Frodo v's Elijah

[Child of the 7th Age]

PS Apologies if I've got anyone wrong, but just because he's not 'your' Frodo from the books should not cloud your judgment on whether Elijah wood acted well or not, should it?

Essex -

My perspective on this is different than your own. I find it difficult to separate the character from the actor. This is not only true of LotR, but of other movies as well. If am ill at ease with the way a particular character is depicted in a film, then it is difficult for me to say that the individual did an excellent job in acting. For me, a great or even good performance is made up of two elements. One is "behind the scenes" and is the responsibility of the screenwriter and director. The other lies in the hands of the actual actor. Unless the screenwriter and director come through, there is no way that an actor can give a true quality performance.

This is one of the problems I have with Elijah Wood, whom I did find disappointing when compared, for example, with Sean Bean, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, the two Ians, or even Viggo. How much of my disappointment lies with Elijah and how much with PJ and Boyens? That's hard to determine. I only know I found the constant eye rolling and falling to the ground both melodramatic and overly simplistic, lacking the subtlety that I saw in Frodo in the book scenes. I do not think that Elijah came up with all this on his own: the script and the director had to play a major role. Because of Wood's young age at the start of filming and his lack of familiarity with the original material, he was especially reliant on PJ. I will also acknowledge that I've seen Wood in other movies where I actually thought he had a better handle on his role (e.g., Eternal Sunshine). In the end, though, I felt Wood's portrayal of Frodo was uneven. There were scenes where he came through individually and others where I felt I was watching a "canned" sequence from PJ's brain.

As to the question of "your Frodo" versus "Elijah's Frodo"..... Perhaps, we need to think in terms of a three-part scenario: "my" Frodo (I have gone ahead and personalized the term), Elijah's Frodo (actually an amalgam of Wood, PJ, and Boyens), and Tolkien's Frodo. These three are admittedly not synonymous, and you are right to point out that elements of opinion are involved in both "my" version and Elijah's. However, I think it is possible to agree on certain things.

There is little question that the movie Frodo was appreciably different than Tolkien's Frodo in certain key respects. I see this as fact and not opinion. Movie Frodo was primarily portrayed as a victim. The scenes in which Frodo showed "spunk" or willingness to fight were omitted from the film: dancing on tabletops, striking out against the wraith at Weathertop, deciding to stay and fight for his friends at the Barrowdowns, galloping towards the ford and raising his voice in defiance---"you shall have neither me or the Ring"..... This list could go on. Whatever the reasons for these changes, and they may have been legitimate ones from the standpoint of creating a movie, we are left with a very different Frodo.

Moreover, it is clear from the way the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triad is handled in RotK that Frodo has been deeply deluded by Gollum. It is Sam who has the clearest understanding of Gollum and his nature. There is no question of Frodo showing pity because that is the right thing to do, which is one of the central themes of the entire book. In the movie, we are primarily dealing with psychological motives and deceptions. This makes perfect sense in the context of a 21st century audience; it makes far less sense in the context of a book that draws on the legends of the north, the lure of faerie, and the "true" myth of Christianity. Tolkien was a lot more interested in morality than psychological motive; PJ was not.

Finally, there is the question of age. I do not think the issue here is how a hobbit looks at age "33" or "50" under the influence of the Ring. The central question is one of maturity, not physical looks. Frequently, in the early pages of the books, Frodo is shown to be wiser than the other hobbits and in a position of authority. The four hobbits are not "equals" in this sense. Sam looks up to Frodo and virtually idolizes him from a distance; Merry is Frodo's "helper" in the early pages and does what he's instructed to do. Frodo is also able to chastise the others (was it Merry or Pippin?) when they start teasing Sam about the bathwater. Only later in the story, do Sam and Frodo break down class barriers and become friends. Whatever book Frodo may or may not have looked like, he started out on a different footing than his three companions.

We can argue endlessly whether the movie required that certain changes be made in Frodo's role because of differences in format , the need to show a profit, and the very nature of a medium geared to a mass audience. But I don't feel anyone could dispute that the movie Frodo and book Frodo are significantly different. That does not bother some folk at all: other folk, it does bother. I fall in the latter group. Wood's performance for me is lacking. In my opinion--and it is nothing more than opinion, he can never be a strong Frodo because the underlying characterization is severely flawed before he even steps in front of the cameras.

[aelithes]

Well, when I think of Frodo from the book, I'm filled with this incredibly warm feeling of affection for him; I love his quaintness and charm and innocence. But these attributes (in particular the last) are rather difficult to relate via film, as there is so much less 'face time' with the character and the audience isn't as intimately connected to Frodo's day-to-day thoughts and actions. This, it seems, has profoundly affected PJ's casting decision, and I do think certain concessions were made.

I'm not quite as fond of Elijah as Frodo, but the filmmakers had no choice but to pare down the essence of the character to primarily his relationship with the ring, and the other aspects had to be somewhat compromised, as it were. Nevertheless, Frodo's character, in my opinion, is the most complex, dynamic, and most difficult to portray of all those in the novel and Elijah's performance was quite satisfactory for me. Though it wasn't perfect, I certainly can't think of anyone who would've done a better job of it.

[Bêthberry]

Child, you have taken most of the words right out of my mouth. To me, the larger trauma of the effect of the ring is missing in the movie for the reasons you suggest: movie Frodo was depicted as a victim.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Essex -

My perspective on this is different than your own. I find it difficult to separate the character from the actor. This is not only true of LotR, but of other movies as well. If am ill at ease with the way a particular character is depicted in a film, then it is difficult for me to say that the individual did an excellent job in acting. For me, a great or even good performance is made up of two elements. One is "behind the scenes" and is the responsibility of the screenwriter and director. The other lies in the hands of the actual actor. Unless the screenwriter and director come through, there is no way that an actor can give a true quality performance.

This is one of the problems I have with Elijah Wood, whom I did find disappointing when compared, for example, with Sean Bean, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, the two Ians, or even Viggo. How much of my disappointment lay with Elijah and how much with PJ and Boyens? That's hard to evaluate. I only know I found the constant eye rolling and falling to the ground both melodramatic and overly simplistic, lacking the subtlety that I saw in Frodo in the book scenes. I do not think that Elijah came up with all this on his own: the script and the director had to play a major role. Because of Wood's young age at the start of filming and his lack of familiarity with the original material, he was especially reliant on PJ. I will also acknowledge that I've seen Wood in other movies where I actually thought he had a better handle on his role (e.g., Eternal Sunshine). In the end, though, I thought Wood's portrayal of Frodo was uneven. There were scenes where he came through individually and others where I felt I was watching a "canned" sequence from PJ's brain.

As to the question of "your Frodo" versus "Elijah's Frodo"..... Perhaps, we need to think in terms of a three-part scenario: "my" Frodo (I have gone ahead and personalized the term), Elijah's Frodo (actually an amalgam of Wood, PJ, and Boyens), and Tolkien's Frodo. These three are admittedly not synonymous, and you are right to point out that elements of opinion are involved in both "my" version and Elijah's. However, I think it is possible to agree on certain things.

There is little question that the movie Frodo was appreciably different than Tolkien's Frodo in certain key respects. I see this as fact and not opinion. Movie Frodo was primarily portrayed as a victim. The scenes in which Frodo showed "spunk" or willingness to fight were omitted from the film: dancing on tabletops, striking out against the wraith at Weathertop, deciding to stay and fight for his friends at the Barrowdowns, galloping towards the ford and raising his voice in defiance---"you shall have neither me or the Ring"..... This list could go on. Whatever the reasons for these changes were, and they may have been legitimate ones from the standpoint of creating a movie, we are left with a very different Frodo.

Moreover, it is clear from the way the Gollum-Sam-Frodo triad is handled in RotK that Frodo has been deeply deluded by Gollum. It is Sam who has the clearest understanding of Gollum and his nature. There is no question of Frodo showing pity because that is the right thing to do, which is one of the central themes of the entire book. In the movie, we are primarily dealing with psychological motives and deceptions. This makes perfect sense in the context of a 21st century audience; it makes far less sense in the context of a book that draws on the legends of the north, the lure of faerie, and the "true" myth of Christianity. Tolkien was a lot more interested in morality than psychological motive; PJ was not.

Finally, there is the question of age. I do not think the issue here is how a hobbit looks at age "33" or "50" under the influence of the Ring. The central question is one of maturity, not physical looks. Frequently, in the early pages of the books, Frodo is shown to be wiser than the other hobbits and in a position of authority. The four hobbits are not "equals" in this sense. Sam looks up to Frodo and virtually idolizes him from a distance, Merry is his "helper" in the early pages and does what he's instructed to do. Frodo is also able to chastise the others (was it Merry or Pippin?) when they start teasing Sam about the bathwater. Only later in the story, do Sam and Frodo break down class barriers and become friends. Whatever book Frodo may or may not have looked like, he started out on a different footing than his three companions.

We can argue endlessly whether the movie required that certain changes be made in Frodo's role because of differences in format , the need to show a profit, and the very nature of a medium geared to a mass audience. But I don't feel anyone could dispute that the movie Frodo and book Frodo are significantly different. That does not bother some folk at all: other folk, it does bother. I fall in the latter group. Wood's performance for me is lacking. In my opinion--and it is nothing more than opinion, he can never be a strong Frodo because the underlying characterization is severely flawed before he even steps in front of the cameras.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I remember waaaaaay back in the day when the very first teaser trailer came out for FotR. I eagerly downloaded from the net (legally, I might add) and watched it about a million times. It's the one that ended with the shot of the Fellowship cresting the mountain and walking along in single file. It was pretty easy to tell who were Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli, but the hobbits and the Men were a bit trickier. . .for about 1/5th of a second! I could immediately tell who each of them were.

Back then I had no idea of who Elijah Wood was, but somehow I could tell by looking at him that he was Frodo, so he must have been doing something right.

Off topic a bit -- I well remember how in that clip it was Aragorn that took my breath away. Right from that first glimpse of Viggo, I was sold.

[Lalwendë]

Like Child I find it hard to separate the actor from the role he is portraying and I found the part written for Frodo was simply not right. Hence, even though I generally find Elijah Wood to be a good actor, I did not like him as Frodo, because the part was totally at odds with how I saw Frodo in the books. Where I viewed Frodo as noble, he was instead merely vulnerable. The age question would not leave my thoughts, as I always viewed Frodo to be entering his middle age, yet in the film we had a boy Frodo, which is quite different. The difference between an adult and a boy taking on such a task is immense; a boy might be 'moved' into doing the task yet has less to give up, while an adult has much more to give up. The level of significance is wholly different. And finally, if Frodo is supposed to be the eldest of the four Hobbits, then why do all of them look older than he does? This spoils the story on yet another level as we have four 'friends' rather than one Hobbit and his slightly younger companions who look up to him.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I only know I found the constant eye rolling and falling to the ground both melodramatic and overly simplistic, lacking the subtlety that I saw in Frodo in the book scenes.

I was watching some of the "Designing and Building Middle-earth" featurettes on Disc 3 of the RotK EE today. Three anecdotes really pointed up certain elements of Peter Jackson's sensibility.

The first was about Gothmog, the deformed Orc commander who leads the attacks on Osgiliath and Minas Tirith. Jackson had decided he wanted to go really extreme with the look of this character, citing John Merrick ("The Elephant Man") as a point of inspiration. When he came to look at what the artists had come up with, he deemed it too underdone and started enthusiastically slapping more clay onto the model. He went off to a meeting, and the artist added even more clay, saying that he just wanted to get to a point where Jackson would say that it was too much and to start pulling back. But when Jackson saw the model again, he said, "That's about right."

The second story is about the flail the Witch-king uses in his battle with Éowyn. Jackson kept sending back versions of the weapon, asking for it to be made bigger, until finally Richard Taylor, the WETA guru, had one so big that he was embarrassed to bring it on set because it looked so ridiculous. Jackson's reaction: he thought it was still about 50% too small.

The last story is about the Mouth of Sauron. Jackson, dissatisfied with the effect of the Mouth, finally decided to digitally enlarge what the makeup artists had done with the mouth of the Mouth by 200%. On the documentary, Jackson pronounces, "I like it. It's one of those slightly subtle but sort of disturbing effects."

I thought, "Subtle?! This is what PJ thinks is subtle?"

With Jackson, it's always bigger, broader, scarier, more obvious, more jeopardy, more reversals, more thrills, more, bigger, bigger! This over-the-top sensibility serves him in many ways, particularly in the action and battle sequences, but I think it really hamstrings him when it comes to building characterizations and relationships. Like his effects, Jackson seems to like his characters, from both a writing and a directing standpoint, to be bigger, bigger, 200% BIGGER!

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

With Jackson, it's always bigger, broader, scarier, more obvious, more jeopardy, more reversals, more thrills, more, bigger, bigger!

Yes, in all but one thing: Virtue.

[Esgallhugwen]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:

With Jackson, it's always bigger, broader, scarier, more obvious, more jeopardy, more reversals, more thrills, more, bigger, bigger! This over-the-top sensibility serves him in many ways, particularly in the action and battle sequences, but I think it really hamstrings him when it comes to building characterizations and relationships. Like his effects, Jackson seems to like his characters, from both a writing and a directing standpoint, to be bigger, bigger, 200% BIGGER!

Which is exactly why King Kong will probably be a hit. *(though I did like the MOS mouth it looked as if the size suited him, and it was fantastically creepy)*

But to stay on topic,I agree with most of what you all are saying. I will admit I do like Elijah Wood's acting, but some things did bother me, all the senseless falling, yes sometimes it suited the situation to fall but it became clear that movie Frodo is quite the cluz (aren't Hobbits supposed to be sure footed despite their large feet?) And he did whine a bit too much for my liking, but of course Elijah certainly pulled off some stunning tear jerking spine tingling moments throughout the whole Trilogy, I'll only list a few some of which have been previously posted. And in no particular order.

-In the beginning when he was so remarkably innocent and Hobbit like that truly touched me.

-In Mount Doom when he says "I'm here, Sam"
-The Ring of Fire.
-"Here at the end of all things"
-"Go home Sam!" *ok it wasn't in the book but its actually refreshing to see and hear some harshness come from movie Frodo.*
-His smile at the end, and when he kisses Sam on the head, again very touching.
-In the Orc tower when he asks Sam to give him back the Ring and explains that it is his burden (showing the authoritative-ness)
-The talk at the end of Two Towers about 'Samwise The Brave'
-The epilogue when Frodo is writing his part of the story.

That is all I can come up with for now, I'm sure there are better examples but I havn't seen the movies in awhile.

[Essex]

Child, a lot to answer here, but let's give it a go.

Movie Frodo was primarily portrayed as a victim.

But, to me, that's exactly what Book Frodo WAS. To me, he left for the West not because of Guilt or Sin, but because of Pain and the need to heal. He was a Victim of the Ring and of certain people's desire to use him to help save Middle-earth. He sacrificed himself in the Book AND Film. This is what clearly and most importantly comes across to me from the film. He was the sacrificial lamb. The look on his face as he boards the ship in the film is heartbreaking, but at the same time, comforting to me that he is going some place better to heal. (but yes, perhaps to die)

It is Sam who has the clearest understanding of Gollum and his nature.

Sorry, are we talking about book or film Sam here? For me, in both versions, Sam has an understanding of Gollum, but it is VERY centered (if not quite blinkered). It requires Book and Movie Frodo to explain there is more to Gollum, and that he will be needed to fulfil the Quest.

There is no question of Frodo showing pity because that is the right thing to do, which is one of the central themes of the entire book.

Woa, there tiger! Are you saying movie Frodo does not show pity!!!!???? Yes he does on a number of occasions. In the marshes, as Sam tries to kick the heck out of him by the pool, even after Gollum's betrayal in Shelob's lair (this last one is striking and works really well). Frodo's Pity to me is one of the most important themes of the book and film (as is his Sacrifice mentioned above). Without this pity, the Quest would have failed, and through the pity of Frodo (and somewhat Sam on Mount Doom) Middle-earth receives its Redemption. (To me this is clear in the film, but I admit if I had not read the books then maybe I wouldn't have picked up on it)

Frequently, in the early pages of the books, Frodo is shown to be wiser than the other hobbits and in a position of authority. The four hobbits are not "equals" in this sense.

I disagree. To me Pippin and Merry are of simillar stock. Yes, Frodo is wiser, but again, I think we see this in the film, by the filmmaker's giving Pippin and Merry a more 'childish' theme to them. PS, as was pointed out on another thread today, who says Film Frodo has not been kept 'well preserved' by the Ring as Bilbo was?

Sam looks up to Frodo and virtually idolizes him from a distance..... Only later in the story, do Sam and Frodo break down class barriers and become friends.

But this is exactly as it is in the film. We can see this the way Sam speaks to Mr. Frodo, showing him respect in what he says, and also (to me) in his body language. (e.g. just a little thing, but the way he throws pippin and merry off of Frodo when they run into him, and the way he says that he'll look after Frodo as instructed) And then later in the film, we can see the friendship getting closer and the barriers breaking down, culminating in the marvellous scene at the End of All Things as Frodo and Sam are in each other's arms waiting to Die.

But I don't feel anyone could dispute that the movie Frodo and book Frodo are significantly different.

I think I've just done that above! I understand we do not see Frodo standing up to the Nazgul either on Weathertop or at the Fords. But what do we see throughout the film? His utmost COURAGE. A little hobbit volunteers to take the Ring to Mordor. How much more on Middle-earth can he do to show his courage? He carrries on through Sword, Sting and Bite. Isn't he showing his Courage here? He carries the most dangerous weapon on Middle-earth almost single handed across a Continent, and to the middle of his Enemy's Country. He shows Utmost Courage in both Book and Film.

[Lyta_Underhill]

But, to me, that's exactly what Book Frodo WAS. To me, he left for the West not because of Guilt or Sin, but because of Pain and the need to heal. He was a Victim of the Ring and of certain people's desire to use him to help save Middle-earth.

This may just be a personal prejudice, but I have a problem with seeing either Frodo as a victim. It makes him passive, and, even if Elijah's Frodo fell down and rolled his eyes a lot, he DID persevere and he DID NOT give up the quest for any reason whatsoever. He passed many important tests, although many were glossed over and there was inevitably characterization lost. Sure, he was pushed onto the road quickly in the movie, but it was just a slower process in the books. I think there is a look in Elijah's eyes when he asks "what must I do?" that seems to speak to his acceptance of his duty, rather than the simple man-on-the-run he would be if he were pure victim. He was in an unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) position, and he bore the pains of a difficult quest, but I prefer to think he was chosen, that the Ring was meant to come to him, not for the purpose of victimizing him, but because he had the extraordinary strength necessary to deal with this impossible task. I didn't mean to even type this much, but I wanted to address this one point that always bothers me when people talk about the Frodo or Elijah's Frodo! Thanks for listening, er, reading!

Cheers!
Lyta

[alatar]

I was somewhat disappointed with the movie-Frodo, as he wasn't anything like the book-Frodo. As stated earlier I have no problem with Elijah Wood, but think that his character was poorly written.

I will limit my comments to the movie-Frodo, and note that this is all from memory, so apologies for what I have confused etc.

I was okay with Frodo up through Rivendell, with the exceptions of his actions on Weathertop ("Put it out!" Waaa!) and that he didn't confront the Nazgul at the Fords (that was PJ). I especially liked the part where he accepts the quest, though Gandalf's reaction to Frodo was better.

After that, it's Frodo as victim-baggage. He doesn't know where to go, has to have Aragorn get the Ring from Boromir, gets a new 'do' from the same (just like a little child), gets caught by the Watcher, speared by a troll (though he did use his sword - what was PJ thinking? ), tossed across the gap in the bridge (caught in someones's arms like a babe), dragged away crying after Gandalf falls, outside walks away teary eyed, gets Galadriel-induced indigestion, almost gets sucked into her Mirror. Confronts Boromir, which was good, and hides from Uruk Hai, which is understandable but again if it weren't for Merry and Pippin, he'd still be hiding behind a tree.

He saves Sam, and FOTR has Sam and Frodo going off to Mordor.

In TTT, he falls from a rope, complains about the weather, whines about being lost, falls into the Marshes (luckily Gollum was there), gets captured by Faramir, whines a lot to Faramir about being 'let go,' almost hands over the Ring to a flying Nazgul (good thing that Sam was there) then is released by Faramir after Sam says some magic words.

Frodo did help in the initial fight with Gollum, and he did save Sam at the Black Gate.

In ROTK, Frodo whines about never returning, almost goes to Minas Morgul (good thing he wasn't alone), thinks that his best friend eats too much, gives Sam the boot because Sam is just being too harsh to Frodo's new big-eyed buddy, has an anxiety attack in Cirith Gorgul (not that I'd be really calm), is momentarily helpless as he is stranded in webs, gets bitten and wrapped, is almost killed by an Orc (good thing that Sam showed up), is whiny when forced to march with orcs, and struggles onto Mount Doom, gets immobilized by the Sauron searchlight, gets to Mount Doom and decides not to pitch the ring, gets saved yet again by Sam from taking a lava bath.

Liked where he's Frodo again at the end of all things, and he's okay in the Green Dragon, and the end was okay.

Note that many of these scenes are exactly from the book, yet the PJ version has me seeing Frodo as whiny, helpless and in need of a lot of assistance. Where's the noble Frodo from the book? He seemed to be more of a leader and also seemed to have more resolve.

My long rambling point is that I rarely see movie-Frodo 'in charge, taking the lead, saving himself and heroic.'

I can't get the book line out of my head where in ROTK Gandalf says to the hobbits something like, "that's what you were trained for..." in regards to cleaning up the Shire. To me, then, Frodo after his return is more like Gandalf, the wise one who does not fight but guides people in the right direction. He grew as a results of all of the trials that he had to overcome. Movie Frodo did not seem to grow as much, but was more like 'glad that that's over with.'

[Dragon Reborn]

Originally Posted by alatar

I was okay with Frodo up through Rivendell, with the exceptions of his actions on Weathertop ("Put it out!" Waaa!)

This is an example of the movie Frodo that irritates me too. There are many other scenes like this that I don't agree with. For some people - and this I admit is entirely to the discretion of one's own opinion - his acting is appealing, and for others like me, it is somewhat disappointing.

However the quote above can also be looked at in terms of Frodo's sensibility and wisdom. Compared to the other hobbits he is somewhat wiser, in both book and film. In this sense Elijah/PJ did a good job. They made an effort to make the other hobbits seem younger and spontaneous, which at the same time added humour to some scenes.

There are some things (which I frankly couldn't be bothered to go into) that the movie didn't and never could achieve, as the movie is only an immitation of the book, and has to be able to appropriate to its audience. Therefore the movie Frodo is defenitely not the same as the book Frodo.

Wouldn't this all be made easier if Tolkien was still around to explain things!

[Vanwatholiel]

I admit, sometimes Elijah's phony accent can bug me a little (okay, a lot). At the end of ROTK, when he turns and smiles on the ship from Mithlond, I automatically start crying. It just wrenches my heart. It's like all the pain and paleness and sorrow flee from his face and joy floods back in. Like you can see the same Frodo before he went on the quest. Before he earned all his heartache. Like, you can see the seventeen year old Elijah and not the 22year old Elijah. To put it simply, he became the Frodo before the quest. That part just makes me cry and cry! The look in his eyes...enchanting. *sniff* I'm sobbing now. sorry. *sniff*


Ps. Question: I have read the books, saw the movies, and read all the other books written by Tolkien not related to LOTR but concerning Middle Earth, and I was wondering does Frodo go to Valinor or Tol Eressea? I believe it was Valinor, but it could have been Tol Eressea. Can the learned Tolkien people help me out? (I'm a Hobbit smoking Old Toby, the finest weed in the South Farthing)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Dragon Reborn

However the quote above can also be looked at in terms of Frodo's sensibility and wisdom. Compared to the other hobbits he is somewhat wiser, in both book and film. In this sense Elijah/PJ did a good job. They made an effort to make the other hobbits seem younger and spontaneous, which at the same time added humour to some scenes.

Dragon Reborn, I agree regarding Frodo looking older/wiser than the other three. It worked at times.

Watching FOTR EE as I write, I noticed that during the Balin Tomb fight that initially when the Orcs are entering the room, Frodo is the most surprised/worried/afraid of the four.

Also, in regards to my Weathertop "Waaa!" comment, to be more concise, in the books I never saw Frodo as anything other than a Hobbit, and would say that his 'voice' was always that of an adult. In the movie, however, in that particular scene (and elsewhere) I hear the hysterical cry of a child, so instead of thinking Hobbit, I think child. Couple this with PJ's belittling (sorry) of the Little Folk, and I don't see Frodo being in charge of his own fate.

Note that I thought that Elijah Wood's acting was fine, but again, he did what the directors wanted.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Also, in regards to my Weathertop "Waaa!" comment, to be more concise, in the books I never saw Frodo as anything other than a Hobbit, and would say that his 'voice' was always that of an adult. In the movie, however, in that particular scene (and elsewhere) I hear the hysterical cry of a child, so instead of thinking Hobbit, I think child. Couple this with PJ's belittling (sorry) of the Little Folk, and I don't see Frodo being in charge of his own fate.

I seem to recall a scene in the book from near Weathertop when Frodo is panicking in a manner reminiscent of what some here might term a "Waaa!" reaction. I don't have the books handy, but I can tell you Frodo was NOT composed or showing his older and wiser nature at this point! Also, I noticed all the hobbits voices seemed somewhat higher pitched than the humans' . I wondered about it at the time, thinking Billy Boyd had a particularly high voice, but I put it down to the shortening of vocal chords in a smaller statured humanoid being and thought no more of it. OK, I forgot Billy Boyd was human, and not Pippin the Hobbit, OK? Same with Elijah...but, as mark12_30 says so concisely above, he is not an identical copy of the printed page Frodo Baggins. I think every character suffers from this "shortening," but I can't bring myself to believe that the abridgment of Frodo Baggins makes Elijah less of an apt personification of the character in the context of the film. The Middle Earth of the movies is abridged, shortcuts taken, subtleties lost.

But I think that Frodo of the movies is no more or less a master of his fate than Tolkien's Frodo. They are both in the same boat. They both make the same decisions when those decisions are shown. (Keep in mind that I just assume they went through the Barrowdowns and saw old Tom, even if this wasn't shown!) It does not matter whether Frodo stabbed at the Witch King's feet and invoked Elbereth when we are considering large plot points. It would have made the character richer, but it was not included for one reason or another. In the end, any representation of the character of Frodo Baggins other than Tolkien's will fall short or at least be different enough to lend credence to the argument that it is a different character. Elijah Wood is not Frodo Baggins. But he does a good enough job of invoking the spirit of Mr. Baggins in many (but not all!) particulars to allow me to suspend disbelief and forgive him a few missteps. I remain indebted to the movie for making me go back and re-read the books and for opening my eyes to things I never considered when I first read them (but which had lain dormant in my attic-like brain all the same!)


Cheers!
Lyta

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

But I think that Frodo of the movies is no more or less a master of his fate than Tolkien's Frodo. They are both in the same boat. They both make the same decisions when those decisions are shown. (Keep in mind that I just assume they went through the Barrowdowns and saw old Tom, even if this wasn't shown!) It does not matter whether Frodo stabbed at the Witch King's feet and invoked Elbereth when we are considering large plot points. It would have made the character richer, but it was not included for one reason or another. In the end, any representation of the character of Frodo Baggins other than Tolkien's will fall short or at least be different enough to lend credence to the argument that it is a different character. Elijah Wood is not Frodo Baggins. But he does a good enough job of invoking the spirit of Mr. Baggins in many (but not all!) particulars to allow me to suspend disbelief and forgive him a few missteps. I remain indebted to the movie for making me go back and re-read the books and for opening my eyes to things I never considered when I first read them (but which had lain dormant in my attic-like brain all the same!)

Thanks Lyta. Why the Movie-Frodo fails to appear to be in charge might be due to the 'missing scenes' in which Book-Frodo really asserts himself. In the Barrowdowns he could have cut and run, but didn't, and at the Fords he defies the Nine.

I would disagree in regards to Movie-Frodo's actions at Weathertop. Dropping his sword did not show courage but only helplessness and submission.

Note that I appreciate having the movies made, but if I were to have done them, they'd be much different - (a) no character would ever say, "She-Elf," and (b) they'd be terrible as I know nothing about movie making but only how to carp about the same.