was always supportive and caring and upbeat in the fact of angsting Frodo. He even seemed to take the Ring more out of a desire to help Frodo and....now I'm thinking maybe that's what you mean by invincible Sam? Hmmm.

In the movie, Frodo appears to be naive and foolish for believing that Gollum is redeemable.

Ah, I didn't pick that up at all. It was more an empathy thing, I thought, like I said before. Of course my mad Gollum love may have been clouding my perception. Yup.

Movies tend to be more literal than books.

So true. Perhaps why I can never get into them as much. No matter how shiny. :)

And may I just add that you people rock? I love your style of discussion. Discussion! :D

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I admit I can't get into the grace of God saving things, or even really parallel Sam's love to God's because my impression of Christianity is that God asks very much in return for love. My problem when people try to assert God into the story as causing certain little things to happen (Gollum falling, Bilbo finding the ring) is he starts to sound like a jerk compared to the most minor good character in the book. He'll help, but only after the characters have suffered. Specifically this bothers me when people say Frodo "earned" grace by sparing Gollum--why should everyone have to suffer if Frodo had been overcome with fear or anger and killed Gollum? Why should he have to earn grace when destroying the ring is just the right thing to do?

So for me, it's more a hopeful message about evil destroying itself. Every choice the good guys make makes them stronger. Sauron's camp is full of orcs that need to be controlled by fear and watched. The good guys make sacrifices for each other without being asked. Their bonds and natures make them stronger. Frodo's overall behavior gives him his own backup, so that he doesn't have to rely on his own personal strength to succeed.

I think Tolkien said that Gollum was always beyond giving up the ring--it was the only thing keeping him alive by that point. But I think he suggested that if he had started down that road of redemption in that one scene, he would still have tried to take the ring in the end, but might have thrown himself into the fire with it for love of Frodo rather than having to fall.

Either way, I find it positive that the story needs Gollum's badness as much as Frodo's goodness. Frodo tells Gollum the ring is treacherous and will hold him to his word and it does, because the ring has weakened Gollum to the point where he can't ever be as effective and ally as, say, Sam is.

I see what you mean about Frodo's mercy seeming more tied to empathy in the movie--I think it's among other things a natural result of the movie wanting to show things through character conflict, you know? The idea of a bond between Frodo and Gollum is just so interesting it overshadows something more removed as the kind of mercy Frodo really shows in the book.

He even seemed to take the Ring more out of a desire to help Frodo and....now I'm thinking maybe that's what you mean by invincible Sam? Hmmm.

Yup! Exactly! There's a need to make Sam completely selfless when of course no one is completely selfless. Tolkien himself once even described Sam as being a little conceited and he is--but in a very loveable way. He's that personality type who defines themselves by taking care of others but until they can actually recognize what they're getting out of it they're putting on a show of being a nice guy more than really being helpful. Sam ultimately achieves that development--his desire to see himself as helpful isn't more important than really helping. But a lot of people, I guess, are stuck in the other way. So they get angry at Frodo for not giving Sam the glory by allowing him to carry the ring. It's weird because I think it's exactly the way the ring was warping/would have warped Sam's own thoughts if he'd been corrupted by it. I love this whole aspect of the story!!

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Chesimos wrote: perhaps the crux of the story's, er, moral message is in the character of Gollum, who represents individual man, torn within himself between good and evil, and that this would carry the meaning that man is doomed to fall victim to his inescapable sin, a depressing message, but one that I think is quite in tune with the Christian way - that man is doomed to evil unless saved by the forgiving grace of God... But I couldn't reconcile any of these messages with the face that Gollum is not saved by grace, he is not saved at all - and the only reason the world was saved is by a chance occurance(or not really a chance occurance, but one brought on by Gollum's greed). I like the idea that it was mercy that was the key virtue here. But I still have problems with it, because, well, the world was saved, but it was saved because of Gollum's badness as much as Frodo's goodness, and if Gollum hadn't been there, then Frodo's goodness wouldn't have counted for much in the face of the unstoppable evil. And what about Gollum? Gollum isn't saved.


And the Magpie: My problem when people try to assert God into the story as causing certain little things to happen (Gollum falling, Bilbo finding the ring) is he starts to sound like a jerk compared to the most minor good character in the book. He'll help, but only after the characters have suffered. Specifically this bothers me when people say Frodo "earned" grace by sparing Gollum--why should everyone have to suffer if Frodo had been overcome with fear or anger and killed Gollum? Why should he have to earn grace when destroying the ring is just the right thing to do?

I once had an extended debate with a friend about Christianity in Tolkien. Specifically, about the idea of salvation, which is the key idea in Christianity: that the soul is saved by God (whether through works or through grace, depending on the kind of Christianity one chooses). She thought it was there; I think it is not. If one mines all of Tolkien's other notes--the Silmarillion etc--one can find a theology that is, ultimately, close to Christianity. But I think it is very carefully suppressed in LOTR itself.

And Chresimos points to the key moment: "The only reason the world was saved is by a chance occurance." Gollum, Frodo, and Sam would all choose to keep the Ring; Gollum is not pushed into the fiery pit, and he does not jump. He falls. Accident, chance, not the finger of God. (Somewhere, Gandalf does hint that Chance itself is the residue of a Design--presumably a divine design--but it is very oblique.)

Though Tolkien himself was a serious and conservative Catholic, he chooses, I think, not to use LOTR as a metaphor for a Christian theology. Instead, he is (in a way) explaining the end of the pagan world.

Middle Earth is a world in which fate and free will are equally balanced. When the Ring is destroyed, the balance changes away from Fate and toward Free Will. When the change occurs, that permits the rise of Men (who guided by free will) and the downfall of other peoples--Elves, Dwarves, Ents, Bombadil--peoples who are closer to nature and more closely bound to fatality (that is, to a world guided by fate). It is their close connection to fate that makes them appear to us as "magical."

So I think Gollum was redeemable, though not by God. And I don't think sinfulness is the reason people fail in LOTR. The point about the Ring is that even the most sinless (e.g., Galadriel) would fail. It is not possible to overcome the Ring. And it is only destroyed by a confluence of many events and forces: primarily (as Magpie says) the combined good choices of many people, each of which strengthens the fellowship and strengthens Frodo. Above all, Frodo's pity and mercy (two virtues central to Christianity, though not invented by it). But the final ingredient is Accident: Gollum in his ecstasy trips and falls. And that is a profoundly non-Christian idea.