January 21, 2003

Re: A Case of Betrayal
Kailam

Martha, I'm sorry to hear that you didn't like the TT movie (understatement). A lot of people have found shortcomings here and there. It's a sad truth but an unavoidable one that Jackson's vision of Tolkien's books do not completely coincide with our own.

I find it very interesting, however, that one of your main complaints about the movie is NOT based on a difference in interpretation between yourself and Jackson, but rather a difference in speculation and conjecture. You are obviously very dissapointed with the way Jackson handled Arwen and Aragorn's relationship - but in relation to what? Perhaps your sources are more numerous than mine (very possible), but I have only the Lord of the Rings trilogy to go by, and one thing that is certain is that Tolkien did not supply ANY information regarding Arwen and Aragorn throughout the normal text (maybe something was thrown in the appendicies - I can't remember). In fact, so little is told about Arwen in the books that MOST of the people I know who have read them have mentioned that by the time she comes back in ROTK to marry Aragorn, they had forgotten she even existed and needed to go back to FOTR for a refresher - which still didn't explain why the hell she was marrying Aragorn. Therefore, anything Jackson decided to do to make their relationship visible in the film would have to have been purely speculative, without much of any basis in Tolkien's writings. MAKING the relationship visible was, of course, necessary because, as I just stated, the way Tolkien presents Arwen, most people would have been very confused to see her come back at the end of the 3rd movie out of the blue to marry Aragorn.

Obviously, you are not one of those people who "forgot" Arwen existed when reading about her marriage to Aragorn in ROTK. Your mind drew an intricate and beautiful picture of the relationship between them, of Arwen's commitment to her sacrifice, and of Aragorn's commitment to live up to that sacrifice. Unless you have some sources unknown to me, your view of the relationship is purely of your own imagination, just like Jackson's view. Of course it would have been nicer for you to see YOUR version of the untold story on screen, but your version would not have meshed with Jackson's INTERPRETATION of the book, nor the story he was presenting on film, because your version requires an Aragorn who is set firmly on his path to becoming King, who does not doubt his destiny. Jackson's Aragorn does not yet believe that he has the power and will to take the throne, so it is very possible for JACKSON'S Aragorn to have questioned whether he can accept Arwen's sacrifice as well. As far as Arwen being a "teenager in love" (as I think you put it), yes she does sob when Daddy talks to her sternly about not marrying Aragorn, but she does NOT (in my opinion - we'll have to wait for ROTK to find out for sure) ever doubt that her sacrifice for Aragorn is right, and I don't believe she ever intended NOT to stay with him in Middle-Earth. If anything, I would presume that she snuck out of the line to the Grey Havens, stole Daddy's car, and ran off to meet her boyfriend against her father's wishes. It was Aragorn who broke off the relatioship, which is exactly what JACKSON'S Aragorn should and would do in that situation.

This has gotten a bit more argumentative than I meant it, but the WHOLE point (there is one I promise) is that your complaint about Arwen/Aragorn is based on 2 people IMAGINING something differently, something for which there is no actual background or "fact" to reference. I just think if you're going to hate this movie because it's not "true to Tolkien", citing moments in the movie that were never even talked about by Tolkien isn't really fair to Jackson. He had nothing to go on and neither do you, so how do you know which of you if right? Again, maybe you have something to go by that Tolkien authored that I am unaware of. If so, I apologize.

I'll say one small thing about Faramir. It cannot be denied that Jackson's portrayal of Boromir's brother is vastly different than Tolkien's. You mentioned that Tolkien's goal in portraying Boromir and Faramir was to present to the reader one person who represents the worst in men, and another who respresents the best. I won't disagree with you on that, though I think your evaluation might be a little extreme. However, in the interest of making you a little less hateful towards the film, I think what Jackson has done is to take ALL of the idealized, evil, and otherwise black & white human characters presented by Tolkien and make them all actually HUMAN. None of Jackson's human characters are "noble without fault" or "epitomize the evil in men". Every single human character that Jackson has presented have had the same underlying "theme" - they are all fallable, they all have some odds put against them, they must all look into their own hearts to determine the right path, and, most of all, they are all tempted by something great. For Boromir and Faramir, it is the ring. For Aragorn, it is fleeing from his destiny and not claiming the throne of Gondor. The only thing that truly separates each of Jackson's human characters is whether or not they overcome their temptations and take the right path. Boromir wasn't able to do this, and he died. Faramir, though he is portrayed as a royal asswipe with less kindness in him than even Boromir, manages to overcome his temptation, so his future is yet uncertain, but not doomed. Jackson is presenting in his human characters a THEME which, right or wrong, I'm sure he BELIEVES that Tolkien was trying to portray in his books. Did I say "one small thing about Faramir"? Okay, I'll shut up now. I think I've made my point. Thank you for your time!