Was it out of character?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I am not a fan of the decapitation scene; though the movie has a different take on Aragorn's character and the parley situation, it feels wrong to me as well.

However, in reaction to the "Wyatt Earp" thoughts on fair fighting that have been expressed here, I would like to quote what Tolkien himself said on the topic. This is from The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son, 'Beorhtnoth's Death'; it describes the reaction of a nobleman to a battle situation which seemed to favor his side:

The Northmen and the English were thus separated by an arm of the river; filled by the incoming tide, it could only be crossed by a 'bridge' or causeway, difficult to force in the face of a determined defence. The defence was resolute. But the vikings knew, or so it would seem, what manner of man they had to deal with: they asked for leave to cross the ford, so that a fair fight could be joined. Beorhtnoth accepted the challenge and allowed them to cross. This act of pride and misplaced chivalry (bolding mine) proved fatal. Beorthnoth was slain and the English routed; but the duke's household... fought on, untill they all fell dead beside their lord.

Where is the nobility of attempting to accomplish a task by a method guaranteed to fail? Should Frodo have marched into the Black Gate and dropped his gauntlet at Sauron's feet? (...add more possible examples of similarly misguided chivalrous behaviour here...) Would that not indeed have been a sign of pride, overestimating one's own ability, strength, and importance?

Again, I distinguish between the misinterpreted movie MoS decapitation and the general defeat of Sauron by a tricky strategy that enabled the success of the forces of good in Middle-earth. The latter is absolutely legitimate - and obviously, Tolkien agrees!

[The Saucepan Man]

Phantom, I still take the view that the Wyatt Earp analogy is off, but that's not really the issue here.

If one considers the "diversion" strategy (as helpfully highlighted by Legorli in the film) against Aragorn's decapitation of the Mouth, it seems to me clear that the former is a legitimate wartime tactic while the latter is cold-blooded murder (however evil the murderee).

To convert these incidents into modern day analogies, I am sure that we would all agree that it is perfectly acceptable for an outnumbered army to draw the attention of the enemy force while covert spies behind enemy lines attempts to destroy the enemy's headquarters. But I am not sure that many would agree that it is acceptable to summarily execute a non-combatant emissary of the enemy, and that is precisely what film Aragorn did. If the MoS had obtained information that could endanger Frodo's mission, then it might have been acceptable to take him out, although I would say only only if his capture was not possible or feasible. But the MoS had no such information. Letting him go would have made their situation no worse than it was already.

And I am not sure that the fact that the enemy is inherently and totally evil should make any difference. If an Orc attempted to surrender to Aragorn on the field of battle, would you consider Aragorn justified in killing him nevertheless?

[Boromir88]

I've enjoyed the conversation so far, and don't have much more to add besides a few things...

Estelyn, thanks for that bit on The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son. Maybe something to help out the convo (or only make it more confusing). When fighting opponents, it was also believed that you didn't have to follow the typical rules of war, if you were fighting an opponent that you believed to be "barbaric." They didn't have to break the rules of war, just taking them as barbaric, could justify breaking the rules. Clearest example is the British.

When fighting the French they had to stick to the rules (or atleast supposedly stuck to the rules). Since France was in a way England's equal. However, when the English fought the Indians, they were allowed to break the rules, since the indians were considered inferior or barbarous. An example of what the English wouldn't be allowed to do to the French, but was allowed to the Indians would be the small pox incident. Where they gave Indians blankets from the Small pox clinics to the Indians intentionally spreading disease amongst them (often seen as the first intentional act of biochemical warfare).

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

I believe that Movie-Aragorn's decision to kill the Mouth of Sauron was probably written from an entirely cinamatic stand point. Somewhere along the lines of, "Well, this guy is really annoying and ugly, so lets have Aragorn kill him." Many a non-book audience member would probably cheer.

As far as whether this is honorable or not, I don't think that anyone could ever come to any sort of agreement on this, because each person has their own sense of what they think is right or wrong. Personally, I don't think the film screenwriters even took this into consideration. I originally thought that they may have thrown it in to get some of the audience members to think, "Oh no, Frodo is dead!" But considering that this scene was put into the extended edition of ROtK, this is probably not right.

Another thing that has not been brought up yet is how this killing of the MoS affects the next events in the movie. Although this is entirely from a cinimatic prospective, I must confess that I thought Aragorn's decapitating of the messenger took away from the power of his performance when the Black Gate opens, and he says, "For Frodo," and then runs into battle. In the EE, Aragorn has already killed something by the time he says this. I don't know why, but for me, this previous kill took something (perhaps honor) away from that line.

[Essex]

I think it actually makes it MORE poigniant.

Maybe I'm going against some of my posts above (and maybe not) but what we have here is Aragorn 'honouring' Frodo because he believes he is dead. Instead of in the cinematic version what they are doing for frodo is fighting for him to have a greater chance to complete the quest, they are now fighting, I believe, in rememberence of Frodo, even though he 'failed'.

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

Though I still abide by my original opinion, I must admit that you have made a very good point, Essex. It has lead me to the conclusion that this scene, as it appears in both the cinamatic verson of the movie and the EE, could arguably be considered two seperate points of view. In the theater verson, Aragorn's line, "For Frodo," and his following actions are performed more out of optimism. He wants, as you say, to give Frodo more time to destroy the ring. Where as in the EE, since he may believe in his heart that Frodo is truly dead (though we never know for sure what he thinks) his actions are more pessemistic; his way of making a last stand in Frodo's name. As to which of these perspectives is "better," that is merely a matter of individual opinion.

This has also got me to thinking about the cinamatic version of ROtK as it compares to the EE in general. The original question of this thread concerned Aragorn's characteristic, or uncharacteristic, decapitating of the Mouth of Sauron. I think that the theatrical verson versus the extended version may actally show two different sides of Aragorn's character. Or at the very least, two different perceptions of Aragorn's character by the screenwriters.