Well, I've been biding my time waiting for an opportune moment to return to the topic at hand and I do believe that our
Moddess has provided that.
I don't have time to review the scene
MatthewM mentions where Gimli sits on the Throne of Gondor. Perhaps those who are more versed with the film can do that and comment on the tone, atmosphere, seeming purpose of that action in the movie. I will simply comment on the general possibilities of meaning.
We all know that directors and producers are free as interpretors and sub-creators to create the movie they envision. The problem with PJ's vision is that he and his team of writers have claimed on more than one occasion that they thought they were being faithful to Tolkien's vision. This opens up the can of worms which we dead just love to see wiggle, although we do prefer to see them wriggle through our posts rather than us.
LotR makes very clear that Gondor is a city marked by the rituals and splendor of an interregnum. The chapter "Minas Tirith" in RotK clearly shows Denethor sitting on his simple stone chair below the opulent unused Throne. Appendix A also states that the Ruling Stewards never sat on the throne itself. This is part of Tolkien's appreciation of how monarchies develope symbols of power and authority. There's no happenstance between Arthur's sword in the stone and Aragorn's blade that was unbroken, just as there was nothing meaningless in Elizabeth I's use of symbols in the various famous portraits of her. The symbols represent the Office and not just the person. Parliaments have maces that are symbolic. "The Once and Future King" still has resonance in England--the current Prince of Wales includes the name "Arthur" in his string of names. Perhaps countries which do not have a history and tradition of monarchy produce people who are less familiar with this kind of symbolic meaning. Or perhaps modern culture just deems them effluent of the past and not important.
The fact remains that the Vacant Throne held a meaning in Gondor and in the Legendarium, a meaning which is not established in the movies. So, that difference itself leads to questions, which
MatthewM has rightly raised here, although we need to be careful if the Throne in the movies has the same meaning as it has in the books.
Was PJ simply not interested in this aspect of Tolkien's Legendarium, the role and attitude towards monarchy--was he more interested in the blockbuster action thriller aspects? Did he understand why the Throne was unoccupied in LotR? Or was he aware of it but decided in a modern age of democracy to downplay the significance of monarchy? Did he think that having Gimli sit on the Throne was a way to demonstrate to a modern audience that change was here at hand? Was he trying to imply some sort of Constitutional Monarchy?
I don't think we can simply transfer Tolkien's meaning of the symbol, the Vacant Throne, to the movies (except to note that here is one clear example where PJ's vision of LotR does not coincide with the text). But we can ask what PJ might have meant by having the dwarf sit on the Throne. Really, I would love to have someone ask PJ and his writers about this.
And it doesn't matter that the movies came out years ago and no one asked this earlier. People make all kinds of new observations about books that were published centuries ago. This is part of the fun of reading/viewing/internet discussion boards. Human beings create an infinite variety of ways to count dancing angels.
EDIT: Sorry, cross posted with Merry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961, post # 48
If that was expected of them under those harsh conditions, do any of us honestly believe that the men of Gondor, the Guards of the Citadel of Minas Tirith, would have done or said nothing while a dwarf just kicked back and smoked while seated in the very chair of their just deceased fallen leader?
|
Umm, the Throne was not the chair of their 'just deceased fallen leader' Denethor; it was the ancient Seat of the Kings, untouched by the ruling Stewards, who sat in a plain stone chair at the foot of the empty Throne. But your comment does show that the actions PJ puts Gimli through need to be understood in movie terms because PJ does not deal with the meaning Tolkien gives to the Vacant Throne.