Finally, we're back, and can get on with Sam's thread now.
Apologies for the lengthy delay.
There's just a couple things I wanted to point out with Sam. It's mainly over the decisions/route the films seemed to be taking with Sam's character. Of course, we can continue one with the infamous "Go Home" and Sam's part in it.
But, a review of LOTR (the books) had me wondering about Peter Jackson's (and Sean Astin's) portayal of Sam. Edmund Wilson states:
Quote:
|
For the most part such characterizations as Dr. Tolkien is able to contrive are perfectly stereotyped: Frodo the good little Englishman, Samwise, his dog-like servant., who talks lower-class and respectful, and never deserts his master. These characters who are no characters are involved in interminable adventures the poverty of invention displayed in which is, it seems to me, almost pathetic.
|
(emphasis mine)
Several thoughts spring to mind here. I think first, Mr. Wilson seems to suggest "dog-like" in a negative way here. That Sam's dog-like loyalty and servitude to Frodo is repulsive. It's rather interesting, considering how much I love dogs. Although, calling a person a dog would probably be taken as an insult, even if you want to compliment the person for their loyalty.
So, this leads to, do you think the Jackson made Sam "dog-like" in the films? Or is it a good thing he stayed away from it, if he did?
Then the 2nd bolded word, servant. Do we get a sense that there is a class system in The Shire? And Sam is Frodo's servant.
I mean I know you have the exchange:
"What are you his bodyguard?"
"His gardener!"
*uproarious laughter*
But, I'm really curious if Jackson stayed away from clearly separating Sam and Frodo on the class level? If so, was it a wise decision?