I'm working on a pseudo-Tolkien trifecta right now, a work several months in progress. I finished reading The Hobbit to Sweetness (yes, she followed most of it, which I can scarcely fathom at age 3), watched the The Lord of The Rings movie trilogy with Wifey, and I have now been provoked to re-read The Silmarillion. Of all this, one thing came to mind: In the movie trilogy (and books, for the typographically inclined), why are the only truly interesting characters Faramir and, especially, Boromir?
The writing of Tolkien is engrossing, it really defines the term "epic" for other fiction writers to follow. And so many other writers, particularly fantasy and sci-fi, have attempted to do just that. One thing that Tolkien's writings do not have in abundance, though, is characters cast in gray scale. Absolute, selfless, divine good clashes with almost comically wicked evil. Iron-clad courage pursues yellow-bellied cowardice. Self-sacrifice envelopes self-serving avarice. But characters with true weakness to offset some decent qualities are rare. Some of the prequel writings for the Lord of The Ring trilogy do include great heroes overcome by greed or corrupted by power or blinded by rage. But these are stories told at a great distance of mighty figures and great kingdoms in Paradise Lost (see previous blog), not characters that you get to know intimately or see develop much over time. Very much of the Greek Tragedy vein.
But with Faramir and Boromir, you see the struggle between honor and arrogance, obedience and greed, and those conflicts more than any of the (admittedly awesome) special effects are what make repeated viewings or readings of the trilogy worthwhile. While Faramir struggles with Doing The Right Thing at a key juncture of the story, it never seems likely that he will falter. Once he Sets Things Straight, he gets injured and fades out of relevance. Boromir, though, is portrayed as mighty and valiant, a born leader. He only sets out on the great journey of the story at the behest of his father, who is already corroded away to rottenness. He has endured the suffering of his people for his lifetime while striving endlessly for their protection and freedom. In the ring he sees a resolution to every problem he has ever faced, that his whole land has ever faced. And he finally folds. Neither bravery, nor experience, nor strength can prevent him from cracking and committing foul acts. But even through that, he is able to recover, and repenting from his evil ways he commits a last courageous act of sacrifice, selling his life dearly for his comrades. In the movie (I cannot recall if this is true in the book) he even plays a role with his dying words in developing the main character, Aragorn, whose victory is never really in doubt but at least matures in character during the story.
Who can't get behind characters like that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Surely you are baiting me, sir. You know I couldn't pass up a chance to weigh in on this topic, given my deep love of the Tolkien universe.
I see your primary point and agree. I also agree, there's some great stuff in the Silmarillion (I would point to the story of Feanor as an example), but its so packed to the gills that its hard to see character growth.
Most characters in Tolkien's universe are somewhat flat. They may "grow" over time, but they stay fairly static. Bilbo Baggins "grows" through his various adventures but he stays the same affable sort.
I think to Tolkien, complexity was often interchangeable with history. Gandalf was complex because he was ancient, and had a long colorful history. But Gandalf was fairly static from a personality standpoint, he was always a virtuous character. Other "fallen" characters (Sauron, Saruman) were by the time of the events of the Lord of the Rings, similarly static.
I think this stems from Tolkien's primary influences, which was anglo-saxon tradition, and epic stories like Beowulf. These stories told about great events, they were not character studies.
One thing you also must realize that the films and books are different in their characterization of character. In the films, a lot of the internal turmoil of Aragorn living up to his destiny, which is barely hinted at in the books, is fleshed out.
Frodo does transform from a happy go lucky sort to something of a tortured soul, but this is less a personal complexity and more a result of events.
Faramir is also more fleshed out in the movie, and I think Boromir stands alone as far as real complexity. In the book Faramir is a paragon of virtue who doesn't really exhibit his brother's flaws. He says he wouldn't take the ring if it were lying by the road.
Boromir is truly complex I agree. One other character I might also point to for complexity is Thorin Oakenshield from The Hobbit, who does do a fair amount of emotional growth, especially towards the end.
This has been pretty scattershot, and I could go on forever, but I find it surprising that you make no mention of Gollum. His motivations may be simple, but Gollum is, in many ways, fantastically complex. He's a pitiful character, he really defies being labeled any one thing. Even to the last, the Gollum character is one that leaves you unsure how to feel about his demise. One of the great successes of the films, I feel, is the way they captured the conflicted nature of Gollum.
I couldn't agree more with most of your comment. I guess what gets me is that, as you said, there are differences between the movies and the books. If I sat down, went through all the books, then did the same immediately after with the books, I could catalog those differences intelligently. The focus on Gollum is another one of those things that really stands out in the movies. I guess what always soured me on that character is that he may be complex, but he ends up right where he starts!
I think your point on event based vs. personal narrative/perspective based fiction is very salient. I wonder if the increased focus on personal feelings in Western culture has caused a shift away from the event-based literature (?).
Stewart, I obviously didn't follow much of your post as I am a simple mind, but had to shout out that I
*Heart* the title of the post!
word verification-ranomot
My mind ranomot trying to follow the dialogue between you and Matt.
Post a Comment