Replies

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.

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.

What is missing from both NZ Striders analysis and the movie version of Faramir is his honesty, kindness, and integrity. He states he will not take the ring; he also states that he would not lie even to an enemy. He asks for Frodo to forgive him for the way he has treated them. If Tolkien wanted to show him as merely treacherous, he would have shown Faramir's words to be lies. But he didn't. Everything Faramir stated, he stood behind. No kindness he showed ever led to a demand for anything in return. He was completely noble, not just some tricksy ring grabber.

Faramir was also an astute observer of the situation. He was not rash. He was very thoughtful and deliberate. All his actions were carefully measured to determine the truth, not merely to trap Frodo and Sam. I know that for some reason Peter Jackson did not want to bring that Faramir to the screen. But, it's beyond me as to why. A character of that level of nobility is very rarely seen on screen and would have been an asset to the film. Contrary to those who would think nobility boring, even NZ Striders analysis depicts a character who has some interesting qualities. We just never get to see them on screen.

As for time constraits being a problem, maybe the warg scene, the fall off the cliff or certainly most of the extra scenes with Arwen and the elves could have been left out for a little more true to book Faramir.

I understand this is Peter Jackson's movie. 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.