It's too Goody-Goody...they don't like Goody-Goody...but sometimes there has to be...

[Man-of-the-Wold]

...Goody-Goody. This was my Elfin-eyed daughter's (age: 9) prescient way of summarizing her displeasure with how Film-TTT treated Faramir's interaction with Frodo, Sam and Gollum relative to the Book.<P>Seeing as the generic Faramir thread is filling up a second page, I'll ask the moderator to let this one go forth, as a way to further propound my theory about these film-makers, as first discussed in the thread "Weakness of Men ... Hobbits".<P>This theory is that discrepencies between Film and Book are explained by the four fixations bordering on obsessions held by Mr. Jackson and his New Zealander friends, as I've identified. These obsessions probably arise from three sources: 1) The Screenwriters' egotistical need to put their own mark on the Films; 2) "Principles of Blockbuster 101," and last but not least, 3) their own intellectually honest interpretation of the Books in terms of themes and ideas most worth using or exploring. The four fixations are in my current view, as follows:<BR>a. Dark scary characters and scenes<BR>b. Maintain dramatic tension/pace at all cost<BR>c. Men as easily corrupted, power-mongers (which may be more "P.C." than "JRRT")<BR>d. Extreme character development<P>The issue of Faramir seems to arise from b., c. & d., as well as a. if one considers the whole Osgiliath scene that naturally ensues.<P>The essence of my daughter's point holds, in that Faramir of the Book is perhaps too noble for the screenwriters, or at least they don't find any other way to persuasively portray him in a motion picture.<P>I had always anticipated that like Tom Bombadil, Faramir would just be written out of any movie, because he adds little to the storyline at the mechanical level, and nothing indispensable. Perhaps, what we see in Film-TTT might have been best done with a new composite character, who is merely a Captain of the Rangers.<P>But what is it that "Faramir" proper and Tom bring to the story that makes them seem so central to the philosophy and beauty that JRRT creates?<P>Well, that is for each of us to decide, but Faramir is, of course, for one thing: The Window on the West. Through him, since Aragorn does not yet have any titular authority, we glimpse something of the wisdom and majesty of Numenor, as very different but in many ways comparable to even the greatness once achieved by the Elves in Middle-Earth.<P>Faramir's nobility becomes very believable to the reader from the moment that he interacts directly with Frodo, especially during their private sessions. Through his own words we get a very meaningful picture of the person that he has already become, for which his treatment of Frodo is both consistent and at the same time, a moment of growth for the literary character. His character also helps us understand how Gondor has survived for so many centuries, and remains such a potent power, if one not so effectively united under a steward compared to a King.<P>For the film this could simply be too time-consuming and subtle to pull off, especially with the time needed for the other storylines. Numenor is never really explained, understandably. But still, the film-makers may be overly concerned with having all major cinematic characters change in too obvious of a way.<P>Also, of course, pace and dramatic tension are at issue. They don't want to stop the bloody action and have Frodo's early inquisition and then dialogue with Faramir. Rather they want to show that Faramir doesn't really have time to give everything due consideration, rush-rush. Also, it'd be too easy. The film audience now must worry about a potentially grave mistake by someone obstensibly on the good side, rather than a fated encounter that enriches the soul. Treebeard, Merry and Pippen suffer the same theatrical fate.<P>Finally, of course, especially through Galadriel words, we get the film-makers need to potray the easy ignobility of (male) Men, as first indicated with Isildur. Faramir can't be too goody-goody.<P>Nevertheless, in defence of the filmakers and Film-Faramir, I would add the following points:<BR> 1. What we have in the Frodo-Faramir scenes is simply drawn-out version of what transpired at first when the Rangers did detain them and try them; we lose only the subsequent "Window on the West"<BR> 2. Faramir is really bound by laws, not unlike in the Book; the flouting of which is more than merely displeasing to Book-Denethor<BR> 3. To have Faramir let mysterious captives simply go free might have perplexed a movie audience and seemed dull<BR> 4. In the Book he only gives Frodo the space of one year in which to present themselves to the Stewards; the legality of this and Faramir's authority (as one so young) to do so, would have also been a challenge on film and lost on the viewer.<BR> 5. Faramir is really never shown as being seduced by the Ring, but as one who must hastily withdraw, and who really doesn't know what to do, relative to his father's wishes and understandable rules of security<BR> 6. The question of secreting the Ring away as Denethor argues in Book-RotK has not yet been explored adequately in the Films.<BR> 7. When Faramir lets Frodo go; he is not compelled to do so; his older colleague argues the law, and they could still get Frodo to Gondor as easily as themselves; it's a free choice; still, having one's "life forfeit" in such a situation probably does not mean certain execution.<BR> 8. Unlike the Book where Frodo speaks well and more or less truthfully, they do lie about not knowing anything of Gollum in a way that is clearly contradicted later. So, Faramir should then have doubts. This is circular reasoning, of course.<BR> 9. Despite all of my love for Book-Faramir's character; his simply letting Frodo go without any more assistance or something, has always felt a little flat.<P>Lastly, I look forward to some missing scenes with Faramir in the extended TTT-DVD, if nothing else to explain more about where they are and what they are doing in Osgiliath, the inclusion of which is not a bad thing. As a city, however unvisited directly in the Books, it was an important device for JRRT's depiction of Gondor and its history.<p>[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[the mortal elf]

Nice reasoning. You're helping me look on the Portrayed Faramir with a little more tolerance. I'm glad not everyone on the downs is going at him with with any pointy object they can get their hands on

[ReededGoat]

What an excellently written and well-balanced commentary! I myself loved the film, but have much to say in criticism of it. One major point you touched upon I think is very apparent - these filmmakers aren't about subtlety. They use the sledgehammer of onscreen development at every opportunity. This is justified in many ways, since they have a complex plot and complex characters that need to be simplified for a cinematic presentation to an audience which mostly hasn't read JRRT's novel.<BR>I heard over at TORN that Phillipa B. said they felt that Faramir needed more of a progression in the film - that would be the justification for making him seem more strongheaded in sending Frodo to Denethor. This can also be applied as the reasoning for weakening so many of the characters from their book counterparts.<BR>This is definitely one opinion of how characters need to develop, but I think they take it too far. Theoden is really stand-offish about war, irrationally so in my opinion, so that when he finally rides out of the keep it will be really intense. Same with Faramir letting Frodo go, and Aragorn claiming the kingship and Frodo destroying the ring. In fact, it seems that the characters changed the least are the ones that don't need to rise to some specific intense act (the Ents in the film are an exception to this statement). PJ and Co. obviously feel that these drastic developments work better - that's, as I said, an opinion, but I disagree. Given PB's comment about Faramir, she seems to think that he is not as interesting the way he is portrayed in the book, or could not work on film. Now Faramir may work in and of himself in the film version, but that doesn't mean a character more like the book version couldn't hold and audiences interest and attention. Someone who could resist the power of the ring's temptation while everyone else can't wait to get at it would be intriguing in the film version - but that's just MY opinion, and therefore no more or less valid than that of the filmmakers.<BR>I think I will start a thread regarding this topic on the Ents, and how the desire for this onscreen intensity to manifest suddenly can cause other details to slip by the way side.<p>[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReededGoat ]

[greyhavener]

Thank you both for well-reasoned and balanced commentary.<P>I feel compelled to add the same comment to this thread that I have to others. P.J. (along with most directors) doesn't give his audience enough credit. We will tolerate a respectful conversation between two characters rather than conflict, action, or special effects. "Fellowship" was rich in dialog that revealed character, moved the story along, and imparted information to the audience. I don't know what happened with "Two Towers," but I hope "Return" is more like the first movie.

[GreyIstar]

Nice post. I agree whole heartedly. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> P.J. (along with most directors) doesn't give his audience enough credit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>yeah but Ive seen so many people at the theater that make me believe that they shouldn't get much credit.

[ReededGoat]

I tend to believe that maybe they didn't have as much time as they should have to do these films. As far as I'm concerned, they made the perfect decision to film the whole thing at one go, but they also re-wrote like crazy all through the production (which can become quite dangerous - I don't know where their script supervisor was, but obvious line flubs like 'Don't you lose him Samwise Gamgee' and later 'Don't you leave him Samwise Gamgee' [the writing trio admits to this simple mistake in the FOTR commentary] demonstrate how much they had going on within a small period of time). I think that maybe two years of shooting with a year and a half of post production probably would have been more idesl, but New Line would have never gone for it. <BR>I think they just needed more time in many ways. I think one can draw that especially out of TTT

[Nenya]

Am I really the ONLY one who found "Window to the West" actually a bit boring...?! I must be a bad person. And one of the stupid, action-loving idiots who start being restless after there's been more than two lines said. Or let's just hope I was tired when reading it for the first time, and let me keep my self-dignity... <P>Man-of-the-Wold and Reededgoat: thankyou. Your reasonings have helped me to understand the changes a great deal.

[GreyIstar]

I stand by the statement that the changes were inevitbale once they made Aragorn the way he was.

[LePetitChoux]

Wow! That actually <I>completely changed my mind</I>, which, as anyone who knows me knows is impossible without a long drawn-out argument. Thanks! <P>~LePetitChoux, the frendliest cabbage around<P>P.S. 2 pages is actually not that much for the downs...some threads go well over 15 pages!

[Man-of-the-Wold]

GreyIstar -- I would agree that the Faramir decision is related to how they potray Aragorn.<P>What I would say is that they are both driven by some common fixations/obsessions/themes of these New Zealanders.<P>The main reason that the filmmakers can show Aragorn letting Frodo go at the end of Film-FoTR is 'cuz on Film he's on an anti-power trip, not wanting to be King and all.<P>Well, in the Book he knows what he wants, and yet it has hardly anything to do with his own glorification. This is either just too subtle or simply rejected by the Mr. Jackson.<P>Well, having of course set this thing up with Aragorn, while generally depicting all Men as power-hungry, weak and corrupt, they have, of course, boxed themselves in, and must show on a very visual basis some sort of hiccup in terms of Faramir and the Ring, especially as Faramir is part of the Gondor Establishment.<P>In the Books, Aragorn and Faramir are very similar, and there are also comparisons to Gandalf. But having decided that they need to more thoroughly heighten the transition of Aragorn's character, and yet show how exceptional he is compared to most Men, they are forced to make Faramir seem less perfect.<P>But I would argue to the Film-makers' credit that they are not lurching from one decision to another, but rather they are being internally coherent and consistent. In fact, for all we know decisions about how to potray Faramir influenced how the Aragorn role was written.<p>[ December 26, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]