Forever?

[HerenIstarion]

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

Touché.

Very true. But, allegedly, Frodo does not know about Eru? He does not know about Master/Servant relationship? Or, maybe, he knows but in a role of Master (Servant being Sam)

In case you imply Eru worked through him directly, the freedom is eliminated - that is not Frodo who willed to go, but Eru through Frodo willed him to go. Rather I'd say, Eru worked through insight in Gandalf, who helped Frodo to will to go - and that shows Frodo's strengh and his humility - he trusted (in estel sense) in Gandalf, he held a belief that what Gandalf advised was a right thing to do. Ultimately, Frodo does his duty in allegience to what he thinks is Right, without expectation of reward (I never intended it to sound as if I believed Frodo did what he did to get a ticket to Sanatorium-in-the-West)

but because as a good person its his nature to do good

But as a free person he has the ability no to do it. Why should he not feel guilt is the fact that repentance frees one from guilt, and redemption frees one entirely. Guilt, so to say, is a means to an end, not end in itself - if it leads to repentance and redemption, it is good, but guilt in itself is not good.

I argued elsewhere that (improbably) Frodo-Gollum-Ring make a composite creature towards the end. With the death of latter two, what is left - Frodo, is person free from sin, i.e. already redeemed. And redeemed do not feel guilt - their guilt is over as their sins are cleansed. In a sense, Frodo is dead too - that's why Shire is not for him - living lands are not for the dead. (That last paragraph being diggin too deep into the thing, I suppose)

[HerenIstarion]

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?

Probably you're right, and I am wrong. But I'm not persuaded - I'm inclined to view the case of Frodo as an exeption - his utterances during his crises are not of self-blame, but of thirst, desire - he misses the Ring. It's more like to what drug addict goes through - I mean drug addict who, mentally, is resolute to quit, has, in fact, quitted, but his body is still in the habit of having the drug and is in pain for it. Without drug nothing seems joyful to the body. That's what is supposedly to be healed in the West, not his guilt. If he were feeling guilty, his behavior on Cormallen must have been a hypocrisy.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have to say that I think that this is one aspect of the book (among many) that PJ nailed absolutely dead to rights. The markers of a continuing sadness/melancholy that will surpass the bounds of the movie are so many that I hardly need to enumerate them here (besides, they've been mentioned already).

I would just say, however, that PJ translates to the filmic medium something that Tolkien did brilliantly in the novel. The end of LotR is supremely non-novelistic, what with the hero 'disappearing' into an ambivalent, even ambiguous exile the nature of which is not adequately explained in the narrative. Sam's own ending, the ending of the whole story, is also an extraordinary rewriting of the novelistic convention. The utter domestication of the hero in that final paragraph, his being taken 'back in' by the home and hearth is something that just does not happen in novels. In the 19th C, that scene would have been played out only in epilogue form and been presented as the achievement of the hero's journey, not the conclusion of his retreat from his journey. In the 20th C that scene would not be presented at all, except as a problematic and ambiguous 'real life' moment to counter the supposedly 'happy ever after' conclusion it appears to be.

What I mean to say is that Tolkien, in writing his book, gives us a conclusion that goes against novelistic convention. The drawn out series of endings (incl the Scouring) leads to a rather anti-climactic moment. . .but only from a narrative/strucutral point of view, not an emotional one at all.

PJ does precisely the same thing but in filmic terms. Each of the "closing shots" that he gives in the serialised endings (Mount Doom, the marriage of Aragorn and Arwen, the return to the Shire, Frodo's departure) is large, gorgeous, rounded out with large soundtracks -- they are typical Hollywood closing shots. The fact that they keep happening, I think, hammers home the idea that there is no one way for this film to really 'end'; that the story the film is telling defies the easy conventionalities and sententious simplicity of Hollywood narrative. That it is all rounded off with a shot of the closed door of 3 Bagshot Row undercuts the drive to conclusion and understanding -- the final shot of the movies is not a narrative one in which things are explained in a final way (Aragorn and Arwen are married, good is triumphant; Frodo is gone, good is rewareded) but a shot in which the ongoing story of Sam and Rosie is hidden from us -- they go inside to live their lives, the door closes, and we are left with the image of not being able to see what is going on.

I realise that this is not entirely on point with the original point of the thread, or with the current direction, but I wanted to put that up anyway. It does seem to me, however, that this careful drive to constitute the narrative as not finished, as escaping any final conclusion, works against the prologue's assertion that evil can be destroyed "forever". The vision of "forever" that we have at the end is one of continuing life and ongoing existence/change: no-one is so niave, I think, as to think that life is perfect. So while Sauron may be gone, we are still very much in a world like the one we live in: imperfect, ongoing, and in which bad things happen (Frodo does leave Sam, this is sad and an 'evil' necessity to him).

It also occurs to me that the insistence on ambiguity that PJ works toward is a good way of capturing the ambiguity that surrounds Frodo's sense of failure/judgement and his desire to leave. The film is not, I think, as certain of why Frodo has to leave as it would appear. With his departure Bag End is empty and dead -- unlike the book, in which Frodo's departure is a healing of the Shire and what opens the way for Sam's fulfillment, in the movie Frodo's going leaves a gaping wound in his world, and while he may finally be happy, nobody else is.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am having real difficulty here seeing any significant difference between Frodo succumbing to the Ring (an external evil) because he did not have the strength of will to resist it and Frodo succumbing to the evil within himself (an internal evil). To my mind, it is in the very act of succumbing to the external evil (and surely the Ring has to play a part here) that Frodo succumbs to his own internal evil.

As to the nature of Frodo's inner turmoil following the destruction of the Ring, I shall content myself with waiting until I read these chapters together once again (probably as part of the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion) before drawing any firm conclusions. But I do think that guilt (if that is what he feels) is a justifiable reaction to a failure of will.

But, to get back on topic (*hint *), doesn't the very nature of the discussion going on here illustrate exactly how the perfect film of the book could never be made, at least for those who have already read the book?

One person's perfection would always be another's failure.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

An interesting point. But say, for example that Star Wars was based upon a much cherished book which concerned itself in much more detail with the themes explored in the film (because, as a book, it was able to). Wouldn't the same criticisms be being made of it? Much as I love the original Star Wars film, I do think that the LotR films suffer unfairly in comparison with it. Yes, I know that it is an original work, rather than being adapted from a book. But, then again, it is very much based on the Hero Myth, and so is not entirely original.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

I very much enjoyed Pullman's trilogy, but I did feel that, ultimately, he failed credibly to portray the massive (parallel) universe-wide war that he sought to depict. And it is there that I think that his trilogy suffers in comparison with LotR, rather than on any theological issue. It will be interesting to see how the films work out, given that Pullman himself is very much involved with them. I am going to see the plays next month, which I have been told are rather good.