I am taking my leave. You can rant to anyone else who will listen, but not me!
Posted on 12/24/2002 3:45:41 AM PST by JameRetief
Look, I'm not some bible-thumping nut who is upset at Jackson based on his record of making soft core porn. However, in my humble opinion, there is just no doubt that he intentionally robbed the story of fundamental parts and added in his own ideological biases. I don't have to go into details about how he screwed up the consul of the Ents by premising their attack on all that enviro-nazi crap, do I? I don't see any difference between my being revulsed by that and my sister being upset about the nonsense taught to my nephew in daycare. Is that too dramatic? Well, maybe I'm lucky that I don't have anything serious to complain about!!!
If you (or you kids, lover, or parents) really like the movie, then by all means, ignore my scroogy analysis. Hell, I might even go see the damn thing again! As I said earlier on this or another thread, the first half of the movie was the best movie I'd (maybe the Matrix excluded) had ever seen.
shoot, and here I am trying to bend over backwards to avoid sounding vitriolic. I need more of those little smiley face things peppered throughout my diatribe.
I am taking my leave. You can rant to anyone else who will listen, but not me!
It is not known what Faramir's actual thoughts were because Tolkien did not provide us with that insight-remember that Tolkien liked to use ambiguity for effect. Instead we are presented Faramir through the point of view of the Hobbits with their internal dialogue.
The Hobbits were quite mistrustful of Faramir for reasons cited in the above article. Spoken words can decieve, and especially if the One Ring is attempting to influence that person.
Frodo witnessed this with Boromir:
"Are you sure you do not suffer needlessly?" [Boromir] said. "I wish to help you. You need counsel in your hard choice. Will you not take mine?"
"I think I know already what counsel you would give, Boromir," said Frodo. "And it would seem like wisdom but for the warning of my heart."
"Warning? Warning against what?" said Boromir sharply.
"Against delay. Against the way that seems easier. Against the refusal of the burden that is laid on me. Against-well, if it must be said, against trust in the strength and truth of Men."
You read the passages related to Faramir with the omniscient knowledge from multiple readings that he is an honorable and capable man who will let the Ring pass. Yet the first time reader-guided only by Frodo and Sam's point of view-are not privy to the foreknowledge and see potential danger as the Hobbits do. Additionally, after the Ring has passed, he is no longer within it's sphere of influence and would therefore make potentially different decisions as well.
Frodo had seen Boromir, a courageous, honest and capable man fall to the lure of the Ring even though Boromir's words would indicate otherwise. From Frodo's point of view, why should Faramir, Boromir's own brother, be any different.
The only individual not influenced/tempted by the Ring is Bombadil, all others are susceptible and Frodo knows this. Since Faramir would also be under some influence of the Ring, trusting his words would be perilous as long as he is in a position to take the Ring.
In the book when Faramir allows the Ring to pass we begin to see that he is more cautious and deliberate in his actions and is able to resist the Ring somewhat and make the right decision. The movie, even with much less room to do so, also presents this side of Faramir as well. It is only later in the books that we are able to fully appreciate Faramir's character outside of the influence of the Ring and I expect that the third movie will bear this out.
I personlly don't have a problem with Faramir's treatment on screen. That he did not spell everything out through speech wasn't an issue for me since I still see Faramir's qualities through the actor's presentation. The fundamentals are there and I anticipate that they will be enhanced when the extended version is released which will allow Jackson more screentime to help develop the characters.
Very true Jame... We know that one of the major factors in editing this film was to cut any character development that did not develop Frodo in particular, that for the three hour version, it had to be about Frodo. For the extended version, more development was done for the other characters. I think that will be true again. I am certain that a lot more was filmed.
My first reaction was that he was harsher than the book, but not extraordinarily so, and only because he doesn't get as much dialogue as in the book. He was shortened. The actor indeed plays it very subtly... and in this film you can miss a lot if you do not notice the glances and the moments of thought he portrays. I noticed them more on the second view than the first. PJ requires you to interpret and read these characters, and fill them out with what you already know, if you know them. Those fans that don't know better, won't care either. You are quite right that I am bringing the memory of what I know when I see his character. I want to like him, I want to respect him, and I do. ;~D
I don't buy this excuse about Frodo's point of view being so important. And there is no reason that this point of view (valid as it is) has to be the final say rather than something to be resolved in a manner true to the story and the characters. I suppose the romance of Faramir and Eowyn will be left out as well?
He is NOT influnced by the Ring! I have quoted extensively to prove this. It is this near purity that Jackson ignores. I can only assume that this is because people like Jackson don't really believe in such quaint concepts, however, I've tried to object to the treatment of the story without going off on an ideological crusade against Jackson.
and I expect that the third movie will bear this out.
Well maybe he'll fix everything in his version of the Silmarillion. I personally will approach The Return of the King without any hope for Tolkien's themes to be present.
Tolkien presented his story that way. It is hard to transfer point of view to film, and I think that might be why many fans such as yourself are disliking the Faramir characterization. In going from point of view in the book to film, Jackson had to show that; the Hobbits were in potential danger, that the Ring does influence everyone and that the film Faramir still possessed the qualities shown at that point in the book.
As I said, with the time constraints he had, I think Jackson did present Faramir's true (if abridged) character. I see that the Hobbits fear his reactions. I see deliberation and caution in his actions. I see his interrogatory nature. I see that the Ring may or may not be the dominate factor in his thinking and decisions. None of this is out of character for Faramir at that point in the book. I do hope that the extended version gives us more development, but for what was needed in the movie I think it covers the necessary characteristics of Faramir for moving the story along.
You assume this based upon his own words. That is the problem for those around the Ring. Those under the influence do not realize that they are.
As I said, the only known character that is immune to the influence of the Ring is Bombadil. Everyone else has various levels of resistance, and Faramir's is high. But if he were to have remained around the Ring he would have eventually fallen to it's lure as well.
And the Elves at Helm's Deep don't bother me the way it has some others, but I admit that it takes quite a stretch to believe that the Elve's of Lorien knew just where to be, and when, when the main characters hardly knew themselves and never communicated their plight to anyone. Theoden didn't expect any help and said so. Gandalf had to have interecepted Haldir to point the way on where to be, but then you have to ask, so just where were Haldir and his bowmen going?
I just wish Jackson were honest about his changes. I don't think that after 3 hours we should need to expect discrepancies in charactesr to be cleared up in an extended DVD.
Why not start making films where you pay for a choppy audience version at the theater and then pay for the DVD to restore the key parts that allow the rest of the film to make sense?
Or I could express my opinion (shared by many on FR) of how Jackson effed up the most popular story of the 20th century.
Or I could express my opinion (shared by many on FR) of how Jackson effed up the most popular story of the 20th century.
exactly
I understand this is Peter Jackson's movie.
true
It's just that he did such a good job on Fellowship of the Ring, that I have a hard time comprehending why he made so many of these unnecessary changes to the Two Towers. The change to Faramir is the one I have the most trouble understanding.
And I think people around here are a bit miffed that my explaination of the changes is that Jackson's ideology seeped into the story...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.