Aragorn

This sort of crosses boundaries between the book and movie, but I just read an interview with actor Viggo Mortenson in which he said the key to the interpretation of his character, Strider/Aragorn, was that he finally realized Aragorn was afraid of his destiny.

I never once got that impression in the book. Cautious, yes, but afraid, no. Aragorn was just waiting for his time, for the right moment. He was willing to give his all when the chance came, but not until then was he willing to risk anything.

So, am I far off the mark?

Liz

[ragamuffin92]

Welcome, Liz--I beat you here by at least 10 hours, I think.
I have to agree with you, and add self-doubt to the list of Strider's character traits. If I remember correctly, when the Fellowship broke up, he sorta beat himself up a little, before pulling up his stirrups and pursuing the orcs. And didn't he show some wry bitterness early on, either in Bree or soon after they left, concerning the way people (and hobbits) perceived him? It definitely took a good piece of the trilogy before he became fully confident, and therefore, bold.
But fear of his destiny, or inherited weakness of character? I don't recall any in the books.

[Ñólendil]

I agree with you both. Perhaps Viggo was referring to the screenplay.

[Menelvagor]

I agree also. I didn't altogether like the way he was portrayed in the movie, and for that very reason. I think there was one part where Gandalf and Elrond were talking and Gandalf says that Aragorn was the only king left (or something like that) and Elrond says that "he turned from that path years ago" or something. What's with that? I might have remembered it wrong (they never actually mention aragorn by name), but that kinda threw me off on the movie Aragorn.

[Gerbil]

Yup, the film's interpretation of Aragorn is one of my main sticking points with it. I don't let it destroy my enjoyment, but they are somehow implying Aragorn is a coward who will later find the strength to overcome his weakness.

In particular the line 'He has chosen exile' made me want to, well, curse under my breath politely It's so annoying.

I think it was done to make him seem more human. In the books he is very much the most pureblooded Numenorean the world has seen in many generations. This would make him very noble, true-spirited, wise etc, but also slightly like Denethor - IE above the concerns of normal man - he knows it is his destiny to rule Middle Earth or to lose it all.
However, Tolkien went to some length to show there was the human side of him, in how he dealt with the hobbits etc.

I think Jackson took out some of the more 'humanised' parts of Aragorn, and therefore had to make him, as a whole, 'more human' to compensate and not leave him looking like an aloof aristocrat type of guy.

[ragamuffin92]

Unfortunately, when making a movie of such epic proportions, and with so many characters, subtlety often gets thrown out the window. Maybe Jackson and the scriptwriters felt that this was the best way to show Aragorn as being a king-to-be in (temporary but prolonged) exile.
Early on in the books, I got the impression that Strider was kind of grim. Apparently, the brain trust behind this movie decided that grimness doesn't work as well as angst.
Still, I thought the film was terrific, and most of my reservations are just plain nit-picking. Because Jackson didn't make this a series of 6 movies, he was forced to make it a "Cliff Notes" version.

[Gerbil]

6 movies?
I read somewhere someone thought each part of LotR should be 3 films, making 9 in total, each at 3-4 hours long.
Let's be realistic

And also intensely grateful.
Don't forget Peter Jackson's original pitch was to do the whole LotR in 1 movie. Even at 4 hours long, it would not have stood a chance at conveying the grandeur of Middle Earth and it's history!

[Menelvagor]

I agree with both of you entirely.

[orald]

A friend of mine just finished the books.He started with the Hobbit,and agrees with me that it would have been a good starting point for the movies.He said of all the characters in the movie,Vig seemed less like the Tolkien character he played.I havent read the books in years,so I didn't see the discrepancies that he did.

[ragamuffin92]

I look at it this way. If George Lucas, who is always breaking new ground, can make Star Wars into a six-film series, why not LOTR? I believe it's the only way Jackson could have included Bombadil and the Barrow Downs scene, the section dealing with the scourge of the Shire, and whatever else had to be left out. Also, with six movies probably could have been kept to under 2 hours. (Side note: I've seen FOtR twice so far, and if I didn't know for a fact that it ran three hours, I would have thought it was only an hour and a half long. The time flew by)

I realize at this point it's all speculation and hindsight, and I also am grateful to PJ for doing such an awesome job on my favorite work of fiction.

[Gerbil]

Ah but the thing is, George Lucas in many eyes is failing to turn Star Wars into an epic 6 filmer. Rather 3 old classic films and as likely enough 3 new shite ones.

Also SW was started on a pretty much shoestring budget - LotR demands tons of cash up front because otherwise you simply cant envisage it well on screen.

Ideally of course, we'd have a real-time depiction of the entire story from start to end, but the line has to be drawn somewhere

At 9 or so hours all told, I reckon that should be enough to carry across such an epic story

[ragamuffin92]

We're all entitled to our opinions here in Conjectureland. I, for one, would happily sit through six two-hour films, if it meant I could see Old Man Willow gobble up a hobbit, Bombadil and Goldberry, the Barrow Wights, etc. Not to mention Glorfindel, Strider, and the four hobbits chasing the Nazgul into the Bruinen with their torches, or Sam bop Bill Ferny in the head with an apple. I'd even be curious to hear what Enya's rendition of "Elbereth, a Gilthoniel" might sound like.

Ahhh, forget it, I'm just dreaming. I STILL say it woulda been nice to have a more complete rendition of the book. But if wishes were horses...

[orald]

BBC did it in 13 hrs.,and it didn't have visual aid,so things had to be explained.An exact interpretation could have been done in a little less time,and kept everyone wanting more,and the purist would have been happy,could have been unprecedented,but it took boldness that most studio's no longer posses.Maybe the dvd will fill in some of the things omitted.

[ragamuffin92]

I think it's very possble, considering the uttterly amazing job PJ and company did on the current version of the film. Financially, I guess it just wouldn't have been feasible to film the entire story. Still, FOtR is far better than I could possibly have imagined it would be, so I don't want to come across like I'm griping, because I'm not. Just dreaming.

[bropous]

Well, again, had the film simply been a verbatim regurgitation of the books, non-initiates would have had their eyes glaze over by the time the hobbits reached Crickhollow, and would have left the theatre. Also, very few new readers would have been introduced to the Fold.

As for the Star Wars films, the first film was great, and each subsequent film descended into puerile silliness and mass-marketing ploys for the sales of tiny plastic action figures. The vomit-inducing introduction of the Ewoks, C3PO's cartoonish recounting of his tale in their tree-city, and the despicably moronic use of Jar-Jar Binks demonstrates most clearly Lucas' descent from a decent first film into juvenile, silly, boring children's fare sequels and prequels.

As for Bombadil, I know a lot of folks liked the character, but he simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the story. Had I my druthers, I would have advised Jackson to still squeeze him and the Barrow-Downs in some way, as the weapon Merry uses to cut into the Lord of the Nazgul's achilles tendon came from the Barrows. Also, I would have kept the Ford at Bruinen scene as written in the book.

However, still the Jackson film is a piece of mastery, and a very good, watchable film from a novice's point of view, as well as a Tolkien fan's. He didn't cover everything, but again, mayhaps some of the more withering criticism could be assuaged by finally seeing the film stock which was cut from the final theatrical release edit. I, for one, would love to see Jackson's "dream edit" of 4 hours 45 minutes.

As for Aragorn, Aragorn certainly WAS leery of claiming the Kingship of Gondor, at the time of the Council, if only because he was heartbroken that Arwen was denied to him by Elrond. When his own mother tells him that Arwen will never be his, he states,

"'Then bitter will my days be, and I will walk in the wild alone," said Aragorn.' Ergo, exile. Elrond did NOT agree to give him the hand of Arwen by the time of the counci, and basically told him that he would NEVER part with Arwen willingly. SOURCE: Appendix A, Return of the King.

Tolkien's own view of rulers and governance was that those who reached for, and desired, lordship over others were the least deserving of that position. Had he shown Aragorn as desiring to seize the kingship, prior to his being basically forced into that position by the need of Gondor, he would paint Aragorn in his own heart as ignoble and rash. Aragorn is Tolkien's "perfect ruler", one who WAS reluctant to accept the crown. Accept it he did, but more as a necessity than an ambition and claim legitimized and enhanced by his bloodline. SOURCE: Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

I think Jackson got his reticence right, and in films some subtleties must be fleshed out in bold lines to get the audience to so perceive. Tolkien intimated this aspect, but Jackson made it overt. Justifiable artistic license, in my EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO opinion. I am open to discussion on these aspects!

[Atisha]

Well, bropous, did you somehow manage to crawl into my brain and read my thoughts?
I do completely agree with every single word you said. I couldn't have put it better.
PJ has my all my deepest respect!!!

[bropous]

Wilkommen ter der Entmoot, Atisha!

Glad you agree with me....how refreshing! *wink!*

[Earniel]

I never really got the impression that Aragorn was afraid or reluctant to take the crown of Gondor. It seemed to me he worried more whether Gondor would accept him as King. It is also my view that he was rather 'eager' (although eager isn't the word I'm looking for) to finally come foreward after all those years of preparation. Probably because it was the only way ever to marry Arwen.

Therefore I was a bit confused about Elrond's remark of how Aragron had chosen exile. I was kind of hoping it would be explained more in the other movies

[jerseydevil]

Well Aragorn did not forsake his ancestory and he carried his heritage by his side (Narsil). It wasn't sitting on an altar at Rivendell gathering dust. Aragorn's character was definitely weakened by Jackson.

[Quazar]

bropous, if I could type as fast as my mind thinks I would have posted just about exactly the same thing you did. Espically the SW musings, the preview for "The Attack Of The Clones" looked pitiful at best and downright sucky at worst.
Anyway, we all have our quibbles with PJ's interpertation of LOTR, but all in all I think he struck an amazing balance between the Tolkienatics and the average movie gower who hadn't a clue to what the movie was really about except for the advertisements they had seen.

Frodo Lives