The Good and The Bad - a Quick Look at the Movies

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

You're talking about appearance, right? Because in the book, Boromir is quite handsome and Aragorn is, although not ugly, not the best looking of the bunch. Boromir is described when we first meet him as having a "fair and noble face" whereas from the Hobbit's prospective Aragorn looked foul and felt fair when they first met him at Bree. I remember on a few occassions Tolkien cited Boromir as being good looking. I actually think, coming from a guy, Bean was a step back from that...(I know, all the Bean fan-girls/boys are going to get me for that one)

MatthewM and Eönwë, by "beautiful" I meant "excellent of its kind", as in "a beautiful putt on the seventh hole", to quote Dictionary.com. This definition would include Aragorn even in his disguise as a Ranger, his appearance so different from Boromir's luxurious presence.

Yet we all read in our own way and there's that old adage from Keats about the eye of the beholder. For instance, while you are right that Book Boromir is described as "fair and noble of face", those are not the only words which describe him and I would consider the entire passagae.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Council of Elrond

And seated a little apart was a tall man with a fair and noble face, dark-haired and grey-eyed, proud and stern of glance.

Those last two words are as important for my appreciation of Book Boromir as the first two you refer to, MatthewM. That word "proud" is often used in the Council of Elrond in reference to Boromir. He even uses it to refer to Numenor, so obviously he thinks pride is a good thing. Yet pride has traditionally been one of the worst of human failings. The list of the seven deadly sins is variable; pride is I think the only sin mentioned on most of the discussions. (I can just see the lightbulb going off in some minds, ready to create an internet quizz, "What's your sin? ) This mix is what makes, to me, Book Boromir an interesting character--not a character I sympathise with but clearly one who is complex. As we learn later, Boromir never had to prove himself as Aragon and Faramir have had to, so he has the arrogance and pride of one who simply and always assumes he is entitled. It's a common problem among first born heirs.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

In the end, the only true test is "did it work on screen". Or another way to put it is "did the audience buy into it?"

I think the success of the film showed that it did.

yes, but that does not prove that any other manner of presentation would not have worked or that a film which shows more sensitivity towards Tolkien's ethos is not possible.

But then, PJ is allowed his own interpretation, as all directors are. His true folly, to me, was in his claims that the production was faithful to Tolkien, the implication that his films were a true and authentic depiction of Tolkien's Middle-earth. I don't think that David Lean claimed he was faithful to T.E. Lawrence (although Lawrence was given credit along with Bolt as a sceen writer, or at least is on that movie site whose acronym I can never remember).

If only he had admitted to textual poaching.

So, I hope I've clarified what I meant earlier. RL demands mean I won't have time to reply further.