Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalwendė
I think this was Jackson's intent all along and is consistent with how he treated the character of Aragorn. He portrays him as a man who is not comfortable with his position as the Heir to Gondor and who cannot accept that honour. As such, a violent reaction to an emissary would not be out of character. I always think that this change was put there as Jackson maybe felt the modern audience would nto be comfortable with the idea of a clear cut hero with masses of honour, a mistake as it happens, when you consider how the audience/readership idolised the honour driven Ned Stark in A Game of Thrones.
Still, it's perhaps the most jarring incidence of Aragorn behaving without honour and maybe they did not intend him to be quite so arrogant at this stage of the narrative.
|
I believe, that "modern audience" would have thought Aragorn was weak if he hadn't done it. The whole point of "modernity" is that
a) a looser is always wrong;
b) one who thinks he or she is in the right should not limit him- or herself with silly moral restrictions in their fight;
c) killing a bastard is always a good thing while keeping your promise to a bad guy is just stupid.
In this respect modernity can be seen as a peculiar mix of ideology and real politics brining Jesuits to mind but I don't want to put forward any particular examples as they are all quite controversial. In the book it is Gandalf who takes Frodo's garment from Mouth, confusing him with a flash of white light. However Jackson decided to make everyone but Alpha-male Aragorn look sheepish.
A little problem is that this is not the world Tolkien intended to create. But who cares? Although if movie-Aragorn just wanted to convince Sauron that he was in possession of The Ring and his corruption had already begun, his act was just brilliant
