Frodo's accpetance of Gollum...

[Elvish Archer]

Been thing'n about it, (don't ask me why), and I think I finally figured out why Frodo is so willing to accept Gollum. Here's my theory:
He has seen and/or heard of Gollum's evil nature. But after the "Name calling" incident, Gollum/Smeagol now seems to have turned over a new leaf. Frodo feels the power taking over him and he has to believe that anyone who bears the Ring can come go back to normal, or at least back to being good.
Summary: His acceptance of Gollum is based on his own need for hope.

Thoughts?

EA

[Lord of Angmar]

I largely agree with what you have said. Frodo feels compassion for Smeagol, seeing in the miserable creature the unambiguous parallel of the effects of the One Ring on Gollum and on himself.

[Finwe]

I think that Frodo wants to believe that there is some possibility for redemption in Gollum, because he wants to believe that there is some possibility for redemption in himself. By the time he reaches Mordor, Frodo can feel the pull of the Ring grow stronger and stronger. The hopelessness of his situation becomes more and more apparent, so Frodo clings on to the last shreds of hope that he can find. If he finds that hope in Gollum, then so be it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I wonder then - did the fact that Gollum could not be redeemed at the end contribute to Frodo's loss of hope in his own condition? That could be one factor adding to his despair!

[davem]

Doesn't this make Frodo's desire to help Gollum too selfish? Can we truly say Frodo showed Mercy to Gollum if He's so focussed on what he himself will get out of it.

I'm uncomfortable with this idea.

I see Frodo's treatment of Gollum as mercy, pure & simple. Unselfish, based on pity. Its symbolic, for me, of Frodo's spiritual growth. Its an unselfish act, a desire to help another being in desperate need. I'm not denying that Frodo feels Gollum will be useful as a guide, but his hope for Gollum's healing is a separate thing. Mercy & pity, which is selfless on Frodo's part, & hence is rewarded at the end by the Authority.

Of course, I may be wrong - I have a tendency to idealise Frodo [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I have the same hesitations that you do. I am wondering if this isn't a case where the interpretation presented by PJ hasn't "swept away" what Tolkien actually described in the book.

In PJ's film, the relationship between Gollum and Frodo is presented in these stark terms: Frodo needs to believe that Gollum can be redeemed so that he himself can also be redeemed. Sam definitely comes off looking like the practical hobbit who sees things as they really are. Frodo is almost made to seem deluded, not able to see reality because of the influence of the Ring. This image of Frodo as having "lost" it is reinforced by the scenes PJ added to the story where Gollum stages the trick with the food, which Frodo unwisely accepts as the truth. There is a fight between Sam and Frodo, with Frodo rejecting Sam and ordering him to leave.

What is presented in the book is more complex than this. There is an element of altruism that is missing from PJ. I've always felt that the reason why Frodo was able to bear the ring so long was that he reached out to two beings on his journey-- on the one hand Sam, but also Gollum in some sense. One of the best defenses against the Ring's call to power is love and compassion, and this triangle relationship (Sam, Gollum, Frodo) supplied that for Frodo. Never would the book Frodo have sent Sam away. I am sure the book Frodo also understood the corrupting power of the Ring on Gollum, and this influenced his judgments. But it was more than a simple reaction out of fear and self preservation. Compassion was also involved, and that compassion just doesn't shine through in the movies in the same way.

One striking example of this change of emphasis is the fact that PJ did not include that wonderful scene where Gollum looks at the sleeping Frodo and feels affection for him. He touches his knee and comes within a hair's breadth of repentence until the suspicious Sam chases him off. In the Letters Tolkien said this was probably the most important scene in the entire book, and his own favorite, yet we don't see it in the film. Gollum might have actually repented except for Sam's intervention. In his Letters, Tolkien even speculated on what a repentent Gollum might have done on the slopes of Mount Doom. In this one area at least, book Frodo has a wisdom and compassion that Sam has yet to achieve. (Not that Sam didn't have his own blend of unique strengths!)

In general PJ has given us a slightly different interpretation of these characters than Tolkien did. The PJ Frodo is much younger, less mature and more vulnerable, more worn down by the Ring at an earlier point in the story and so "damaged" that he can not see the truth of what Sam tells him and unwisely sends his friend away. In the movie, Samwise is the 'wise' one; he sees Gollum's sneaky nature in a true light unlike Frodo who is blinded. Frodo is merely worn down and trying to hang on.

The movie excluded the scenes where Samwise looks at Frodo describing how he loves him and the fact that his master's eyes shine with the Elven light, indicative of something wise growing inside of Frodo. Are you being too idealistic, Davem? I don't believe so. The whole crux of the book is that Frodo's mercy and pity preserved his humanity against the pull of the Ring long enough for him to reach Mordor. And, at the end, Providence rewards him for the gentleness of his heart and his ability to show mercy by coming in to take a hand when Frodo finally breaks down and claims the Ring. That is not the main impression that the movie gives.

Let me say that I loved the movies and cried my way through RotK, but I also worry about people's interpretation of the story being so influenced by PJ in the future that they fail to see that the book itself is more complex and says something subtly different.

If I had to sum up book Frodo as he trudged towards Mordor, I would say this: there are two sides of Frodo, the one where he is influenced by the Ring, and the good side that allows him to bear the Ring. Both sides grow on the journey to Mordor. It is a complex two-sided development, and PJ just doesn't present the other side, the good side, of Frodo to the degree that Tolkien does. There is an excellent review Mark 12_30 put up in movies that says basically this: PJ is great at depicting evil but has a harder time with goodness and light.

Never do we have the scene, for example, where the "good" Faramir (less tormented by his father than the one PJ presents) notes that Frodo appears Elvish. Many such references and scenes are missing: all the allusions to light and Frodo's Elvish appearance, how Frodo immediately picked up on Faramir's Men saying a kind of "grace" when they eat and feeling a little ashamed that his own folk didn't have such a custom, Frodo's dreams about the white shore and the "far green country under a swift sunrise". This change in Frodo's character definitely means a different relationship with both Gollum and Sam.

(There have been prior threads on all these topics on the Downs.)

I think this is something we have to be careful about in the immediate future: PJ's interpretations creeping in and taking over the discussion of the Books. I think the general issue of the movies' subtle impact on our book discussions may deserve a thread of its own.... This has been discussed in terms of our physical images of the character, but not our general interpretations.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:10 AM January 14, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

Child, and davem, and anyone else interested in the depiction of Frodo's mercy,

...Okay, I'll beg.
*mark12_30 kneels and folds hands*
Please, please, please, read this and critique it for me. It's a plea for a Saruman/Frodo scene for the RotK EE. I want to send it to TORn (and PJ if I could figure out how) but I need feedback.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:19 AM January 14, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

I agree about the way the movies are (I say are, not 'may') affecting our interpretations of Tolkien's work. I suspect the effect is very subtle for many of us, but images stay in the mind & are more easily accesible than our long, complex, deeply reasoned ideas. I am glad for some changes though - principally the events at the Sammath Naur, which are totally different in the movie to the way they are in the book - Frodo's brokeness & Gollum's exaltation & his fall which results from it, rather than from a struggle with Frodo as in the movie. Personally I would have hated the film if they'd given away the 'true' story. I think that should remain for the book, for those readers who follow Frodo's story right through to that point.

I remember reading something by Jung, where he gave a line from the Mass, in Latin, but refused to translate it, as he felt it was too 'sacred' (even though anyone with an English-Latin dictionary could have translated it for themselves in a few seconds). He felt it should not be given out in a psychology textbook, but left in the context of the Mass. I'm not comparing the two!! But I think the events at the culmination belong in the book only, & I don't think a movie theatre is the place for them to be given away.

I'm fumbling to get across a point here - maybe if you go to this site: http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/galeria2/galeria2.htm

Look at the image by S.Juchimow - 'Oblaskawienie Smeagola' (2nd row, far right). Maybe it also relates to the Sammath Naur topic too.

[mark12_30]

It doesn't quite belong on this thread except that it ties in with the mercy theme.

SARUMAN AND FRODO

The removal of Saruman and Wormtongue's part in The Return of the King has sparked some intense reaction among fans. I'll have to join the fray, but in a slightly different vein. I am looking forward to seeing the return of Saruman in the Extended Edition, and that is what this article is about. But bear with me for a few paragraphs while I digress.

For quite a while, several debates have been raging concerning the movies. My own pet peeve is that the script as shown so far doesn't allow for quite the in-depth development of Frodo that I expected and hoped for. I enjoy Movie-Frodo (or, ‘FrodoLijah’ as he has come to be affectionately called in these debates). I'm fond of the nuances he brings to the character.

But there have been several sticking points for me. Numerous movie-scriptwriting choices have removed important demonstrations of Book-Frodo's inner character and strength. His conflict with the Barrow-Wight was removed, which was understandable for movie pacing, but a loss in terms of character development. On Weathertop, Frodo was shown slithering away from the Nazgul instead of diving forward sword in hand. At the Fords, we lost Frodo's magnificent defiance of all nine Nazgul. For some of us, moments like these are very sorely missed indeed.

I realize that the Scouring of the Shire has been irrevocably removed from the film versions. In terms of pacing, this makes sense, and I cannot argue with it. However, we again lose a great deal in terms of character development. Frodo, I believe, loses the most.

Tolkien put it this way:

Letter 246, page 331:"Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind: in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical or mental power..."
Letter 246 page 326: "Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (a mere event) I feel that it is central to the whole 'theory' of true nobility and heroism that is presented. Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds... they tend to forget that strange element in the world that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgment... His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly regarded by the highest honor; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed."

The primary element, then, of Frodo's heroic character development is in the spiritual terms of patience, pity and mercy. We see this directed towards Smeagol, but in a limited sense; we may interpret that Frodo pities Smeagol because he sees what he himself may become. And indeed, this is the presentation given thus far in the movie. Pity, mercy, and patience for their own sake, as elements of character above expedience, are not presented.

The final confrontation with Saruman is therefore the crucial exposition of Frodo's growth. Frodo shows Saruman patience, pity and mercy, and releases him with words of peace, forgiveness, and hope. Saruman's death at Wormtongue's hands may not grieve all of us as it does Frodo, but Frodo's sparing him certainly shows us Frodo's strength of character. The focal point of Frodo's spiritual growth is that he has come to understand the importance of patience, mercy and pity. "I will not have him slain. It is useless to meet revenge with revenge."

When Frodo gives pity and mercy to Saruman, Saruman acknowledges his growth in this passage. Frodo speaks first, then Saruman:

"'No, Sam... He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.'

"Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. 'You have grown, Halfling,' he said. 'Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of its sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go, and will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing; I merely foretell."

Now, to the point.

Saruman's death has been removed from the Theatrical version, and reserved for the Extended Edition. This gives the filmmakers the opportunity to put this scene in. Not at Bag End, certainly, for that would require much that cannot be done. But recall that in addition to the encounter at Bag End, the hobbits also encounter Saruman along the road during their journey home.

This scene could take place along the road between Bree and The Shire, after their parting from Gandalf. Saruman could be approaching The Shire with evil intent; or he could boast of oppressing (offscreen) hobbits of the Shire or even of Bree.

Either way, Merry, Sam and Pippin can recommend that Saruman be slain; Frodo spares him; Saruman replies, as above; Frodo sets him free, Wormtongue knifes Saruman, and Saruman with his last remaining strength kills Wormtongue.

This would require that you bring back only six actors: Christopher Lee, Brad Dourif and the four hobbits, and reassemble their costumes. The entire scene can be filmed on a country road of your choice; no reconstruction of any set is required. Frodo's spiritual development would be clearly shown; Saruman's demise would be restored to its proper purpose in the development of Frodo's character even though the Scouring is left out; Frodo would be allowed to shine as Tolkien meant him to; and a major bone of contention would be finally put to rest.

(C. Helen Wright, Dec. 16, 2003)

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:22 AM January 14, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

The link to the picture is quite remarkable! And it does relate to the subject of this thread.

I have mixed feelings about what you've said. It's a toughie for me to come down on one side or the other of this issue. On the one hand, I understand your desire to reserve the "true" telling of Sammath Naur to the book reader who has taken the trouble to come through 900 pages with Tolkien, who understands the characters as Tolkien wanted them to be perceived. On the other hand, there are times when I fear that the subtle differences in the movie are not going away, and we'll still find PJ's interpretation creeping into the Books forum for a very long time.

The true irony is that I went to see the movie again this afternoon and suspended my 'book mentality' and enjoyed it very much. It was showing at the IMAX where your seat definitely shakes when the Nazgul come flying down! I think this dilemma of dual interpretation is going to be around a while in this thread and many others.

BTW, in the movie, Gollum does go over the edge after the second struggle, but that is still different than the book, as is the scene where Frodo "makes a choice" to let Sam pull him up.
**************************************

Helen,

Believe me, I am sympathetic to your desire to have had more of the book Frodo in the movie. And I certainly wouldn't mind what you are suggesting. You've said it very well, but my honest opinion is that this won't happen. And grafting on something like this won't change the basic portrayal of Frodo as a youngish and very vulnerable hobbit, albeit quite endearing, who does not display the wisdom of Tolkien's older, Elf-loving hobbit. And that does affect the portrayal of the Gollum/Frodo relationship and many other scenes from the book.

But good luck with what you are trying to do.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 5:39 PM January 14, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Guinevere]

I do agree so much with you, Child of the 7th age!! I can't really add anything, you have said all I feel and think.
I too feel very sorry that so many people, who haven't read the book so carefully or don't remember it so well, are now influenced by the altered characters in the movie. Let alone those who never read the book - they get a wrong impression of Tolkien altogether.( although there are those people who read the books afterwards and will hopefully notice the differences!!)
(Or is it perhaps so, that only the people who also have read Tolkien's letters see so clearly what it is all about?)

Mark 12_30 : this would have been a very good way to bring about Saruman's end and show Frodo's real character,without bringing the Scouring of the Shire!! However I believe this is only wishful thinking...
And it wouldnt change the "wrong" scenes that already have happened... [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 4:08 AM January 15, 2004: Message edited by: Guinevere ]

[davem]

Child, I've been thinking about why those images are relevant for me. I think its because they're almost, but not quite, icons. In other words, they point us to, make us think of, Icons, but the Christian element is missing. In this way they're like the world of Middle Earth. They, like the books contain a 'far off gleam of the Gospel', but don't contain the Gospel, or Christ in themselves. But its this 'absence' that we feel in them which points/directs us to Christ - & that's my understanding of Tolkien's purpose - he gives us a world which points us beyond itself to a greater 'truth'. LotR is deliberately not a Christian allegory (hence Frodo cannot achieve the Quest - if he did he would simply be an allegory of Christ, or at least a Christ, within Middle Earth, so Tolkien's desire to direct us out from his 'Secondary' world into the Primary world & towards Christ would be a failure). This sounds too much like I'm saying Tolkien is attempting to 'evangelise' through his work. I don't think that's his whole intent, but I do think its there, & certainly it was central to what drove the TCBS.

I hope this makes sense. I think I prefer these images to those of any other artist, because of the way they (for me) perfectly express what Tolkien is trying to do.

[davem]

Helen, I'm with Child on this. Good luck, but I can't see Jackson going for it. He, & the writers clearly have their own understanding of the characters. At the same time what you propose, as far as I'm concerned is necessary. There is something missing at the end of the movie - which I did like (still dislike Towers though!). There should be something significant at the end. Frodo should express something, do/say something which shows us what he has become. In the movie he just seems to 'fade' into the background - which is right in worldly terms, but we see nothing of his spiritual growth.

[Finwe]

Each person's understanding is bound to be different. We're lucky that we have the capacity to understand the true meaning behind Frodo's seeming failure. Many non-Tolkienites out there, however, do not. Jackson made these movies as much for them as he did us. He simply had to simplify themes so that the non-Tolkienite audience wouldn't walk out saying, "What the heck was going on?" As much as we don't like it, it had to be done.


Bravo, Child! To me, Frodo's spiritual journey was more significant than the physical journey that he undertook. Even in the beginning, he was a wise, rather astute Hobbit. By the end of the Quest however, he was so "spiritually mature," that it seemed as if he turned into a mere vial holding the bright, white light of his fëa. Even Gandalf said so. The Quest consumed him so completely that barely anything was left behind.