Cinematic Frodo: Victim of Downsizing?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lyta,

Thank you for posting those conflicting views. I have been wanting to say this for some time, but haven't gotten to it.

Let me begin by saying that overall I enjoyed the movies. The films are definitely PJ's version of the story rather than Tolkien's, and the two are not always the same. But when I sit in the theater, I am generally able to put asside those differences and appreciate his retelling, particularly in terms of RotK.

The changes that bother me most are those of characterization. And there are two instances where I find myself questioning the wisdom of what PJ did. The first is Faramir. I can accept the Faramir depicted in the EE as a young man tormented by his father's obvious preference for Boromir. There is a hint of that in Tolkien, a hint that Tolkien discusses at greater length in his Letters. But the plain fact is that the Faramir of the extended edition is not the Faramir of the books -- the Man who states he would never pick up the Ring even if it found it lying on a road, the respectful heir of the traditions of Numenor whose friendship with Gandalf had deep roots. That Faramir is simply gone.

The other character almost entirely missing from the movie is that of Frodo Baggins. I am afraid I agree almost wholly with Juliet Waldron in her essay on Frodo Downsized. In fact I would go even further. The Frodo in the movie is a different character than the one in the book. On these differing characters, see the thread 'Two Frodos' in Books which I posted way back in June of 2002, after the first movie's release:

Click

here.

We never have the sense of movie Frodo possessing the wisdom that was so clearly evident in Book Frodo. I love the scene in the book where Sam looks at his master while he is asleep on the very steps of Mordor. Sam comments on the light in Frodo's eyes, how it has grown brighter, and how much he cares for him. There is the scene in Rivendell where Gandalf makes a reference to Frodo becoming like the Phial of Galadriel, with the light of the sliver of the Silmaril shining through, and silently wonders how Frodo will eventually end up. Frodo the Elf Friend is simply not depicted in this film (just as the richness of Faramir's tie with Numenor is missing).

This Frodo is much younger than the Frodo in the books, not only in physical appearance but in how he acts and thinks. The Frodo of the books is a 50-year old hobbit (even if he looks 33!) and is very much a mentor and guide to the younger hobbits, especially Samwise, in the same way that Bilbo was to him. In the movie, the roles are reversed: Sam acts as the "older" one, offering sage advice and consolation. Interestingly, movie Frodo's defense of Gollum is portrayed as stemming solely from self interest -- his personal desire not to end up like Gollum, whose torment he understands. I have very little sense of Frodo acting out of any altruistic sense or the need to show mercy. And, by the third film, Frodo is overtly blind to Gollum's manipulations. It is Sam who has the wisdom to see the true situation. This is not the situation portrayed in the book where, on one occasion, Gollum came within a hair's breadth of true repentence. Frodo's sending Sam away is actually a pretty logical step, not in terms of the Book Frodo but the Frodo whom PJ has invented for the film.

Added to this are all the other things this essay has already noted. Many of the scenes where Frodo is perky or strong have been changed or removed from the movie: Weathertop, the Barrowdowns, standing on the table and singing at the Pony, the ride to the Ford, Gandalf's description of the hobbit to Butterbur, and the conversation with Faramir where Frodo boldly asserta "Those who oppose the Enemy would do well not to hinder" the errand of the Council. Even later on in Mordor, there are discussions in the book between Frodo and Sam which leave a different impression than the Frodo who is constantly fainting and rolling his eyes upward.

As far as the other comments.....I beg to differ. No one is saying Frodo is the 'one' hero of the LotR. But when I walk out of the movie, I have the distinct impression that Sam is the only one of the two hobbits who has any real backbone or wisdom, and that's a distortion of the book.

I have a very serious problem when I read something like this:

As in all retellings, the story comes to resonate with the time it is being told in. Peej's Frodo is a hero for the modern era. Like many people in the modern world he feels overwhelmed by the challenges life has put before him. In this age of high divorce rates and an unstable job market, Peej's Frodo is a hero that endures rather than overcomes, as we are expected to endure these things rather than overcome them. The world is a lot bigger and us a lot smaller nowadays. This makes him different from Tolkien's Frodo, but does not necessarily make him inferior to him.

Tolkien was not writing a story about high divorce rates and people of the 21st century who barely manage to get by. He was writing about a conflict of good and evil. He was drawing on ancient myths, not on the anti-heroes of much modern literature, a genre Tolkien generally disliked. I think JRRT would barely have recognized the downsized Frodo Baggins as the character in his book.

Finally, a word about Frodo's sacrifice, which some say vindicates everything else. Quite frankly, those who go to the movie and never read the book have very little clue as to why Frodo is leaving, why he is making this sacrifice. Yes, his shoulder hurts and he seems reclusive and no longer fits in. But nowhere do we see Frodo hurting, really hurting, the way he did in the Book, or understand that the hobbit was tormented with feelings of guilt and continuing desire for the Ring.

Why did this happen in PJ's interpreation? That's the interesting question to me. Partly it's the result of putting someone as young as Elijah in the role. He looks and acts quite a bit younger than 33, even in hobbit terms. He comes off as wholly innocent , nervous, and vulnerable right from the start. The Book Frodo did have elements of this, seeing himself sometimes as a martyr, but far less so in the earlier parts of the story.

There may be something else going on here. It is easy for us to understand the kind of goodness Sam exemplifies -- someone reaching out to help his close friend and doing something for his family. It's harder in this day and age to appreciate a hobbit who has visions, who hears Gandalf's voice inside his head, and who goes out with Bilbo searching for Elves even before he starts the quest. We just don't connect with that kind of "hero". One movie critic has written an extensive review that PJ had trouble depicting goodness in his characters. I would disagree. PJ did a good job with Sam -- he had more trouble with Frodo's Elvish leanings and Faramir's wonderful heritage from Numenor. My guess is that he simply didn't understand those things -- they failed to resonate in his heart.

So, on Oscar night, I will definitely be rooting for RotK. I will probably go to the movie after that and shed another tear or two. I don't "hate" PJ's Frodo, and I will smile when the hobbit smiles near the very end at Grey Havens. But when I walk out of the movie I will also acknowlege that two of my fondest characters just didn't make it onto the screen.

(Wow! Reopen the movie forum and I manage to write a gargantuan Book post....)