I would not describe Book Aragorn as proud. Far from it. That is a word which generally, in Tolkien’s works, has negative connotations. And Aragorn is self-evidently not a negative character.
I would, however, describe him as stretching perfection to the bounds of credibility. For a while, this did irritate me about him. He was just too perfect for my liking. In re-reading the Book as part of the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion, it has been interesting to note that he does show flaws. During the period from Gandalf’s fall in Moria through to Boromir’s death he suffers quite deeply from self-doubt. And there are times, particularly in the earlier chapters, where his judgement is slightly off the mark. But these instances take up only a handful of pages, proportionate to the overall length of the Book, and I think it is fair to say that, while he is not perfect, he is just about as near to being perfect as it is possible to get. Then again, this is a fantasy story, a myth if you like, and a reader who buys into this is probably not going to have much problem with a noble and heroic Ranger-cum-returning King.
But the average modern film-goer is different. People may be prepared to accept fantasy in its broadest sense (Wizards, Hobbits, Elves etc), but they still, in general, expect their “heroes” to reflect themselves to some degree. And a hero who is near-perfect in every respect is unlikely to be as appealing to them as one who has some flaws in his personality which he needs to overcome in order to win through. While Tolkien did not have commercial considerations in mind when writing LotR, or at least they were not his foremost consideration, commercial appeal was necessarily a factor for those producing the films.
So, in Film Aragorn they took an aspect of Book Aragorn’s personality which is portrayed momentarily in the Book and expanded it to become one of his defining characteristics in the films - his “character arc” to use film-parlance. It is something that he has to overcome to become a worthy King and it fits in well with one of the themes that they chose to bring to the forefront, namely the “weakness of Men”. It makes him a more credible character to modern audiences than Book Aragorn would have been, although, in the process, he admittedly loses a large part of his “mythic” quality.
Now whether we agree with it or not, that is what they chose to do. And, having made their choice, I think that, in terms of direction and Viggo Mortensen’s portrayal, they realised it pretty well. Film Aragorn may not have been as noble or kingly as Book Aragorn (throughout most of the film trilogy anyway), but he was, in a sense, more “human”. And I think that he works well as a character in the context of the films, just as (having got over my irritation at his “perfection”) I think that Book Aragorn works well as a character in the context of the Book.
As a side-note, it is interesting to note that they updated Aragorn for modern film audiences, giving him a more credible persona in modern terms, while reducing Denethor, one of the most psychologically compelling characters in the Book, to little more than a pantomime villain. Does this, I wonder, reflect the differing expectations of modern audiences from their heroes and “villains”? Sean Bean’s wonderful portrayal of Boromir might suggest otherwise, although he was portrayed both as a hero and a “villain” (and then a hero again) in the films, just as he is in the Book.
[Doh! I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in any more Film Discussions
.]