I must admit right at the beginning that I am a big fan of J.R.R Tolkien and especially of The Lord of the Rings. So this trilogy was near and dear to my heart and I waited with great anticipation for its release. I do own all the movies (both short- and long- form) and I’ve seen them all more than once.
So, what were my final impressions of the film? I think the best word to describe how I feel about the overall trilogy is disappointed. Yes, there are three good films here, one of which far overshadows the rest (and it wasn’t the last one). However, there is also a great lesson here about allowing a secular humanist to create a Christian epic and this is where my disappointment lies.
I am not one of those who are upset that certain parts of the movie were changed or moved around. This is a normal part of filmmaking and is acceptable. In fact, I think Jackson did a good job at choosing which parts of the books were unnecessary (like Tom Bombadil) and which was needed. This is where his filmmaking skills worked to their best ability.
No, Jackson’s error was far more disappointing than that: Jackson compromised the morality of characters. It is as if Mr. Jackson and his partner, Fran (who wrote much of the script with him), couldn’t conceive of essentially pure characters. The most obvious example of this is Faramir. In the books, Faramir is the opposite of his brother and understands the danger of the ring. He is also wise enough to understand his father’s ambition and he allows the Ringbearer, Frodo, and his companions to move on. In the movie, Faramir is cast as another example of his brother – he captures the travelers and attempts to take them back to dear old dad (who also is a caricature of Tolkien’s written creation) and only through the forces of evil are Frodo and Sam freed from good Faramir’s grip. This scene was also particularly devastating to the second film because of its uselessness – it added nothing to the movie or to the development of the characters.
If Faramir had been the only compromised figure, I might have still been pleased with the pictures. After all, he was just a small character. But the change in Faramir was just a shadow of the changes to come in the third movie – some of which showed just how little Jackson understood Tolkien’s vision. In particular, Gandalf was among those compromised in the Best Picture winner (which didn’t hold a candle to the first movie in the trilogy). Gandalf does a couple of things that Tolkien would have never conceived of; two scenes at Minas Tirith can best explain the changes. The first is where Gandalf basically ignores the Steward’s decision and lights the beacons deceptively. Gandalf, as Simarillion readers will note, is similar to an angel on earth and does not act outside of normal moral bounds. In addition, Gandalf basically kicks Denethor into the fire, killing him. Again, outside moral bounds.
These are the type of compromises that really hurt the film in my eyes. And I haven’t even mentioned the whining, crying baby Samwise in the third movie or the reluctant king Aragorn. I believe that what the movies ended with was ‘projection’ in a spectacularly self-exposing way for Peter Jackson (I know that sounds harsh, but it is what I really believe). So, while the action was intense, the scenes shot flawlessly, and the plot reasonably well designed, the lack of moral fortitude in the main characters casts a pall over the trilogy that is hard to shake off. I can’t help thinking of how brilliant the movies could have been if only the character of the characters, so to speak, hadn’t been changed.
Against the Grain got me thinking of this topic today and pointed out that the new Chronicles of Narnia movies are at least being made by a Christian. So, perhaps there is hope for that great series.
By the way, let me know your final thoughts on The Lord of the Rings as well.
God bless,
Jay
Eeek, I wanted to read the original post on this thread but I'm getting web server errors.
Is it just me or is the scene where Sam angrily blurts out Boromir's failures to Faramir completely at odds with the "Catholic" ethos implicit in the book?
In the book, after Boromir tries to seize the ring from Frodo, he first expresses remorse, then takes steps to change his ways, sacrifices his life to defend the friends of Frodo, confesses to the future King (Aragorn). What a beautiful picture or the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Remorse, contrition, purpose of ammendment, confession, and repentance.
In return, Aragorn treats Boromir with mercy, gentleness, and the book says that Aragorn kept the secret of Boromir's failure to himself. And so neither Frodo nor Aragorn in the book see any need to dishonor Boromir and the hero is rightly remembered with his dignity and honor intact.
Sam blurting out Boromir's failures to the hero's own brother is a terrible offense known to Catholics as the "Sin of Detraction" (one of many ways to bear false witness against neighbor) and feels much like a violation of the Seal of Confession (which no one may licitly violate even to save one's life).
Or maybe I'm overreacting...
I don't think that you are overacting. I would like to state my own "most inaccurate depiction of a character" scene from the movies. This is the scene in which Gandalf stands alone inside the gates of Gondor in solitary defiance of the Witch-king after Grond has destroyed the city gate. This scene (from the book) is my favorite, not only because of Tolkien's stylistic genius in the telling of the story, but in the subject matter itself. It shows the true sacrificial character of Gandalf, his heroism in the face of impossible odds. And what does the movie version of Gandalf do when the Witch-king attempts to enter the city? Yells "retreat," and runs away. Pathetic. Did Jackson read this passage from the book?