XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > >> >> 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.   
   > >>   
   > >> You mean, of course, "when he saw Frodo and the Flying Ring-wraith   
   > >> interacting and said to himself 'that is /not/ going to happen to my   
   > >> father!'".   
   > >   
   > >I fear that this particular conversation appeared only within the   
   > >confines of your own mind :)   
   >   
   > You mean, of course, in Faramir's mind.   
      
   Ah, I think I earn the trust to assume that if I meant that, I would   
   have written that.   
      
   > What, you can't tell what a character on-screen is thinking from his   
   > facial expression and subsequent actions?   
      
   I'm sure this isn't meant as a serious question.   
      
   > It is only after this that he claims to "understand" Frodo and   
   > releases him.   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   > >Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of events, of course.   
   > >I always saw that as the balance point for his better judgement.   
   >   
   > PJ's Faramir has no better judgement. You are confusing him with   
   > JRRT's Faramir, a far better person.   
      
   It is starting to dawn on my that there is a possibility that you're   
   not interested in discussing this, but rather in telling me "the   
   facts" as you perceive them.   
      
   > >> So much for PJ's concept of "wisdom".   
   > >   
   > >I think judging anyones art based on your own interpretation of its   
   > >intentions is unadvisable.   
   >   
   > I think that calling PJ's /LOTR/ "art" is stretching the meaning of   
   > "art" until it becomes unrecognizable. That is why some films are   
   > shown in "art houses" and others are not: only some films are "art".   
   > /LOTR/ is not one of them, and does not pretend to be.   
      
   I fail to see the relevancy of this remark. It is not like detaching   
   the movies from this word justifies any judgement on it based on your   
   interpretation of it.   
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)