Arwen in the Movie, How did you feel about her?

[HOBBIT]

Maybe I have forgotten this....but in the book Frodo didn't ride by himself....did he? So what are you talking about.

[Gerbil]

Yes he did.
Glorfindel chucks him up on Asfaloth and they all head to the Fords together. Then as they come out of the cutting leading to the Fords they hear 5 of the Nazgul behind, and Gloryfiddle sends his cute lil horse legging it away with just Frodo off to the Fords.

And re: Arwen, I can stomach her in the film, because I can just about disconnect myself from the books enough. BUT IMNSHO they should have developed her character other ways. THere are many characters in LotR (eg Elrond) who are strong characters (although less so in the film *sigh*) without the need to be seen in combat. In fact, part of the very real thread through LotR according to the books is that the Elves really achieve little punitive action - the story covers the fading of the Elves and the rise of Man. Elves (apart from Legolas) achieve sweet FA in real terms, they are more wise counsellors. And note that Legolas is not of the High Elves, and so in a way more connected to ME than maybe them.

Arwen IS a reasonable babe, but she's no Evenstar (other than hopefully of her own career). And her speaking Elvish I couldn't help getting the feeling she had a lithp.

[HOBBIT]

oh, ok.........

[bropous]

Liv Tyler called up her father's river? Steven Tyler's river? Yeeecccchhhh!! The very mental picture triggers immediate waves of revulsion....

Just kidding, hiku747, I knowed what ya meant...and welcome to the Moot! Welcome to you too, ladeeda.

[Vardasoroniel]

i appreciated the expanded role of arwen in the film. it was good to see a woman of power and action in relation to a 'tolkien' work.

imo: his writings, while not negative toward women,are naturally entrenched in the male-first ideaology of his generation. his female characters that come from 'powerful' races are only passively powerful & so, not action oriented. in fact, they sometimes seem to me to be only foils or 'feminine' reflections of the primary male characters.

[Gerbil]

Ah yes but how far do you want to take it?
In LotR Tolkien was in effect racist too, if only cos the Elves, although technically superior to Men in all ways, actually achieved bugger all.

I think you can read into it what you want, but you can bet your life that parallel times in real history (middle ages etc. when fighting / soldiers / knights etc. actually existed) women did not get up and be heroes. Examples would be very few and far between. In the overall context though, I think Eowyn is more unlikely than Arwen, since Elves rock. Human female warriors would not be encouraged - indeed at Edoras she was basically a servant to the men, although I'm not sure when she was supposed to be trained up

Basically, I think it was simply unecessary, and I always find it strange when women complain about not having a strong character (which PJ got around by doing up Arwen). I mean, it's a film for God's sake, let's not read to much into it. It's a fantasy film, not some prophetic message of women subservience or domination!

Feminists, bah They claim to want equality, yet ***** when you don't hold the door open for 'em. And have an annoying habit of reading too much into everything. As someone from Alan Partridge's first radio show said to them: 'Shut up and shave'!

[Captain Stern]

I agree with you wholeheartedly Gerbil.

Geez, these women...when will they learn!

[Vardasoroniel]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Ah yes but how far do you want to take it?
In LotR Tolkien was in effect racist too, if only cos the Elves, although technically superior to Men in all ways, actually achieved bugger all.

I think you can read into it what you want, but you can bet your life that parallel times in real history (middle ages etc. when fighting / soldiers / knights etc. actually existed) women did not get up and be heroes. Examples would be very few and far between. In the overall context though, I think Eowyn is more unlikely than Arwen, since Elves rock. Human female warriors would not be encouraged - indeed at Edoras she was basically a servant to the men, although I'm not sure when she was supposed to be trained up

Basically, I think it was simply unecessary, and I always find it strange when women complain about not having a strong character (which PJ got around by doing up Arwen). I mean, it's a film for God's sake, let's not read to much into it. It's a fantasy film, not some prophetic message of women subservience or domination!

Feminists, bah They claim to want equality, yet ***** when you don't hold the door open for 'em. And have an annoying habit of reading too much into everything. As someone from Alan Partridge's first radio show said to them: 'Shut up and shave'!

hmmmm . . . i didn't mean to open the door to an antifeminist rant.

perhaps i should have said her part in the movie was an interesting ploy on the part of PJ to draw in young males who seem to adore the actress thereby increasing revenues; & as a small aside, young women who haven't as yet read the books might be suckered in by her character into actually doing some interesting reading.

btw - 'your welcome'! that is for the opportunity to vent your spleen against feminists! ?feel better, now?

[Vardasoroniel]

Originally posted by Captain Stern
I agree with you wholeheartedly Gerbil.

Geez, these women...when will they learn!

possibly, when you have something of value and interest to teach us!!

[Gerbil]

It's not that we can teach women anything, it's just they need to work out what they want.

They can let me know when they've decided. Until then I like my women to be feminine

[Laurelyn]

Please define the word "Feminine," Gerbil.

Oh, and I don't really mind arwen in the film too much, but she detracts from Frodo's strength and character in standing up to the ringwriaths . . . Grrr . . .

[mirrille]

Yeah. In general, I tend to throw out (= ignore) comments like "I like my women feminine" because it means absolutely nothing. Feminine just mean having qualities of a female, which by definition, all women are. So it's kind of...not helpful. Not to beat up on Gerbil. It's just I'm sure we've all heard that alot of times and thought "huh?" because it doesn't mean anything.

One thing I resent is that when people praise a person or character as being a "strong woman", they usually mean physically strong. Like, Arwen in the book is not good enough because she doesn't ride fast and carry a sword. Put her at the Flight to the Ford and all of a sudden she is a strong woman and isn't it nice that women have a larger role? It detracts from all those women (or people, regardless of gender) who show other ways of being strong. Galadriel doesn't have to lift so much as a jewelled dagger and there is no question that she is powerful. I have always thought that the most admirable quality of Eowyn was the fact that, in spite of a great personal struggle, she managed to stand tall even though she was undervalued in her position. It must have been very difficult to have to nurse her ailing father, not be able to do anything about the sad state of her kingdom, and not be appreciated because she was not a man. We do know that she felt very helpless, but she did not give up and she was willing to do all she could. The fact that she slew a ringwraith is just an add-on to that.

Might in battle is one aspect of strength and bravery. It is not the only one. I wish people could look around and be able to see the strength that it takes to be a certain character, even if it does not involve fighting. That doesn't mean to say that a woman can't be a great fighter or a man can't show perserverance when no one believes in him. Strength of character, strength of body, strength of mind - these belong to neither sex exclusively. But we shouldn't have to feel that only one of these is superior to the other.

I guess when I see that the way they decided to make Arwen stronger was by giving her a sword, I felt they took the easy way out. I hope when they go to do Eowyn, we get to see her inner strength as well.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

Excellent post Mirrille. I agree with you entirely. Strength in many people's mind is limited to the power of muscle as opposed to the power of the mind or the power of the will.

[Vardasoroniel]

Originally posted by mirrille
I guess when I see that the way they decided to make Arwen stronger was by giving her a sword, I felt they took the easy way out. I hope when they go to do Eowyn, we get to see her inner strength as well.

good point! although when i saw arwen with a sword it just seemed natural for her to have one. i suppose, though, it could seemed contrived.

when i referred to arwen as a strong female character, though, i didn't mean necessarily physically strong. i simply meant that her role was enlarged, made more prominent, so that her character seemed as important as the others.

[Laurelyn]

Go Mirrille!!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[olsonm]

Good Post Mirrille.

Eowyn also impressed me when she overcame the deathwish

she seemed to have and realized there was honor in things other

than just battle.

[jerseydevil]

I do agree with Mirrille 100% concerning "strong woman".

Concerning Arwen, I do think that Arwen's character was sort of confusing in the movie. She's wielding a swordand sneaking up on Aragorn in the beginning - but then has no role afterward. What's that all about? I also think it was a marketing ploy. All any one has to look at is the fact that BK produced a glass mug of her - when she only had about 15 minutes of screen time. Also she was used a lot in the advertisements.

I had always thought that Eowyn, Galadriel and Luthien were all very strong female characters in LOTR.. I don't think that there are few female characters in Tolkiens books because he was sexist - but because in some ways he created LOTR as a historical fantasy. Historically there were few strong female characters. Empress Matilda the mother of Henry II was the most powerful woman in England, until probably Queen Elizabeth II. She waged war against King Stephen and deposed him as king. This took place around 1135.

[Gerbil]

Hmmm me wonders whether the people who think that Arwen with a sword is strong are actually male? As in it's not so much empowering women, but possibly playing up to men quite liking the dominant image (eg Xena, Dark Angel, Buffy etc - yes I know they appeal to women, but let's be honest, the roles are primarily female because it appeals to MALES).

As for my definition of feminine, I'm just old fashioned.
It's not that I want them demure and submissive, but 'modern' women who drink lager, get drunk, make idiots of themselves, sleep around etc (the work hard, play hard ethos) just does nothing for me.

I like long hair (the longer the better mmmmmm and women to dress as women. Dominant power dressing does nothing for me. I prefer women who don't swear just for the hell of it, or are mouthy (although I dislike guys who are the same). Basically I hate all the traits they've picked up off guys in the name of equality. Because, of course, they've picked up all our bad traits

But other than that, I love all women

[bropous]

Oh well, I ain't touching the whole "feminine woman" issue...looks dangerous!

Good points made above regarding what makes a strong woman. Don't have a lot to add above what has already been said, except for: There is also strength in wisdom. Tolkien's heroines possess that in spades. As far as Eowyn "slaying" the Lord of the Nazgul, I think it again shows the importance of the unexpected actions of the weak in the affairs of the mighty. Nice line in the signature about that.

BTW, nice hamster pic, Gerbil!

[Captain Stern]

Gerbil, you're walking into a mine field, I'd suggest you get the hell out!