How Faramir got Slighted (Movie-Book Comparison)

[ethuiliel]

hmmm.... well I'm glad he walked into the woods of Ithilien then, lol...

Anyways, where did you hear that?

[Manveru]

i got it from here:
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/gue...120101_02.html

[Earniel]

If I'm not mistaken, Tolkien also wrote it in a letter to his son Chirstopher, that can be found in the book 'Letters' (the letter, not the son obviously).

[Selwythe]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Believe it or not, I joined this forum specifically to post this link. Perhaps some of you have already read it though I don't see any indication of that in any of the posts so far.

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

That is a very good link, and I do feel better toward Faramir as portrayed in the movies.

Casual fans would not think of all that though, but think, "Faramir sucks. He tried to take the Ring. He beats poor creatures up. He nearly caused Frodo and Sam to die by making Smeagol evil again."

And I get a feeling from this thread that people are dissatisfied with the way Faramir is portrayed, and that people who only watched the movies and read the books would not understand Faramir's nobility; that Faramir was maligned and given an inaccurate representation to people who have not read the books before. It feels like PJ is not telling the story faithfully and getting viewers to have a 100% feel for the real story.

Is that true? If no, disregard my blabbing, but if yes, I'd say:

I'm not excited about Faramir's portrayal in the movies either - he was my favorite character - but I can live with it. To those who only watched the movies and did not read the books, let them be "deceived", and perhaps "pleasantly surprised" when they venture to read the books. I, and others who have watched and read, am at no disadvantage though because I know both sides to the story, and thus have no gripes or complaints. In fact, I like how PJ does a different interpretation to make me think about the movie and question my own interpretation. Even if this interpretation might be inaccurate and give viewers a wrong impression of Faramir, it also was something necessary in the process of film-making (the need of an obstacle, as discussed in the TTT Appendices). If this interpretation draws in more viewers and gets more people acquainted with LotR than a bland portrayal of Faramir (aka little character development, the Ring isn't that tempting) would, I'd say it's acceptable.

That actually sounded a little blasphemous, but I tolerate that in this case, because it's not such a great deviation from the book. I believe the essence of Faramir's character is still there in the movies: he willingly gives up the ring even though his neck is at stake, his nobility and sense of duty is seen in RotK, he has "strength of a different kind", as said by Pippin in RotK EE. Most importantly, his character develops.

Frankly, I'd rather see Faramir, at the cost of appearing a little less lordly, develop the way he did (from trying to please his father to being able to resist temptation and thinking of a greater good), than having him greet the Hobbits cordially, invite them over to Henneth Anun for a cup of tea, and reject the Ring almost immediately. From the standpoints of filmmaking, this does not cut it, and does not entice viewers. This interpretation is more feasible for the movie in context of all the other scenes, so that non-reading viewers don't get bored, and reading viewers don't lose the essence of Faramir's character. I can tolerate that. It's a compromise for both worlds: the readers and the movie-goers. The film-makers couldn't alienate both groups. A faithful portrayal of Faramir might have alienated the latter.