Dumbing it down - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Ainaserkewen · 02-16-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

By Fordim Hedgethistle post #88
Faramir: You have the One Ring that destroyed my brother!

Frodo: Yes.

Faramir: Very well. Off you go.

CUT TO: Battle of Helms Deep. Then, End Credits.

I loved this entire post; it just made so much sense. It would be so lazy, mean and ignorant to just explain away all of the changes that were made to the films as being “misunderstandings of the Director”, “poor acting”, “Dumbing Down”, or “deliberate changes due to financial winnings.” Though examples are evident as with all blockbuster movies. When your analysing situation changes for example, with Faramir, it is unthinkable that any director would expect his fans to get over such a drastic change if there wasn’t a good, logical reason for it.

Fordim was right by saying that the scene which is quoted above would have been boring to both book fans and none. Obviously not everything on paper can be made visual. That’s why it was written down in the first place. The scene has to “work” visually, and though some movies can gracefully get away with 20 minutes of dialog between to sitting characters, Lord of the Rings was a fast paced polar opposite to such films. Many of the huge changes in the movies I’m sure actually have very good reasons for being changed. I’m also sure that if you ever sat down with the production team that some so loath that they’d be able to tell you all about their reasons, how they used trial and error and it came out the way it did. I was impressed that this wasn’t a cut and paste job movie, no one can argue that it was cheaply or lazily made. There were few short cuts, that was Mr. Jackson’s pride.

Neurion · 02-16-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

Fordim was right by saying that the scene which is quoted above would have been boring to both book fans and none.

It would have been boring had it been as you quoted.

davem · 02-16-2005, 02:23 PM

My own feeling is that book Faramir was more aware of Frodo's 'mission' & its 'divinely ordained' nature. Faramir is one of the most spiritually aware characters in the book. It seems to me that he realised that Frodo had been 'appointed' to perform the task of bringing the Ring to the fire, & in that sense his releasing & aiding of Frodo in that task, rather than taking him as a prisoner to Minas Tirith, was an act of 'compassion'. He was making Frodo's inevitable task as easy as possible. He puts compassion before duty, & takes a great risk in doing so. In fact he is putting all he cares for at risk in order to help Frodo as he does.

The story of LotR is not simply about destroying the Ring of Power, its about Frodo's struggle to destroy the Ring. The task has been appointed to him. Only Frodo can bring the Ring to the Fire. That's what he's was born to do. In that sense he is a Galahad figure. Only Galahad may achive the Grail because that was the reason he was born.

Whether movie Frodo wants to 'save' movie Gollum is another question. Yes we see Frodo showing concern for him, & hear Gandalf saying he is deserving of pity, but these are all things taken from the book. What the writers of the movie do is introduce another reason: he tells Sam 'I have to believe he can come back.'. This immediately makes his behaviour & treatment of Gollum selfish. Movie Frodo is effectively attempting to save himself.

This is the difference between what the writers import into their movie & what they introduce. What they introduce are their own explanations for, or 'commentary'on, Tolkien's story. Yes, they give Gandalf's words to Frodo about pity, & 'not striking without need' & Frodo's words on first encountering Gollum ('Now that I see him I do pity him.'), but when they attempt to 'explain' Frodo's motivation to the audience they make it selfish.

Lalwendë · 02-16-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

My own feeling is that book Faramir was more aware of Frodo's 'mission' & its 'divinely ordained' nature. Faramir is one of the most spiritually aware characters in the book. It seems to me that he realised that Frodo had been 'appointed' to perform the task of bringing the Ring to the fire, & in that sense his releasing & aiding of Frodo in that task, rather than taking him as a prisoner to Minas Tirith, was an act of 'compassion'. He was making Frodo's inevitable task as easy as possible. He puts compassion before duty, & takes a great risk in doing so. In fact he is putting all he cares for at risk in order to help Frodo as he does.

Just what I've been trying to articulate all along! Faramir in the films is presented as a ranger figure, a soldier, while in the books he is more of a scholar - he certainly displays an understanding of lore. In the films he expresses the wish that he had spent more time at his studies, implying that he did not spend much time at this task. He and Boromir are carefully crafted contrasts. The words Gimli uses to compare Saruman and Gandalf: "like and yet not like", could equally be applied to the two Gondorian brothers. The films did not contrast them enough, or certainly not skilfully enough. It was as though Faramir as seen in the books was deemed a little too sensitive for a film audience, which is not a pleasant thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

When your analysing situation changes for example, with Faramir, it is unthinkable that any director would expect his fans to get over such a drastic change if there wasn’t a good, logical reason for it.

But I cannot find a good or logical reason for the changes beyond the stated ones that they thought these scenes might be 'boring'. I can't accept this as a valid reason, as the scenes need not have been 'boring' at all. They were getting towards something good when they had Faramir explaining how he saw the funeral boat of his brother on the Anduin, and then this was not sustained. instead we saw Faramir's men behaving brutally and Faramir himself acting out of character. Properly done, we could have seen some good dialogue, some added interrogation and a little suspense to add drama, seeing as this was a film, yes, but maintaining the integrity of the character by having him see Frodo and Sam off in the wild, and in so doing maintaining their secrecy.

Beleg Cuthalion · 02-16-2005, 03:55 PM

Wow! This topic is a lot hotter then I thought it would be.

davem · 02-16-2005, 04:13 PM

The impression I get from the books is that Boromir & Faramir almost symbolise the two aspects of Aragorn's character. Boromir is his 'warrior' side, the side that seeks to achieve his destiny & rule Gondor & Arnor, while Faramir is his 'spiritual' side.

Its interesting how in the book its only when Boromir dies that Aragorn starts to manifest signs of Kingship - Legolas sees a 'crown' of flame on his brow, etc. The 'Boromir' side of Aragorn seems to have died along with its human 'manifestation'. At this point Faramir appears, almost symbolising the side of Aragorn which will become dominant - his true 'royalty'.

It seems to me that the screenwriters prefer the 'Boromir' side. Aragorn throughout is presented as far more like Boromir & movie Boromir is presented in a far more sympathetic light than book Boromir. They actually make Faramir a kind of 'lesser' Boromir, a Boromir 'wannabee', rather than a character in his own right. Their idea of Faramir seems to be that he is an originally weak character who doesn't know his own mind, one who needs to 'grow up' & become like his brother.

As I said, in the book, its like Boromir & Faramir are 'mirrors' of Aragorn's own inner state. Boromir would be an adequate steward for Aragorn as we first meet him, but Faramir is the kind of steward he needs by the end of his 'journey' because Aragorn is on a 'spiritual' path just as much as Frodo, who also has his two 'mirrors' - Smeagol & Sam...

Fordim Hedgethistle · 02-16-2005, 05:54 PM

A quick note: I've been working through the commentaries for the EE of RotK and there was one very interesting nugget from Phillipa Boyens. When she was discussing the decision to have Frodo send Sam away, she says that one of the reasons she likes this change is that it "shocked fans of the book". She sees that shock as a good thing as it shakes them up and makes them wonder just how this movie is going to turn out.

I have to admit that this got me to thinking -- how much would I really want to see a completely faithful adaptation of the book. I've already read it, I already know it, I already have visuals in my mind of it. With the changes that are there, I was able to enjoy the films -- as films -- insofar as there was still the possiblity of surprise, suspense and reversal for me. I was on the edge of my seat, because while I knew that things were going to turn out all right in the end, I could never be precisely sure of how this was going to happen.

And is that not one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. The only thing we can know for sure is that good will triumph, but the suspense comes in though not knowing how it's going to play itself out, and who is going to be lost or hurt along the way. The book-Faramir, for example, is a sacrifice that is made meaningful by the final accomplishment of the goal: the eucatastrophe of the film's conclusion.

Ahhhh. . .now there's a question: does the film have the same eucatastrophe of the book or not? That's, I think, where this whole discussion is really headed.

02-16-2005, 02:23 PM	#3
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	My own feeling is that book Faramir was more aware of Frodo's 'mission' & its 'divinely ordained' nature. Faramir is one of the most spiritually aware characters in the book. It seems to me that he realised that Frodo had been 'appointed' to perform the task of bringing the Ring to the fire, & in that sense his releasing & aiding of Frodo in that task, rather than taking him as a prisoner to Minas Tirith, was an act of 'compassion'. He was making Frodo's inevitable task as easy as possible. He puts compassion before duty, & takes a great risk in doing so. In fact he is putting all he cares for at risk in order to help Frodo as he does. The story of LotR is not simply about destroying the Ring of Power, its about Frodo's struggle to destroy the Ring. The task has been appointed to him. Only Frodo can bring the Ring to the Fire. That's what he's was born to do. In that sense he is a Galahad figure. Only Galahad may achive the Grail because that was the reason he was born. Whether movie Frodo wants to 'save' movie Gollum is another question. Yes we see Frodo showing concern for him, & hear Gandalf saying he is deserving of pity, but these are all things taken from the book. What the writers of the movie do is introduce another reason: he tells Sam 'I have to believe he can come back.'. This immediately makes his behaviour & treatment of Gollum selfish. Movie Frodo is effectively attempting to save himself. This is the difference between what the writers import into their movie & what they introduce. What they introduce are their own explanations for, or 'commentary'on, Tolkien's story. Yes, they give Gandalf's words to Frodo about pity, & 'not striking without need' & Frodo's words on first encountering Gollum ('Now that I see him I do pity him.'), but when they attempt to 'explain' Frodo's motivation to the audience they make it selfish. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

02-16-2005, 03:55 PM	#5
Beleg Cuthalion Wight Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hominum que contente mundique huius et cupido Posts: 181	Wow! This topic is a lot hotter then I thought it would be. __________________ War is not the answer, War is the question and the answer is yes Quis ut Deus

02-16-2005, 04:13 PM	#6
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	The impression I get from the books is that Boromir & Faramir almost symbolise the two aspects of Aragorn's character. Boromir is his 'warrior' side, the side that seeks to achieve his destiny & rule Gondor & Arnor, while Faramir is his 'spiritual' side. Its interesting how in the book its only when Boromir dies that Aragorn starts to manifest signs of Kingship - Legolas sees a 'crown' of flame on his brow, etc. The 'Boromir' side of Aragorn seems to have died along with its human 'manifestation'. At this point Faramir appears, almost symbolising the side of Aragorn which will become dominant - his true 'royalty'. It seems to me that the screenwriters prefer the 'Boromir' side. Aragorn throughout is presented as far more like Boromir & movie Boromir is presented in a far more sympathetic light than book Boromir. They actually make Faramir a kind of 'lesser' Boromir, a Boromir 'wannabee', rather than a character in his own right. Their idea of Faramir seems to be that he is an originally weak character who doesn't know his own mind, one who needs to 'grow up' & become like his brother. As I said, in the book, its like Boromir & Faramir are 'mirrors' of Aragorn's own inner state. Boromir would be an adequate steward for Aragorn as we first meet him, but Faramir is the kind of steward he needs by the end of his 'journey' because Aragorn is on a 'spiritual' path just as much as Frodo, who also has his two 'mirrors' - Smeagol & Sam... __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

02-16-2005, 05:54 PM	#7
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	A quick note: I've been working through the commentaries for the EE of RotK and there was one very interesting nugget from Phillipa Boyens. When she was discussing the decision to have Frodo send Sam away, she says that one of the reasons she likes this change is that it "shocked fans of the book". She sees that shock as a good thing as it shakes them up and makes them wonder just how this movie is going to turn out. I have to admit that this got me to thinking -- how much would I really want to see a completely faithful adaptation of the book. I've already read it, I already know it, I already have visuals in my mind of it. With the changes that are there, I was able to enjoy the films -- as films -- insofar as there was still the possiblity of surprise, suspense and reversal for me. I was on the edge of my seat, because while I knew that things were going to turn out all right in the end, I could never be precisely sure of how this was going to happen. And is that not one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. The only thing we can know for sure is that good will triumph, but the suspense comes in though not knowing how it's going to play itself out, and who is going to be lost or hurt along the way. The book-Faramir, for example, is a sacrifice that is made meaningful by the final accomplishment of the goal: the eucatastrophe of the film's conclusion. Ahhhh. . .now there's a question: does the film have the same eucatastrophe of the book or not? That's, I think, where this whole discussion is really headed. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.