[Bill Ferny]

In regards to Mr. Jackson’s portrayal of both Aragorn and Faramir, and for that matter Boromir (especially the scene between he and Aragorn in the extended version of FotR), its pretty obvious that Mr. Jackson is dead set on demonstrating the weakness of men. He uses Aragorn’s character to play out an inter-character drama (to use your brother’s words), and I’m sure in the end we will see Aragorn accepting his destiny, but with a woeful heart and a yearning for yesteryear. I agree, that’s over the top and melodramatic, and it is not Professor Tolkien’s Aragorn, but there are hints of it in the LotR, even though it was limited to a few select characters, and not Aragorn. Mr. Jackson even put that theme into Gandalf. Am I the only one to be put off by how Gandalf acted in the presence of Saruman in the movie, FotR, as they walked through the gardens at Isengard? The Gandalf of the books was humble, not weak and kowtowing.<P>As far as gratuitous scenes, I think both pointed out by your brother could be called, with validity, gratuitous. However, every artist attempts to portray some meaning or message with what is presented, and the scene in Osgiliath is obviously conveying Mr. Jackson’s pet theme, the weakness of men. No matter how many arguments I’ve heard to the contrary on this forum, that scene made no logical sense, despite the meaning conveyed or room for artistic license. Seriously! How could the ringwraith miss that perfect opportunity to snatch the ring? Are they all that inept? Now Aragorn going over the cliff and being lost for awhile… that really didn’t make much sense to me either, especially because for the life of me I can’t figure out what Mr. Jackson was trying to convey. Unless, of course, it was only used as an opportunity to get Liv more screen time. (Did anyone else notice the wacky camera action of him taking off on horseback? It reminded me of a spaghetti western.)<P>I don’t think, though, that I would go so far as to call the movies a travesty (so far). Aside from some obvious problems of interpretation on the part of Mr. Jackson and his screen writing crew, for the most part the script honored the spirit of Tolkien. I don’t think there were any themes in the movie completely foreign to the professor. Mr. Jackson may get a C in regards to a comparison to the books, but he gets an A for effort, and an A for making the best action/adventure movie of all time.<P>However, that’s not to say there was a good dose of modern idiom that at least makes me chomp at the bit. It can be argued, quite rightly, that some themes were over-emphasized to a degree that would have perplexed Tolkien. The whole weakness of men thing is in the books, but our modern view of the “our self” in all it’s cultural relativism and self-reprehension, takes the notion to the extreme in the movies. Tolkien loved the Beowulf type character, who was good, strong, noble and courageous right to the very core. Such a character would be ridiculed by today’s masses, and shrugged off as elitist. ‘Tis a shame.