Was it out of character? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Boromir88 · 01-19-2005, 08:02 AM

I've enjoyed the conversation so far, and don't have much more to add besides a few things...

Estelyn, thanks for that bit on The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son. Maybe something to help out the convo (or only make it more confusing). When fighting opponents, it was also believed that you didn't have to follow the typical rules of war, if you were fighting an opponent that you believed to be "barbaric." They didn't have to break the rules of war, just taking them as barbaric, could justify breaking the rules. Clearest example is the British.

When fighting the French they had to stick to the rules (or atleast supposedly stuck to the rules). Since France was in a way England's equal. However, when the English fought the Indians, they were allowed to break the rules, since the indians were considered inferior or barbarous. An example of what the English wouldn't be allowed to do to the French, but was allowed to the Indians would be the small pox incident. Where they gave Indians blankets from the Small pox clinics to the Indians intentionally spreading disease amongst them (often seen as the first intentional act of biochemical warfare).

Linnahiril Tinnufinwen · 01-19-2005, 04:16 PM

I believe that Movie-Aragorn's decision to kill the Mouth of Sauron was probably written from an entirely cinamatic stand point. Somewhere along the lines of, "Well, this guy is really annoying and ugly, so lets have Aragorn kill him." Many a non-book audience member would probably cheer.

As far as whether this is honorable or not, I don't think that anyone could ever come to any sort of agreement on this, because each person has their own sense of what they think is right or wrong. Personally, I don't think the film screenwriters even took this into consideration. I originally thought that they may have thrown it in to get some of the audience members to think, "Oh no, Frodo is dead!" But considering that this scene was put into the extended edition of ROtK, this is probably not right.

Another thing that has not been brought up yet is how this killing of the MoS affects the next events in the movie. Although this is entirely from a cinimatic prospective, I must confess that I thought Aragorn's decapitating of the messenger took away from the power of his performance when the Black Gate opens, and he says, "For Frodo," and then runs into battle. In the EE, Aragorn has already killed something by the time he says this. I don't know why, but for me, this previous kill took something (perhaps honor) away from that line.

Essex · 01-20-2005, 09:04 AM

I think it actually makes it MORE poigniant.

Maybe I'm going against some of my posts above (and maybe not) but what we have here is Aragorn 'honouring' Frodo because he believes he is dead. Instead of in the cinematic version what they are doing for frodo is fighting for him to have a greater chance to complete the quest, they are now fighting, I believe, in rememberence of Frodo, even though he 'failed'.

Linnahiril Tinnufinwen · 01-20-2005, 08:32 PM

Though I still abide by my original opinion, I must admit that you have made a very good point, Essex. It has lead me to the conclusion that this scene, as it appears in both the cinamatic verson of the movie and the EE, could arguably be considered two seperate points of view. In the theater verson, Aragorn's line, "For Frodo," and his following actions are performed more out of optimism. He wants, as you say, to give Frodo more time to destroy the ring. Where as in the EE, since he may believe in his heart that Frodo is truly dead (though we never know for sure what he thinks) his actions are more pessemistic; his way of making a last stand in Frodo's name. As to which of these perspectives is "better," that is merely a matter of individual opinion.

This has also got me to thinking about the cinamatic version of ROtK as it compares to the EE in general. The original question of this thread concerned Aragorn's characteristic, or uncharacteristic, decapitating of the Mouth of Sauron. I think that the theatrical verson versus the extended version may actally show two different sides of Aragorn's character. Or at the very least, two different perceptions of Aragorn's character by the screenwriters.

01-19-2005, 04:16 PM	#2
Linnahiril Tinnufinwen Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 77	I believe that Movie-Aragorn's decision to kill the Mouth of Sauron was probably written from an entirely cinamatic stand point. Somewhere along the lines of, "Well, this guy is really annoying and ugly, so lets have Aragorn kill him." Many a non-book audience member would probably cheer. As far as whether this is honorable or not, I don't think that anyone could ever come to any sort of agreement on this, because each person has their own sense of what they think is right or wrong. Personally, I don't think the film screenwriters even took this into consideration. I originally thought that they may have thrown it in to get some of the audience members to think, "Oh no, Frodo is dead!" But considering that this scene was put into the extended edition of ROtK, this is probably not right. Another thing that has not been brought up yet is how this killing of the MoS affects the next events in the movie. Although this is entirely from a cinimatic prospective, I must confess that I thought Aragorn's decapitating of the messenger took away from the power of his performance when the Black Gate opens, and he says, "For Frodo," and then runs into battle. In the EE, Aragorn has already killed something by the time he says this. I don't know why, but for me, this previous kill took something (perhaps honor) away from that line. __________________ The world is a great book, of which they who never stir from home read only a page

01-20-2005, 08:32 PM	#4
Linnahiril Tinnufinwen Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 77	Though I still abide by my original opinion, I must admit that you have made a very good point, Essex. It has lead me to the conclusion that this scene, as it appears in both the cinamatic verson of the movie and the EE, could arguably be considered two seperate points of view. In the theater verson, Aragorn's line, "For Frodo," and his following actions are performed more out of optimism. He wants, as you say, to give Frodo more time to destroy the ring. Where as in the EE, since he may believe in his heart that Frodo is truly dead (though we never know for sure what he thinks) his actions are more pessemistic; his way of making a last stand in Frodo's name. As to which of these perspectives is "better," that is merely a matter of individual opinion. This has also got me to thinking about the cinamatic version of ROtK as it compares to the EE in general. The original question of this thread concerned Aragorn's characteristic, or uncharacteristic, decapitating of the Mouth of Sauron. I think that the theatrical verson versus the extended version may actally show two different sides of Aragorn's character. Or at the very least, two different perceptions of Aragorn's character by the screenwriters. __________________ The world is a great book, of which they who never stir from home read only a page

01-19-2005, 08:02 AM	#1
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	I've enjoyed the conversation so far, and don't have much more to add besides a few things... Estelyn, thanks for that bit on The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son. Maybe something to help out the convo (or only make it more confusing). When fighting opponents, it was also believed that you didn't have to follow the typical rules of war, if you were fighting an opponent that you believed to be "barbaric." They didn't have to break the rules of war, just taking them as barbaric, could justify breaking the rules. Clearest example is the British. When fighting the French they had to stick to the rules (or atleast supposedly stuck to the rules). Since France was in a way England's equal. However, when the English fought the Indians, they were allowed to break the rules, since the indians were considered inferior or barbarous. An example of what the English wouldn't be allowed to do to the French, but was allowed to the Indians would be the small pox incident. Where they gave Indians blankets from the Small pox clinics to the Indians intentionally spreading disease amongst them (often seen as the first intentional act of biochemical warfare).

01-20-2005, 09:04 AM	#3
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	I think it actually makes it MORE poigniant. Maybe I'm going against some of my posts above (and maybe not) but what we have here is Aragorn 'honouring' Frodo because he believes he is dead. Instead of in the cinematic version what they are doing for frodo is fighting for him to have a greater chance to complete the quest, they are now fighting, I believe, in rememberence of Frodo, even though he 'failed'.