*TTT - Faramir (David Wenham)* - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

***Sharkû*** · 12-18-2002, 08:46 AM

I have heard a couple of opinions already. Except for one, they all fell into the category of "ruined. Utterly ruined." Without a doubt, I have to agree, and it is not Wenham's fault. [My personal reaction in the cinema was facepalming and commenting "What the?!" on his worst lines.] There are two points of view from which Faramir in the movie can be considered. From the point of a Tolkien illiterate, you get a character which is almost to be expected in the pattern of men who are confronted with the Ring. People know his brother Boromir, they know Faramir as well already, since the differences are not there. I cannot see how that is any benefit to the movie compared to the real Faramir. If the only addition that can be made adds nothing to the picture, don't add it. Boromir at least got to redeem himself in the first movie. Faramir did not get that chance (hopefully, not yet).More important, however, is that Faramir does not only not add to the picture, but destroys what is so intriguingly painted in the books. Why ever a good and interesting character has been changed into a bad and uninteresting one is beyond me.If the nature of Men, especially that of Gondor, has to be stressed (and it should), it should fit the world described. The rôle of Faramir is very important to The Lord of the Rings, as he is the other side of the medal of which Boromir is one. Without Faramir, the ambiguity of the legacy of Númenor is wasted. Faramir is arguably the most positively portrayed man next to Aragorn. He was a point of indentification for the author himself to an extent. Omitting all that would need very good reasoning. Changing it into the opposite reminds of Gandalf. For he who breaks a character has left the path of wisdom.

12-18-2002, 08:46 AM	#2
*Sharkû* Hungry Ghoul Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,719	I have heard a couple of opinions already. Except for one, they all fell into the category of "ruined. Utterly ruined." <BR>Without a doubt, I have to agree, and it is not Wenham's fault. [My personal reaction in the cinema was facepalming and commenting "What the?!" on his worst lines.] <P>There are two points of view from which Faramir in the movie can be considered. From the point of a Tolkien illiterate, you get a character which is almost to be expected in the pattern of men who are confronted with the Ring. People know his brother Boromir, they know Faramir as well already, since the differences are not there. I cannot see how that is any benefit to the movie compared to the real Faramir. If the only addition that can be made adds nothing to the picture, don't add it. Boromir at least got to redeem himself in the first movie. Faramir did not get that chance (hopefully, not <I>yet</I>).<P>More important, however, is that Faramir does not only not add to the picture, but destroys what is so intriguingly painted in the books. Why ever a good and interesting character has been changed into a bad and uninteresting one is beyond me.<P>If the nature of Men, especially that of Gondor, has to be stressed (and it should), it should fit the world described. The rôle of Faramir is very important to The Lord of the Rings, as he is the other side of the medal of which Boromir is one. Without Faramir, the ambiguity of the legacy of Númenor is wasted. <P>Faramir is arguably the most positively portrayed man next to Aragorn. He was a point of indentification for the author himself to an extent. Omitting all that would need very good reasoning. Changing it into the opposite reminds of Gandalf. For he who breaks a character has left the path of wisdom.