Forever?

[Rimbaud]

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.

The argument is moot, then, if you would rather they had not been made.

I think what SpM and myself are trying to say, with our jaunty practical caps on, is that there is no way the books could have been translated to the screen in the manner you describe - not with the responsibility of the large budget, and constraints on running length and the necessity of appealing to a younger audience (the perception thereof being of limited attention spans for something without a special effect).*

This is not to say that even under these regulations, the films are unimprovable - I would love to see a complete re-edited version, cut to my whimsy, but such changes that could have been made whilst staying within the requisite profit zone would not bring about the dramatically differen motion picture you outline.


*This is not to hold that these regulations are accurately posited, nor to justify the commercialisation of sub-creation, merely to state that they and that exist in the major release cinematic oeuvre.

[Essex]

Davem,

Book Frodo has (in my reading) willed evil by surrendering to the Ring.

I do not believe this in my reading of the book. In what he says here

But you must understand. It is my burden, and no one else can bear it. It is too late now, Sam dear. You can't help me in that way again. I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad.

the line "I am almost in its power". To me this is not a statement of Will. This is a statement of the ring's CONTROL over him as he neared the Crack of Doom. He did not will evil onto him. The Ring controls people into desiring it.

To me, and I've stated this before on this site a few times, I'm lucky enough to love the films enough that Movie Frodo is the "same" as Book Frodo. I can pick and chose paticular parts of his (and any other character's) traits that tie in with the book, which makes my Movie watching pleasure all the more greater.

And to me at the end of the film, movie Frodo is feeling the same as book Frodo. His well known 3 wounds he endured during his adventure leads him to need healing, something he won't get in the Shire. His mental healing is maybe something greater, because the Ring was TAKEN from him, not given up, is to me the reason he feels he must leave Middle-earth for Healing. Not because of guilt. (yes before anyone corrects me I know its been mooted by Tolkien himself that Guilt was one of the main reasons he left) It's just the way I read the story.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But we don't see his real desire & love for evil, what the Ring symbolises.

Nor do we in the book. As for whether, at Sammath Naur, Frodo surrenders to an external force or freely chooses not to destroy the Ring, the book is ambiguous.

I have come. But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!

The words "do not choose" might suggest that he has no choice in the matter, while the words "I will not do" might be used to argue that he is acting out of free will. His feelings of guilt could justifiably arise either way. If it was an external force, then he could still feel guilty over nor having the strength of will to resist it.

As I recall, the words used in the film are different. But I should imagine that they could equally be interpreted either way (although I reserve the right to alter that view if someone posts them here ).

Originally Posted by davem

It is a mischaracterisation - one which the movies have exacerbated ...

I disagree. LotR was popularly regarded as escapist fantasy long before the films came out. I agree that it is a mischaracterisation, but I doubt that I would have 3 years ago.

Originally Posted by davem

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.

What Rimbaud said.

Although I would reiterate my earlier point as well:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I see no sin in aiming to produce an enjoyable, spectacular, action-packed and intensely moving fantasy film based on the events, characters and some of the themes of the book. Some may say that Jackson failed even in that. Personally, I don’t think that he did at all.

[Lalwendë]

If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly

I've yet to see a film based on a work of literature which was done perfectly. I think this has something to do with the conflicting natures of literature and film; alas I was not listening in my critical theory lectures so I don't have the necessary theorems to explain this in that way, but I suspect it could have something to do with intertextuality.

Atempting to explain by way of example, consider that this was only the second attempt to film LoTR. There have been many film versions of other works - e.g. Dracula, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights - none of which, in my opinion have been perfect. This has not always diminished my enjoyment of those films, though it quickly made me realise that to ever see a perfect version of my favourite book was very likely an impossibility; therefore seeing the films as they were made, I was pleasantly surprised, even if I still can't accept the portrayal of Aragorn.

Hollywood is also quite a lazy beast and there is a tendency to adapt pre-existing works rather than make a 'pure film'; when a film is based on an 'original' concept then it is a very different product. You only have to look at the fan worship surrounding such 'pure films' as Star Wars, Donnie Darko and The Matrix. When Hollywood adapts pre-exisitng works it so often gets it very wrong. A good example of this is comic book adaptations. I am told that many are so completely wrong that it is not worth seeing them - not that I have much knowledge of comic books beyond Beano.

Earlier I mentioned fantasy works which do reflect the disturbing nature of the 'real' world. In between many rounds of stress this afternoon I managed to give this some thought. I mentioned Gormenghast - which is a critique of red tape, hierarchical structures, and the class system. When I was younger I read this as a simple if gothic fantasy - now I am in civil servitude I understand it on a deeply satirical level (especially today... ). Many 'Downers do not seem to like His Dark materials very much, but it provides grown-up comment on the nature of religion and of democracy; and this is one book I shudder to think of being made into a film, as I am convinced it will be wrong.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

the line "I am almost in its power". To me this is not a statement of Will. This is a statement of the ring's CONTROL over him as he neared the Crack of Doom. He did not will evil onto him. The Ring controls people into desiring it.

the problem I have with this is that it implies that evil is powerful enough to overwhelm the individual, so that at some point the individual lolses control & has no will. for me this is contradicted by Frodo's realisation on Amon Hen that he is 'neither the Voice nor the Eye'. He exists at some point between them, able to make a moral choice. To state as (?) did on another thread that if Gandalf had taken the Ring he would have become simply more good than he is & would have imposed that 'goodness' on others is to miss the point. It is saying that 'Evil' is simply misapplied Good - ie, that there is no moral difference between the two & that Good & Evil are simply subjective value judgements based on effects.

For Tolkien (as I read him) the two are mutually exclusive things, between which the individual makes a choice. I think Jackson's position is not quite either of those - simply some people are evil by nature & others are good by nature, but may make mistakes & do evil things in a wrong attempt to do good - hence Boromir & Faramir (till he changes his mind).

Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one. Frodo consents to what he knows is evil - the Ring & everything it symbolises - & that is his 'failure' - & the fact that we also, in his position, would surrender does not make what he does acceptable. Frodo knows this. And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts. If evil is simply an external force then theoretically we could save ourselves by becoming 'stronger'. On the other hand, if evil is an innate aspect of our essence then our salvation must be out of our hands, & we are dependent on an external source of salvation.

Originally Posted by SpM

If it was an external force, then he could still feel guilty over nor having the strength of will to resist it.

He could - but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile. He would be going simply to 'get better' - which is the sense I get from the movie. This is why the movie doesn't move me in the way the book does. Frodo's guilt is real, true guilt, because he did surrender to what he knew was Evil. Otherwise he mightas well have been a machine - & the point of the story is that he is not a machine.

[Essex]

Davem,

And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts.

Whoops. I'll let my priest know on Sunday that I'm not bothering to go to Church as there's no point then!!!!

Frodo's guilt is real, true guilt, because he did surrender to what he knew was Evil.

Can someone point out to me the part of the book after the Ring is destroyed where we see Frodo feeling guilty...........

but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile.

Go into exile? He was given 'the grace of the Valar' and he's going to the West / Undying Lands / Paradise / Nirvana / Valhalla / Heaven - whatever you want to call it. He is going to a BETTER PLACE. Yes, he's leaving behind the people he loves (but also following Bilbo, the person I believe he loves the most), but you say he's going to the West just because he feels guilty?

Methinks not.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Davem:
Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one.

I would have to say it's more of an internal battle within oneself as well. Take violent video games for example. Now, I stand that if a kid can handle the sort of things that are in let's say the game Grand Theft Auto, if he can maturely handle that game, then he can play it without becoming "attached" to it. Unfortunately not all kids are like that, some will take the game too far, and even play it for hours and hours and hours at a time, they are indeed addicted to it, and therefore are corrupted by the game. Let's look at the situation with the Ring.

The Ring isn't all powerful, there are those who can resist it, Bombadil, Galadriel, Faramir, Sam, and Bilbo. Then there are those who can't Frodo, Boromir, and Gollum. Out of the one's who resisted, the person who had it the longest was Bilbo, and he gave it up freely (with a little nudge to help him of course), but he gave it up rather easily. As we get a quote from Faramir here in A Window on the West:

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!" he said. "How have you increased my sorrow, you two strange wonderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow and be held by them.

Here Faramir makes it seem as if it's internal struggle, that there is a choice in the matter. He said "It was too sore a trial," and Boromir did face the trial, and it was too sore for him to handle. Faramir later says, "Even if I were such a man as to DESIRE this ring." Note, desire which makes it seem as if you have to "want" what the ring offers to you, and Faramir doesn't "want" any of that. You have to "desire" what the Ring offers to you, and that would make it a choice, an internal struggle between taking it or not.

In Frodo's situation I think we can connect it to my anecdote about "Grand Theft Auto." He had the Ring for so long, he was obviously weighed down, wounded, spiritually demoralized because of it, and he in return became attached to it. But who wouldn't have? If somebody was stuck in Frodo's spot who wouldn't have done what he did? Of course besides Bombadil, but he would have lost it even before he got to Mount Doom.

The way I view this is Frodo didnt FAIL the quest, he FAILED the personal test (I rhymed). The quest was to destroy the ring, by any means, and the Ring got destroyed. The ultimate job of the quest was to get the Ring into the fire, and the Ring got there. The personal test Frodo did fail. He had a choice, throw it in, or not, and he decided to keep it, so he failed that internal test within himself, but he completed the quest.

One has a choice, there is always a choice within somebody, the Ring can't control how somebody reacts, to it's power. All it can do is lure a person to it, and some people are lured by it, others don't fall for it. As I stated before if there are those who can resist the Ring's lure, then I think that goes to prove that it's more of an internal struggle, more then the external Ring's force of controlling people. One has a choice in the matter of doing it or not doing it. Just like the game situation, it's not like Grand Theft Auto "forces" kids to go around rape and shoot people, there are those with the strong enough "will" to resist it, and there are those who can't. Making it the internal conflict within each person.

[HerenIstarion]

And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts.

So and not so. True and not entirely true. The argument, sorry davem, is lopsided. If it were entirely true (i.e. logic as follows - our acts can not bring our salvation = no need to act), there would be no point for Frodo to go anywhere at all, all acts being useless unless salvation came from outside (or inside - i.e. externally strenghtening his inner self, or will).

I'll risk to tell you a joke to illustrate (even if clumsily) what I mean:

There was a man drowning, and he prayed to God to help him, and having trust in Him, he laid back and stopped making attempts to swim. Naturally, he drowned. When in Paradise, he asked his Lord - why haven't you saved me when I humbly prayed for deliverance? Because I've already given you means to it by giving you hands and legs to swim, wich you could have used to swim ashore - was the answer

in LoTR, Frodo is the illustration of both necessities - i.e. acts do count, for not to act would be deriliction of duty, but acts as acts, without external (external and at the same time, internal, rather) help, will bring no salvation - hence Gollum falling down by Chance.

In a sense, and in a way, Frodo's story is illustration of Lord's Prayer, specially 'lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil' part.

In that sense, PJ version errs as it depicts mainly acts. But utterly symbolical movie, stressing on inner battle, on Frodo giving in to temptation or, on the contrary, winning out by trust and submission to external force working from the inside, which is not clearly seen at all, but only hinted at in the book, as Duty, would be equally erroneous.

Is Boethian and Manichaean opposition solvable, than? Despite the number of disputes we have had or will have about the issue, we haven't reached final conclusion. It may be said that truth lies, if not entirely in the exact middle, at least nearer to Boethian side of the swing, but not utterly there. It would follow, than, that absolute evil is impossible - i.e. when its very existence derived from Good, to exist, it must retain some good at least.

But I'm drifting off.

Originally Posted by davem

choice made by a free being

A-ha!

Originally Posted by davem

He could - but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile

Um, difficult issue, this. He in fact, goes to 'get better' - to be healed. Towards the end, Frodo seems like more than mere human - having failed at Sammath Naur, and being there delivered by Miracle, he seems to cease to fail at all - he seems redeemed. So, he must be free from supposed 'feeling of guilt'. His repentance is over as the Ring is forcibly taken from him. The rest of his life would be joy, unless he were not maimed (both bodily and spiritually). You seem to make it sound as if guild here = shame. Frodo has nothing to be ashamed for in that respect. He does not feel guilt - he's in pain (it's gone, Sam, it's gone.. etc)

EDIT

While I tinkered, Essex and Boromir88 cross-poster under my very nose

Well, should accommodate your posts too

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The way I view this is Frodo didnt FAIL the quest, he FAILED the personal test

In a sense. Indeed, I myself has written immediately above that he have failed. But, come to think of it, he failed (in a sense) neither. It could not have been otherwise - work 'deliberately' Christian 'in the revision' could not have allowed for Frodo to drop the Ring down in a nonchalant way - when even Perfect Human crucified cried out "my God, why have you forsaken me' - i.e.even being the best of humans allows for moments of waivering. Frodo failed the quest, but did not fail it at the same time, in a sense it was impossible not to fail it. What he did not fail was his obligation. He carried his duty to its end, and than the game was took over by the higher Authority. Thence there should have been no guilt after the event (whatever amount of it could have been felt by him prior to it) - Frodo did all he could do (really all, not what his fancy told him was "all he could"), Logically, he should have died than - for his life is accomplished at that moment. Only book would have lost without kind of rehearsal of the Joy we read in the Cormallen Fields (I use to sob over the chapter)

And, as we are in the movies forum, let me add a movie flavour to it - that what PJ version utterly failed to transfer.

Originally Posted by Essex

West / Undying Lands / Paradise / Nirvana / Valhalla / Heaven - whatever you want to call it. He is going to a BETTER PLACE.

In a sense, yes. And again, moments ago, I myself wrote something similar, but not entirely similar. Frodo goes to the place of Repose, not final place of Abide. (Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth - humans being guests, technically are exiles everywhere but at their Final Home - Arda Remade, in the reality plane of ME)

END OF EDIT

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Can someone point out to me the part of the book after the Ring is destroyed where we see Frodo feeling guilty...........

'There is no real going back, though I may come to the Shire it will not be the same, for I am not the same'

Isn't that passing sentence on the guilty? He has denied himself his home. He has proclaimed himself an exile.

Whoops. I'll let my priest know on Sunday that I'm not bothering to go to Church as there's no point then!!!!

But how can you save yourself? If salvation comes from God through Christ's sacrifice then that's impossible. You can only through your acts make yourself worthy of salvation (though many Christians would argue that there is nothing you as an individual fallen being can do to raise yourself up. I think the belief that you can is Arianism.

Originally Posted by H-I

The argument, sorry davem, is lopsided. If it were entirely true (i.e. logic as follows - our acts can not bring our salvation = no need to act), there would be no point for Frodo to go anywhere at all, all acts being useless unless salvation came from outside (or inside - i.e. externally strenghtening his inner self, or will).

The point for Frodo to go is that it was willed by Eru that he go. A servant does what his master tells him because that's his job. If his master chooses to reward him that's his choice. The servant cannot make his master reward him, or the servant would be the 'master'. A good person will do good not because he desires a reward, but because as a good person its his nature to do good. Thoughts of rewards should not come into it. Frodo does what he does not in order to get the reward of passing onto the West.

And why shouldn't Frodo feel guilt over his choice? A free person is resonsible. Frodo's choice must be a free one, hence he is responsible for it, & so he is guilty. If he did not make his choice to surrender freely then the events at the Sammath Naur are meaningless. If he did make a free choice then he is guilty.

[drigel]

Boro
Faramirs quote is a good reference to point to. Here is B's brother showing the compexities of the mortals. We see him saying "I would do this. .. I would do that.." yet, would that be different if he were the one who made the trip to Rivendell instead of B?

This thread is (again) way transcending the single subject we are on. I find the guilt therom intriguing. I say this landscape is to stark - too black and white. The internal struggle is not a "one time shot", if that makes sense, unless, it seems, the ring involved.... or is it? Could Boromir have, after successfully getting the ring from Frodo, feel guilt? Could he give the ring back? Could Faramir?

Could Frodo change his mind, once he made the decision to not destroy the ring? No one, its seems, gives up the ring willingly. But, is there a difference between bearing and wielding? In other words, once you realize the abitlity and potential of what you could achieve with the ring - is it all over?

[Lalwendë]

Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts

I am a rather clumsy theologian - my qualifications are an O Level in the subject and many years of 'pondering' - but I understand that this is true only of certain types of Christianity. I had two ex-Catholic grandmothers, one of whom had not in her heart really converted to CofE on her marriage, and she would certainly have agreed with that view of salvation. However, as a child I went to an ordinary CofE church where we were weekly instilled with the need to do 'good deeds' in order to go to Heaven. So, I have assumed that there are two diverging Christian viewpoints, and being no Martin Luther or Thomas A Kempe, I may have expressed this clumsily, but no offence is intended (I fundamentally believe that all religions are equal, I am something of a philosophical Unitarian if not a spiritual one).

Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one. Frodo consents to what he knows is evil - the Ring & everything it symbolises - & that is his 'failure'

I have already said in another post that I recognise in Frodo's sufferings an echo of the sufferings of Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD). There is indeed a very real internal battle which Frodo is fighting; his agonies are a very real internal evil. He is battling an urge simply to give up. This urge to give up is in itself an 'evil'; what could be more wasteful than giving up your own life? This is something that often inevitably follows a great trauma, and having been there myself, at the very cracks of my own metaphorical Mount Doom, ready to succumb to some evil within, I thoroughly understand his internal struggle.

After being at the bottom of such despair, I know what inevitably follows and that, indeed, is a whole lot of guilt. The concept of sadness at Frodo's being forced to go into exile is also correct - he was going into exile. You do feel deeply ashamed at having in some way almost 'given up' - I know that for months I would scuttle around in the shadows afraid everyone was talking about my "failure to cope"!

Sorry for the little bit of soul-baring, but it is a good example to use, and, as I've said before, for the past three years I've grown to deeply understand the sufferings of Frodo (and Gollum and Bilbo for that matter). I used to think it was 'just' the power of the ring - but now I see there was more to it. And it is not something Tolkien would have been unfamiliar with either, following his experiences in the trenches he will have seen many men with PTSD, if he did not have this to some extent himself.

In terms of the films, it would have been good (or would it have felt too 'raw' to me?) to have seen this understanding of Frodo represented, but, from bitter experience, I often find that if you haven't walked in those shadows, you're not necessarily going to know how it feels, or even to acknowledge that they exist.