board77

My mother-in-law is the gifted facilitator at the two local middle schools. She invited me to come in as a guest speaker today to make a presentation to both of her classes about the various elements that go into making a good film. Since most of the kids in the class seem to really love the LOTR films, she encouraged me to use a scene from one of those as an example for the basis of the discussion. Needless to say, I chose the arrival of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor Fields, my favorite scene in the trilogy, and possibly in any movie. As a result of the presentation, I was struck by two things:

1. There was SO MUCH to talk about just for that one scene. So many of the elements that constitute great filmmaking are present in this scene, it's kind of unbelievable. From the script, to the score, to the acting, to the effects, to the cinematography, to the choices of camera angles, to the lighting, to the sound... it was just all done so flawlessly it's kind of incredible.

I think my favorite aspect of it is the way it cuts between the epic and the personal, with very wide shots, followed immediately by intimate closeups. This allows for Eowyn and Merry to be the emotional anchor for the audience, allowing the audience to share in their trepidation, and then in their later elation. The fact that PJ paid attention to such details is certainly shows that he is capable of true genius.

2. Secondly, I was blown away by just how many "gifted" children were LOTR fans. I mean, LOTR is popular, we all know that. But a disproportionate number of these students were as obsessed with these books and films as any of us, and more than 90 percent of them were obvious fans. I think there is a definite correlation between intelligence and liking Tolkien.


Iavas: I'm glad you agree with me! I also *really* like what Voronwe and others are saying about the beheading being symbolic. But I don't think that the concept is mutually exclusive with what I'm putting forward. In fact, I think it adds depth to the scene to see it both on the surface as a practical act, while also seeing it beneath the surface as a symbolic conquering of self-doubt.

So I must have missed people justifying the beheading???

Hmmm...

Yeah, that sums it up...

Oh, and I still haven't seen it... I remain determined.

Oh, and my dvds for the first two films didn't make it into the big book o' DVDs I took with me to my temporary apartment 3000 miles away... I feel that distance is safe enough...

Athrabeth wrote:

Quote:

And what does he meet? Well, I think he meets a puppet of Sauron's, a mouthpiece, aptly enough, and solely that. This MoS is in no way like the one in the book. This MoS would not be the chosen Lieutenant to take command of Isengard; a black Numenorian of great skill and cunning. "He" has been changed into an "It", and I believe that "It" can be seen as a manifestation of the lies of Sauron, (or perhaps as an actual vessel to voice those lies). THAT, to me, is what Aragorn destroys with his "broken elvish blade", not a living, breathing being. I can actually view the whole sequence as symbolizing Aragorn's recognition, rejection, and triumph over this most potent weapon of his enemy. It is the perfect balance to the palantir scene.

<sigh>

I should probably just let this go ... at least on this forum ... but I can't.
Ath, not suprisingly you and Voronwe parallel each other, but here's where I see the flaw in your conclusion.
I will grant you Aragorn's dismay with the palantir scene.
I will grant you he may despair of Arwen's life. Even although I am inclined to believe, having been raised by Elrond in Rivendell, he, Aragorn is fully aware of Sauron's duplicity ... so, for the sake of argument only I agree with your take.
I will grant you that the MoS has been removed from humanity and turned into a creature, a monster, an it, a loathsome object of horror and disgust whose sole purpose is to demoralize, throwing confusion and doubt upon his (Sauron's) enemies.
All these points I will grant you. BUT, it does not necessarily follow that Aragorn must destroy this beast in order to silence him. He could just as easily physically compelled the Mouth to return to Mordor.
Would that scenerio have been as dramatic as PJ's? Of course not.
All I am attempting to point out is that the MOS death is not mandated by Aragorn's despair or by his symbolic return to hope. There were other avenues by which your points could have been made. I find (and I know I am virtually alone in this view .... shades of Melkor and the Sil!) I am unable to reconcile the beheading with my understanding of movie Aragorn. I find it appallingly out-of-character.

Quote:

that look and those words, "For Frodo", carry such power and meaning for many of us who love the works of Tolkien. They really are a blending of hope and despair, balanced, like the very moment itself, on the edge of Mt. Doom.

Now with this I can heartedly agree.
However, the power of these two words would not have been diminished had the beheading not taken place. Their meaning is not dependent upon that one particular act.

Here's an even shorter novelization: it only takes a minute to read this one.

Winged Balrog wrote:

Iavas: I'm glad you agree with me! I also *really* like what Voronwe and others are saying about the beheading being symbolic.

Not quite sure that I can totally agree with the notion of the heading being symbolic, I have a problem with the sym part, the notion that it's bolics I whole-heartedly subscribe too

The Mighty eborr wrote:

Quote:

the notion that it's bolics I whole-heartedly subscribe too

<snerk>

Sass, here's a bit of my last post in Teremia's thread over in the other place (we've just finished discussing "The Black Gate Opens"):

Athrabeth the book-lover wrote:

Tolkien’s handling of the “negotiations” is so expertly rendered with undercurrents of restrained hostility and desperation, that even after many readings, I feel my pulse quicken at the subtle sharpness of its tension. It is an amazing scene, and one that deserved more faith on the part of the scriptwriters that it could play powerfully and meaningfully on screen…………..’nuff said.

I TRULY love this scene in the book. I TRULY think that seeing it on screen as it was originally rendered would have been wonderful.

But the scene from the book isn't about Aragorn. The scene from the movie is............big time. And to my mind, it fits the "inner journey" of his movie character very well, and given this context, I find that I can accept its very different premise.

The first time I watched ROTK, I really did have a problem with the way Aragorn's story got rather lost in the overall narrative. I even wrote a post saying basically that I thought that the character's path from self-doubting Ranger to resolute and confident king-in-waiting "peaked" in TTT at Helm's Deep, only to decline in importance and meaning in the third film. That moment when Elrond hands him Anduril seemed on the verge of irrelevance, actually. Okay, it got him the allegiance of the Army of the Dead, which got him to Minas Tirith, which secured the victory of Gondor and Rohan, but somehow, for me, there was just something missing.

But the EE really changed that view. Here's how I see film Aragorn's "path" becoming resolved, from Dunharrow onward:

~Aragorn awakes from a nightmare in which he sees Arwen's fading and death (I don't see this as a deception of Sauron, but rather the workings of his own foresight)

~He learns from Elrond that the vision holds a great measure of truth. He has not been able to save Arwen from the destiny she has chosen.

~He receives Anduril, and in accepting this symbol of his kingship, becomes the "Hope" for Men, although he cannot see any personal hope for himself

~Anduril does indeed help him secure his rightful authority as Isildur's heir, as well as victory over the forces of Morgul (Paths of the Dead, Corsairs, Pelennor, yadda yadda yadda)

~With renewed confidence and whole lot of machismo, Aragorn decides to confront Sauron. I love the way he belts the palantir with Anduril, this symbol of his authority and power. But somehow, it fails to unsettle Sauron for long, who then counters with the image of a lifeless Arwen. Aragorn, overcome with despair, staggers away, fully believing that now, his vision and words at Dunharrow have come to pass. So why does Aragorn lose this battle of wills, even though he wields Anduril as a mark of his kingship?..................................keep reading, Sass!

~Taking on the leadership of the Host of the West, Aragorn leaves Minas Tirith for the final confrontation before the walls of Mordor. To his mind, Arwen is gone. He now is left with only one great and driving purpose: to somehow aid Frodo in completing the errand. He is also the embodiment of Hope for the entire host marching behind him. He knows he rides to his destiny, and I think he has, probably for the first time, a "clear vision" of this.

~At the Black Gate, an unholy apparition appears. Not a Man. Not an Orc. Something else. But what the hell is It? Well, quite simply, as Voronwe has noted, it is the MOUTH of Sauron..............his lies and treachery, his wickedness and vileness somehow embodied or manifested. Once again, I have to say that I do not view "It" as a creature of Middle-earth, either one that was once fair or one that is eternally foul. Aragorn sees "It" for what it is, and in doing so, finds faith in himself, finally, as king. The MoS is right: it DOES take more than a "broken elvish blade" to make a king, which was why Aragorn failed in the palantir confrontation. It's not about wielding Anduril. It's about having no doubts about your rightful destiny, of "knowing" the truth and heart and meaning of your existence. Aragorn now recognizes the MoS as the creation of Sauron, there solely to mock and torment the host with his shadow-web of lies, and he destroys It. He is not killing a being. He is destroying bitter despair and hopelessness. He is fulfilling his duty as the King of Gondor, and the Hope for Men.

I really see the whole MoS scene as a necessary balance to the palantir scene. If the writers had the latter play out differently (closer to that in the book), with Aragorn winning (barely) over Sauron, then I would have expected a Black Gate confrontation much closer to the book as well. And that would have made me VERY happy. But a "defeated Aragorn", especially when defeated on such a personal level, requires a "victorious Aragorn", don't you think?

If it is impossible to view the MoS as something other than a sentient being, then I can absolutely understand the difficulty in excepting the scene. I'm seeing the whole thing as very symbolic, (the shattering Evenstar, Anduril, "the Mouth") because taking these things at "face value" just doesn't make a lot of sense. I have no idea whether these symbols are there on purpose or by chance, but they work for me............so I'm sticking with my interpretation. It makes me a lot more content!

Athrabeth the *brilliant* wrote:

~At the Black Gate, an unholy apparition appears. Not a Man. Not an Orc. Something else. But what the hell is It? Well, quite simply, as Voronwe has noted, it is the MOUTH of Sauron..............his lies and treachery, his wickedness and vileness somehow embodied or manifested. Once again, I have to say that I do not view "It" as a creature of Middle-earth, either one that was once fair or one that is eternally foul. Aragorn sees "It" for what it is, and in doing so, finds faith in himself, finally, as king. The MoS is right: it DOES take more than a "broken elvish blade" to make a king, which was why Aragorn failed in the palantir confrontation. It's not about wielding Anduril. It's about having no doubts about your rightful destiny, of "knowing" the truth and heart and meaning of your existence. Aragorn now recognizes the MoS as the creation of Sauron, there solely to mock and torment the host with his shadow-web of lies, and he destroys It. He is not killing a being. He is destroying bitter despair and hopelessness. He is fulfilling his duty as the King of Gondor, and the Hope for Men.

Well said!

Ath, I think that's its very interesting that you were apparently writing that at the same time that I was composing my post in my new thread (which started out as a post in this thread. As usual, our thoughts complement each other well.

Oh I see!

I suffer from the curse of the literal minded



Ath, that is a beautifully worked theory and if I accept your basic premise, which, as I understand, is that the Mouth of Sauron is not a living breathing being of any description but rather is a puppet, a marionette whose strings are pulled by Sauron, who is trotted out with some form of magical life breathed into him (which enables him to move, to speak, to react, to process information, to ride a horse) and his essence is non-existent because he/it is an inanimate object ... a dead thing ... then no, I no more care if Aragorn slices his/its head off than I do if Aragorn chops wood or polishes stone.

But, you see, I do not believe this. Not even with the visual help of the grotesquerie Jackson presents to us.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose that the visual had been closer to our concept of the Black Numenorian with a vastly extended life-span, but obviously a member of the human race. Let's say that everything is exactly the same, the scene plays out in the exact same fashion ... would you still feel that Aragorn was beheading a symbol only?

Or would it change nothing for you?

It would change everything.

Edited to add: Well, geez, Winged Balrog, you made be blush, you did. Thanks! I like blushing!

Edited again to add: I guess I better check out that new thread, my friend!

Sorry don't buy the symbolic thining, the depiction of the mouth is clearly a corrupted man, and there are some hints as to his being the black numenorean, through his use of archaic language, I also think if he was meant in a symbolic sense then consistency would demand the mouth was depicted as a large mouth on top of a tour, I visualise something like the Rolling Stones lips with the capacity to spread saliva over large distances.

His mouth isn't human by any stretch of the imagination, and his blood is black (see Aragorn's sword).

Primula_Baggins wrote:

His mouth isn't human by any stretch of the imagination, and his blood is black (see Aragorn's sword).

Ah but it is a mouth, stretched and perverted, and yes there are prosthetics involved, but it is Bruce Spences mouth that was used, I think this is one of those cases where we have a particularly insensitive piece of direction and folks are rushing round to try and justify it as great art

eborr, I'm not defending it as "great art", and I certainly wouldn't be "rushing around" trying to do so. As I said in my previous post, it is how I choose to interpret the scene within the context of film Aragorn's journey from Ranger to King. It fits more comfortably within my own personal little moral universe.

And having just watched the scene again yesterday, there is no way that I can see the MoS as some form of "corrupted man". I don't know what it is, but to me, clearly, it is not human.

As I have said before, I am not particularly interested in determining whether it is "great art". I certainly don't consider myself qualified to make that determination. I am much more interested in looking at what it makes me think and feel then how good or bad it is, whenever possible. I don't believe that I ever said I thought the beheading of the MOS was a "good change" or that I was glad they did that, or anything like that, though people have certainly assumed that was what I was saying. But its part of the story that was told by the filmmakers, and as such I am interested in trying to figure out what it means to the story they told.

Voronwe:

Popping in quickly. Wingy needs a Mr. BananaDance icon ->


But seriously, folks....

This scene struck me as a bit of personal fantasy. no pun intended. Who hasn't dreamt of doing something outrageous (the classic examples are: chewing out the boss, beating up the bully, getting off that smart retort and have people around you impressed by your cleverness). Movies act that out for us. Of course, I am so sure that there are hundreds of examples and yet I cannot think of one! My mind's been a bit of a muddle lately and that's why I've been reading rather than posting.

There certainly isn't a Tolkien reason or a book reason. But I've listened to some of PJ commentary on the ROTK:EE and I could understand if PJ thought to himself "because it would look cool, because it would be unexpected, because it is a classic way to release pent-up emotions in a movie."

Woo hoo!!!


As for the meaning of the MOS beheading, I don't know whether PJ had what Ath and V have been talking about in mind when they made the decision. Unless we can read his mind, or unless he tells us directly, we can never know.

But it really doesn't matter. The meaning of a scene is what it means to you. Meanings change through time and space. Once meaningful things lose their meaning, and once meaningless things gain new meaning. Now, I don't think that what the author intended should be completely discounted, and there is value in looking at the meaning of something in the context of when and where it was written. But ultimately, the *personal* meaning of something is, well, personal.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

But its part of the story that was told by the filmmakers, and as such I am interested in trying to figure out what it means to the story they told.

I suspect that as in many other cases, they made a decision with regard to filmic requirements for pace, action, excitement, visual effect, audience satisfaction, etc., and were not overly concerned with the implications for the story.

I recall the extended discussion over the implications of the Osgiliath/Nazgul/Frodo scene, and it seems pretty clear to me that the filmmakers created that scene out of a need or desire to convey something dramatically, without concern for the implications we discussed. In the same way, the decision to have the mock stabbing of the hobbits at Bree led to discussions about the Nazgul and the inconsistency in their perception of the Ring's presence, which it is clear to me from the commentary, was not a concern to the filmmakers. They wanted that moment for its effect alone.

I don't mean this as a criticism, but I see people trying to figure out what was meant in a deeper sense when I suspect nothing was meant at all, or trying to reconcile apparent conflicts by ascribing the most extraordinary hidden meanings to what must surely have been much more straightforward decisions for much simpler reasons, without a concern for extraneous ramifications.

Now it may be that the interesting insights offered here can be rationalized and supported by what's on the screen (in much the same way as many people seem to see specific references to various aspects of our world wars in Tolkien's story), but that doesn't mean that the filmmakers intentionally put them there. I honestly think that for the most part, the significances and thematic extrapolations that are expounded on in our discussions never occurred to them.

Oh, I see that kams said the same thing much more simply.