Replies

I'll quibble with you slightly, as to Mortensen's performance.

Well, actually no; as to Aragorn's re-characterization, which is the basis of Mortensen's performance.

As you may know, in the book Aragorn has no doubts and no double mind about his destiny. It is only relating specifics of choice of specific paths and timing that he displays any hesitation. But as to kingship, Arwen, the whole ten yards, his hand's on the plow and he ain't a-turnin' back.

Plus he and Gandalf had been friends and associates for years, and had had many exploits and missions together.

The movie characterization is quite different. He barely seems to know Gandalf, if at all ("You can no longer wait for the wizard, Frodo"), and is plagued not only by self-doubt ("the same blood runs in my veins... the same weakness") but by outright unwillingness ("I never wanted that" [or words to that effect]).

Before a dear FRiend here feels she must lecture me yet again, let me hasten to say that I think I understand why Jackson did it the way he did. I think he did it to heighten the tension and raise the suspense level. I don't think it was necessary, but I'm basically OK with it.

And now to my point. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I totally agree that Mortensen did a MASTERFUL job of realizing Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's re-envisioning of Aragorn. He IS Aragaorn — *that* Aragorn. I can't imagine a better, more fulsome performance.

But the man is an idiot. No question. Wonderful, hard-working actor; drooling idiot when it comes to America. Too bad about that.

Dan

Before a dear FRiend here feels she must lecture me yet again...

I agree 100% with your characterization of Aragorn in the films as compared to the book. I think the whole added "disappearing Aragorn/Brego the Wonder Horse" sequence kind of sums up what's wrong with Aragorn's new characterization. He gets lost, wanders around in a daze, and doesn't really seem to know what he has to do until the Orcs are almost upon him.

That said, he does a pretty good job, and I'm not going to let some actor's politcs spoil my viewing, any more than I let Ian McKellan's personal perversions spoil my enjoyment of his acting.

Excellent comments on the characterization of Aragorn. I completely agree and I'll just add that I've been surprised how few people comment on the change. In the book, Aragorn is focused like a laser beam on the kingship. It's the only way he can win Arwen.

Of course the Aragorn/Arwen storyline is a re-telling of Beren and Luthien. Beren is given a hopeless task (retrieving a Silmaril) in order to win Luthien. And Beren never hesitates. Aragorn repeats that single-minded pursuit, never doubting, never losing hope that through some miracle, Sauron will be defeated and the kingship will be restored. But (alas) in the movie, Aragorn is a different man.

I’m glad to see I’m not the only person who thinks that the EE version of TTT was worse than the theatrical movie. (I dislike both versions.)

I liked Eowyn in the theater version. She seemed as she should be cold, hard, and determined. The comic relief scene in the EE version changed my impression of her. She seems younger, flightier, less certain of herself. She seems like some love struck teen.

I liked Boromir in the movie FOTR way more than I liked him in the book, but the EE version, with that Denethor/Boromir/Faramir scene, gave me a completely new vision of Boromir. His father sent him to steal the ring from the start?! What a family of ring grabbers! The ring didn’t corrupt Boromir, his father did. I had always thought that Boromir was a good man who had merely fallen victim to the power of the ring. Who knew!

It seems the entire house of Denethor is a brood of vipers and unfortunately for Tolkien’s vision of Faramir, cruel and obtuse, he seems the ‘lesser man’ of the two viper sons. The Extended Edition may make Faramir more sympathetic, but in a pathetic sort of way. His father is mean and cruel to him, so he is mean and cruel to others (particularly Gollum). He seems someone without the power of mind and spirit to over come an unfortunate beginning. Needless to say, he is nothing like the virtuous Faramir of Tolkien’s book. I did not like Jackson’s treatment of Faramir in any of his versions of the story.

I’ve resigned myself to the fact that although they are barely mentioned by Tolkien in ROTK, Aragorn and Arwen, are the ones Jackson chose to focus on as the main romantic couple. Eowyn and Faramir, Tolkien’s major romance, could not be allowed to compete, so their characters were expendable.

It would have been better for me if they had just left them both out like they did Bombadil. Seeing them treated so poorly makes any version of The Two Towers difficult to watch.

I do think that Jackson will be able to do a good job with the Hobbit. It is a much more conventional type of story. The characterizations do not require as much depth. There are grand battles and special effects requirements that PJ should be able to handle easily. I look forward to seeing it someday.

My theory about Faramir, widely scorned (but still right! < g >) is that modern filmmaking shrinks from portraying genuine nobility

I agree with you, Dan and little jeremiah.