XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article , Ronald O.
Christian wrote:
> My news feed, degenerating slowly like a watermelon going soft, seems
> finally to have subsided gently into composthood about three weeks
> ago. I'm now going through something called Usenet Monster. This is
> as much a test of my posting abilities as it is participating in a
> conversation.
I will grade you on your posture, though. :P
> > > > Ronald O. Christian:
> > > > I wonder if these aren't merely examples of what happens when
> > > > you go from print to film. A reader could maybe hold in
> > > > his/her mind the idea of bookish warriors who do not love the
> > > > sword for its sharpness and only go reluctantly into battle,
> > > > and at the same time have in the back of their mind that a
> > > > massive army is attacking them in their homes in a last ditch
> > > > effort to utterly extinguish their race. And that this kind
> > > > of dichotomy might be easier to write than to film.
> > > Troels Forchhammer:
> > > I honestly don't know. There are, I think, several things that
> > > are entangled in all this -- some of it also has to do with the
> > > changes made to the characters of Boromir and Faramir:
> > > Boromir's pride is not shown in the negative light that it is
> > > in the book
> > Sandman:
> > Oh, I think it is.
> Ronald O. Christian:
> ...and I agree. You aren't beat over the head with Boromir's pride,
> but it is there and it is eventually his downfall. I think the
> portrayal of Boromir was the best piece of acting in the series, in
> that it showed him as human and just and kind hearted (his line
> after exiting Moria "give them a moment for pity's sake") as well
> as a fierce warrior. I don't think we needed to see Boromir and
> Faramir as absolutely black and white, arrogant and kindly, prideful
> and humble, tan and pale. I think the balance between the
> characters really was probably the best thing about the films.
I'm not sure I'd be so forthcoming that I would agree to this as far
as you seem to want to go with it. I think Faramir was unjustly
portrayed, but as opposed to Boromir, he is a minor character in both
the book and films (in fact, I'd say he is less of a minor character
in the movies, which says something).
> Boromir was an heroic figure, whom you could believe would fight to
> the death to protect his friends, and yet we saw enough flaws and
> enough of his motivation that it wasn't a surprise that he tried to
> take the ring.
Indeed.
> Faramir was portrayed as intelligent and a shrewd enough judge of
> character that you could imagine him letting Frodo and Sam continue
> on their way, yet it was not a stretch to see him as a leader of
> men and lopping off a few goblin heads. Both men were portrayed as
> *men*, with all of our complexities, and not as cartoon characters
> (like some of the other characters were portrayed).
But I would still contend that Faramir moving towards taking the ring
to Minas Tirith is too big a discrepancy from the books. But that
wisdom was ultimately revealed when he let them on their way, so the
end result (as far as the character goes) was pretty much the same,
only the road to go there were drastically different.
> Incidentally, Sean Bean gets my vote for the finest performance in
> any of the three movies, and the only reason I'm struggling through
> Game of Thrones now. (On the second episode and still not liking
> it.)
He's in GOT? Ok. I generally dislike Sean Bean in any role (since
well, he pretty much always plays the shrouded villain kind of
characters - it's the beard!), and while he did a far better job in
LotR than usually, I still think there could have been a better
performer for the role.
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
