Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
Does non-ordinary mean charismatic? And vice versa, does ordinary mean un-charismatic? Does being aristocratic make one un-ordinary?
|
The whole "ordinary" discussion has thrown me off track a little, too...
The original question of the thread, in my mind, is not whether any of the characters themselves were ordinary in the books, but whether they should have been
casted by very "ordinary" actors, or played in an "ordinary" manner. There I actually agree with
MatthewM, as most of the inhabitants of Bree were portrayed very down-to-earth and ordinary: you could expect to find any one of them down at the local pub in street clothes.
Well, maybe not PJ's carrot-munching character. He was a little sketchy.
But anyway, I'll also have to agree with
Lalwendë a while back. Some of the actors were obviously just chosen for their star status and/or looks, most notably Elijah Wood. That's not to say that Elijah's never shown charisma in another movie (
North, for example), but I stand by the opinion that he was poorly casted as Frodo: none of that charisma came through whatsoever.
In the movies, I think Elijah Wood's Frodo ended up coming out as a very, very ordinary Hobbit who had to do something he really wasn't fit to do. Sure, he showed some pluck at the Council of Elrond, and he helped Gandalf solve the riddle at Moria's Gates (*cough*Merry*cough*), but mostly he falls down and whinges a lot, then is empowered to make a series of stupid decisions based on his position as the Ringbearer. And in the end, one of his bad decisions (Gollum) helps him finish the Quest of the Ring because he's too weak to do it himself.
And in all honesty, I think Sean Astin's Sam came across as much more special and charismatic (and brave) than Frodo.
Whew, I'm done. I still love you, Elijah!