board77

I wanted to give this topic a thread of it's own. The discussion about it started around this point in this thread:

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... d77#116797

sorry, I posted again in that thread...

I'll try and summarize what I said in that thread, but you really should read everything there first:

On Arwen's Fate: I don't like it in the films. I don't like most of Arwen and Aragorn's story from TTT forward. I think PJ took the bits of Tolkien that he liked (like Arwen giving up immortality for Aragorn, and Aragorn having to "save the world" to marry Arwen"), and wrote a story highlighting those bits that also drew in a modern audience to the "love story."

This brings me to the "empathy" statement I made that caused a lot of discussion. I think PJ's characters have a rather shallow emotional being that is built out of current romantic and dramatic trends. That way the audience can jump right in with all their preconceived notions about what these characters mean, and empathize with them.

I think this is horrible, because Tolkiens characters are built on a different historical and cultural basis from us, and their actions are based on that. In order to really empathize with Tolkien's characters, you need to have an understanding of where they come from. Why is it important for Aragorn to get Elrond's approval in marrying Arwen? Why does Elrond make it a condition that Aragorn become King of Gondor first? Why is Arwen willing to give up immortality to be with Aragorn?

PJ has his own versions of these questions, and he has his own answers. They are based on simplistic plot devices and rehashed standard romantic drama stereotypes.

All this led me to give the scene "Arwen's Fate" a 0 on the best scene poll... much to some people's consternation...

halplm wrote:

This brings me to the "empathy" statement I made that caused a lot of discussion. I think PJ's characters have a rather shallow emotional being that is built out of current romantic and dramatic trends. That way the audience can jump right in with all their preconceived notions about what these characters mean, and empathize with them.

Of course a movie audience should be expected to empathise with the characters in the story. Have you ever seen a film in which this didn't happen? Whether the characters be heroes or anti-heroes, it is pretty crucial to a movie's success that the audience is enthralled by their story!

Just one of the many challenges involved in translating Professor Tolkien's great tale to screen.

Quote:

I think this is horrible, because Tolkiens characters are built on a different historical and cultural basis from us, and their actions are based on that.

Hal - this might apply in many ways to the Numenoreans and the Elves but it doesn't apply to the Hobbits. Hobbits are Tolkien's Everyman. They are the accessible and approachable humans in the story, the little people, the ordinary folk who get caught up in great events.

I have always empathised greatly with Frodo. I am a Frodo in many ways. That's partly why I find him the most interesting hobbit, and the hobbit I can most relate to. As the years have gone by, I have empathised more and more with the other characters. It's been a joyous process of discovery ...

... and yes, the films have helped. Even when I don't agree with PJ's interpretation, I have loved seeing these characters come to life. It has also helped me appreciate Tolkien's craftsmanship all the more.

Quote:

In order to really empathize with Tolkien's characters, you need to have an understanding of where they come from. Why is it important for Aragorn to get Elrond's approval in marrying Arwen? Why does Elrond make it a condition that Aragorn become King of Gondor first? Why is Arwen willing to give up immortality to be with Aragorn?

I don't empathise with Aragorn/Arwen in the book at all. The romance is too high and remote for me to relate to. I like it, I hasten to add. I like its remoteness and its beauty. But it doesn't touch me in the same way that the Faramir/Eowyn romance does.

So, I don't think it necessary for a reader to empathise with Aragorn and Arwen, but I can perfectly well understand why PJ 'humanised' their story. On the whole, apart from the silly bits - like Arwen's life tied to the Ring, blah blah - I thought he did a very good job.

Quote:

PJ has his own versions of these questions, and he has his own answers. They are based on simplistic plot devices and rehashed standard romantic drama stereotypes.

Simplistic when compared to Tolkien, yes. But one has to face facts and realise that any adaptation of LOTR will inevitably involve SOME degree of simplification. The story is too 'grand and opulent' (to quote CS Lewis) to translate EASILY to another medium.

Some of PJ's treatment of Aragorn and Arwen is conventional, perhaps. But even PJ's humanised and slightly modernised version of their romance is still very beautiful. I certainly find it so.

Quote:

All this led me to give the scene "Arwen's Fate" a 0 on the best scene poll... much to some people's consternation...

The transcendant qualities in that scene, which are truly remarkable, obviously just plain sailed right over your head.

Di of Long Cleeve wrote:

halplm wrote:

This brings me to the "empathy" statement I made that caused a lot of discussion. I think PJ's characters have a rather shallow emotional being that is built out of current romantic and dramatic trends. That way the audience can jump right in with all their preconceived notions about what these characters mean, and empathize with them.

Of course a movie audience should be expected to empathise with the characters in the story. Have you ever seen a film in which this didn't happen? Whether the characters be heroes or anti-heroes, it is pretty crucial to a movie's success that the audience is enthralled by their story!

Just one of the many challenges involved in translating Professor Tolkien's great tale to screen.

Indeed, but it is possible to be enthralled by their story without putting yourself in their shoes so to speak.

Quote:

Quote:

I think this is horrible, because Tolkiens characters are built on a different historical and cultural basis from us, and their actions are based on that.

Hal - this might apply in many ways to the Numenoreans and the Elves but it doesn't apply to the Hobbits. Hobbits are Tolkien's Everyman. They are the accessible and approachable humans in the story, the little people, the ordinary folk who get caught up in great events.

I have always empathised greatly with Frodo. I am a Frodo in many ways. That's partly why I find him the most interesting hobbit, and the hobbit I can most relate to. As the years have gone by, I have empathised more and more with the other characters. It's been a joyous process of discovery ...

You're right, the Hobbits are more an everyman. They are the ones you're supposed to empathize with. Even so much as they are going out into this world they know almost nothing about, just like the reader. They have to figure it all out at the same time.

That's yet another reason I think PJ's replacing the hobbits as the central characters with Aragorn as ... misguided.

Quote:

... and yes, the films have helped. Even when I don't agree with PJ's interpretation, I have loved seeing these characters come to life. It has also helped me appreciate Tolkien's craftsmanship all the more.

Quote:

In order to really empathize with Tolkien's characters, you need to have an understanding of where they come from. Why is it important for Aragorn to get Elrond's approval in marrying Arwen? Why does Elrond make it a condition that Aragorn become King of Gondor first? Why is Arwen willing to give up immortality to be with Aragorn?

I don't empathise with Aragorn/Arwen in the book at all. The romance is too high and remote for me to relate to. I like it, I hasten to add. I like its remoteness and its beauty. But it doesn't touch me in the same way that the Faramir/Eowyn romance does.

Yes, exactly. Although Faramir/Eowyn is more accessable because it happens "on-stage." Aragorn and Arwen's romance really happens entirely offstage.

Quote:

So, I don't think it necessary for a reader to empathise with Aragorn and Arwen, but I can perfectly well understand why PJ 'humanised' their story. On the whole, apart from the silly bits - like Arwen's life tied to the Ring, blah blah - I thought he did a very good job.

I think this could have been done without the "silly bits." You can show Aragorn and Arwen being close. You could show Arwen looking for news of him, you could even have her bring his standard too him! Which I thought would have been perfect without her brothers showing up. There are ways to make the romance more "real" with making it modern romance.

Quote:

Quote:

PJ has his own versions of these questions, and he has his own answers. They are based on simplistic plot devices and rehashed standard romantic drama stereotypes.

Simplistic when compared to Tolkien, yes. But one has to face facts and realise that any adaptation of LOTR will inevitably involve SOME degree of simplification. The story is too 'grand and opulent' (to quote CS Lewis) to translate EASILY to another medium.

Some of PJ's treatment of Aragorn and Arwen is conventional, perhaps. But even PJ's humanised and slightly modernised version of their romance is still very beautiful. I certainly find it so.

And I won't argue with that. However, it contradicts much of Tolkien's history which was more important to him than showing Aragorn and Arwen's romance. I think you could do a humanised and modernized version of thier story without contradicting Tolkien. I don't think PJ had any interest in that, though.

Quote:

Quote:

All this led me to give the scene "Arwen's Fate" a 0 on the best scene poll... much to some people's consternation...

The transcendant qualities in that scene, which are truly remarkable, obviously just plain sailed right over your head.

I didn't say the scene was without any value, I said it was without value TO ME with respect to PJ's films.

Well, I have a feeling this discussion will run much too deep for me, and I'm not good at words, just gut feelings, so I'm just going to put my meager two cents' worth in regarding my feelings about it:

I thought PJ did a great job with the film and Arwen overall. The vision scene with Aragorn and their son was beautiful. As it fit into the rest of the stuff in the film, I gave it a high mark -- my criteria for rankings was perhaps not the same as others used. I took into account the way the whole film was unless I absolutely HATED it.

However, for me, personally, I adored the Arwen/Aragorn love story in the book. I would've preferred it if Arwen had never left to please her father, as that cheapens her love for Aragorn, IMHO. Would I leave the "planet" (for all practical purposes) if I didn't have proof the man I loved was dead? No. Not to please my father, not to please anyone else and I certainly don't have a love to compare to that of Beren and Luthien. One of the central points of Aragorn's character for me that made him my favorite character 30 years ago was the very fact that their devotion and loyalty was never in doubt. I have to say I don't think I agree with halplm on many things (no offense, halplm) but I do on this for the most part (though I'd never give it a 0). The back and forth stuff for me between them was not so good -- they seemed like a bunch of teenagers to me rather than a great love story to conquer all and face the darkness head-on.

I remember reading the bit in the book when Frodo first sees them in the great hall together and the appendix and thinking it was absolutely perfect. PJ could have left a lot between them in the story without the "yes, I'm staying, yes, I'm going, yes, stay, no go" stuff. Yuck. I did miss the added motivation for Aragorn re Elrond as well. I think that somehow their love could be shown without all that change, being tied to the fate of the ring, etc.

And I realize I'm the odd person out on this -- that everyone prefers the "humanness" of the Eowyn/Faramir thing, but I don't.

Hal I'd like to discuss further points raised by you in the other thread.

Quote:

The story is not about the "sorrow of mortality." It is very much about the acceptance of mortality, and recognition that it is a good thing for men. Without becoming mortal, Arwen could only stay with Aragorn until he died. By becoming mortal, she could be with him in life and death. There was nothing stopping Arwen from living with Aragorn until he died, and then sailing off to Valinor...

Hal. She can't ever sail to Valinor. That was what she gave up. That was the deal.

From Appendix A, The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen:

'I speak no comfort to you, for there is no comfort for such pain within the circles of the world. The uttermost choice is before you: to repent and go to the Havens and bear away into the West the memory of our days together that there shall be evergreen but never more than memory; or else to abide the Doom of Men.'

'Nay, dear lord,' she said, 'that choice is long over. There is now no ship that would bear me hence, and I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nill: the loss and the silence.'

Quote:

I've always found Arwen's grief after Aragorn's death somewhat strange.

A lot of Tolkien's characters are depressive and melancholy. Turin Turambar. Frodo. Arwen. There's a pattern there. Not to mention the fact that Tolkien breaks one's heart a thousand times throughout The Silmarillion and LOTR.

And also: Aragorn is a bit of a git about the whole thing. Deciding to die and leave Arwen rather than face the indignity of senility. 'Take counsel with yourself, beloved, and ask whether you would indeed have me wait until I wither and fall from my high seat unmanned and witless.' Well, really, that's rather selfish of him. As for telling her that she can take the Straight Road to the West, what IS he thinking?? No, she can't do that, Aragorn, you know that is not an option for her. What a thing to say to her on his deathbed!

Quote:

It's more of a commentary on what elves think of mens mortality than it is Arwens grief of her own. It is not until Aragorn dies that she realizes why she made her choice and what her options really meant. It's not what she expected.

I find that wholly believable. Nothing can really prepare any of us for the shock of bereavement.

I was deeply un-nerved when I read the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen for the first time. Her lonely death in Lorien haunted me.

Quote:

But that's going off on a tangent. The thing is, it's all jumbled up in the films, with motivations unclear, and decisions going back and forth. We get a picture of what it means, but it's still basically "Oh, she's giving up immortality to live with him."

Which is precisely what she did, and look at what she got out of it.

Perhaps you can now understand why seeing Arwen's Fate on screen for the first time made me cry. It was PERFECTION.

Only when I read Silmarillion and Tolkien's other writings - and critiques of Tolkien - did I begin to understand that Arwen's death would free her to be with Aragorn in the afterlife. This is not, however, ever spelt out explicitly. Only hinted at, in Aragorn's final words to her:

'Behold! We are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory. Farewell!'

I apologise for double posting, but I wanted to respond to jeanelf.

That was a great two cents!

I'm glad the A/A romance is part of the LOTR backstory and you certainly help me see the beauty of it.

Quote:

The back and forth stuff for me between them was not so good -- they seemed like a bunch of teenagers to me rather than a great love story to conquer all and face the darkness head-on.

Yes, I agree.

Quote:

I remember reading the bit in the book when Frodo first sees them in the great hall together and the appendix and thinking it was absolutely perfect.

I would loved to have seen this on screen!!!!!

Quote:

PJ could have left a lot between them in the story without the "yes, I'm staying, yes, I'm going, yes, stay, no go" stuff. Yuck. I did miss the added motivation for Aragorn re Elrond as well. I think that somehow their love could be shown without all that change, being tied to the fate of the ring, etc.

Again, completely agree.

I like on the whole what PJ gave us but he does play merry hell with canon and Arwen's characterisation is very uneven in the films, because of all the shilly-shallying about the screenwriters did. (Is she an Elf Warrior Princess, yes she is, no she isn't, etc. )

Quote:

And I realize I'm the odd person out on this -- that everyone prefers the "humanness" of the Eowyn/Faramir thing, but I don't.

It's only because I Faramir and envy Eowyn.

All of this makes me want to read the tale of Beren and Luthien again ...

Quote:

'Behold! We are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory. Farewell!'

Don't say
We have come now to the end.
White shores are calling
You and I will meet again.

*bawl*

halplm wrote:

This brings me to the "empathy" statement I made that caused a lot of discussion. I think PJ's characters have a rather shallow emotional being that is built out of current romantic and dramatic trends. That way the audience can jump right in with all their preconceived notions about what these characters mean, and empathize with them.

I don't think there's necessarily emotional shallowness, but I think it is a very contemporary emotionalism (Aragorn is the prime example) and is jarringly out of place for me in the midst of Tolkien's story.

Arwen and the Arwen-related scenes don't work for me at all in the films. I think a more mature and skilled actress might have been able to make it work better, but maybe not. I think the entire treatment of Arwen was a jumbled mess.

As an aside, after re-watching to rate I find I'm not at all thrilled with Kate Blanchett's performance either.

Cerin wrote:

I don't think there's necessarily emotional shallowness, but I think it is a very contemporary emotionalism (Aragorn is the prime example) and is jarringly out of place for me in the midst of Tolkien's story.

But wonderfully fitting in the midst of PJ's.

PS - Kate Blanchett rocks!

I was very bothered by the movie version of Arwen/Aragorn. I agree with Cerin that the emotions of that subplot certainly are contemporary...especially during the scene with Arwen's son. I didn't like that scene overly, it just seemed to take away from the themes of the overall story. It seemed as though PJ was trying to appeal to the emotions of the audience rather than try to portray them as they were in the book, as Tolkien wrote them. I would have preferred that he had stayed with the emotions in the books, because they were beautiful and complex. The values of today's society didn't seem very compatible with the original plot and themes, and some of the scenes, like "Arwen's fate is tied to the ring" and Arwen's son, didn't really fit into the rest of the plot.

Confession: IMO, one of many reasons why TTT is superior to ROTK (and why ROTK is my least fav) is because I felt they dropped the ball pretty badly on the A & A storyline in ROTK. That storyline was working marvelously until ROTK came along and muddled it all up...

yovargas wrote:

Confession: IMO, one of many reasons why TTT is superior to ROTK (and why ROTK is my least fav) is because I felt they dropped the ball pretty badly on the A & A storyline in ROTK. That storyline was working marvelously until ROTK came along and muddled it all up...

Yes. ALINTTTFOTR was a real huh? moment. I also did not particularly care for the Eldarion vision as the main reason Arwen changed her mind. I'm all in favour of adapting for the screen but, imo, there was absolutely no compelling reason for either of those plot points. They clarified nothing and only succeeded in creating more problems than they solved. Unlike V. and Ath I think it requires a convoluted logic to believe that these changes added brilliance to Tolkien's themes.

yov, I do agree with you that TTT was a better crafted film than ROTK.
I certainly liked it more.

I liked all three almost exactly equally, as shown by my ratings.

Quote:

I think it requires a convoluted logic

I resemble that remark.

Ah, but you are a maverick and a danger to us all.

And I wouldn't have it any other way ...

Sassafras wrote:

Yes. ALINTTTFOTR was a real huh? moment. I also did not particularly care for the Eldarion vision as the main reason Arwen changed her mind. I'm all in favour of adapting for the screen but, imo, there was absolutely no compelling reason for either of those plot points.

I think you all know my feelings on TTT and ALINTTTFOTR, so I shan't respond to that. However, I do find it interesting that people didn't like Eldarion. I loved that scene; it's one of the few Arwen scenes that I didn't mind. It contrasts interestingly with the other scene of Arwen's fate from TTT. I've never seen Eldarion as sole motivation for her to go back. I think it acts more as a reminder to her of what she's giving up and, perhaps more importantly, that there is hope. She has seen a vision of a future, a possibly future, in which she has a child. Thus, her fate and Aragorn's fate are not sealed. IIRC, Elrond's words in TTT seem to indicate that there is no possibilty of any happy outcome were she to remain. This vision indicates otherwise.
I wish there had been no need for it, but I still think it's a lovely scene.

So I don't think it's convoluted logic. But then, maybe my logic is convoluted.

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

So I don't think it's convoluted logic. But then, maybe my logic is convoluted.

Mossy, I was actually refering to the many (friendly) arguments I've had with Voronwe and Athrabeth over the suprising plot twist of Arwen is-now-at-death's door, as well as the MoS losing his head.

Arwen's vision does not particularly move me despite the lovely visuals, mostly I suspect because of my conviction that she would never consent to leave Aragorn in the first place. Both Phillipa and Fran in the ROTK commentary emphatically state that they had to find a reason for her to turn back (since they had already started travelling the rocky path of her agreeing to leave ... something Arwen would NOT do ... she's a 2000 year old elf and had plighted her troth to Aragorn over 40+ years before) and so they conceived of the vision of Eldarion as the catalyst.

I find it forced. And I feel manipulated.

Sassafras wrote:

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

So I don't think it's convoluted logic. But then, maybe my logic is convoluted.

Mossy, I was actually refering to the many (friendly) arguments I've had with Voronwe and Athrabeth over the suprising plot twist of Arwen is-now-at-death's door, as well as the MoS losing his head.

Oh. Nevermind me, then. I completely agree. Convolutedness all over the place.

Quote:

Arwen's vision does not particularly move me despite the lovely visuals, mostly I suspect because of my conviction that she would never consent to leave Aragorn in the first place. Both Phillipa and Fran in the ROTK commentary emphatically state that they had to find a reason for her to turn back (since they had already started travelling the rocky path of her agreeing to leave ... something Arwen would NOT do ... she's a 2000 year old elf and had plighted her troth to Aragorn over 40+ years before) and so they conceived of the vision of Eldarion as the catalyst.

I find it forced. And I feel manipulated.

I agree, it's forced. They never should have sent her off from the Havens in the first place. (I will never understand why they decided to leave the plot, and thus back themselves into these corners. It's completely illogical.) But since they did. . . I like how they did it. Or, maybe not how they did it, but the scene is visually lovely, and I like that we get a glimpse at Eldarion and another nod to the Appendix. At least they used something canon instead of another ALINTTTFOTR.

Quote:

I was actually refering to the many (friendly) arguments I've had with Voronwe and Athrabeth over the suprising plot twist of Arwen is-now-at-death's door, as well as the MoS losing his head.

Sassyfrassy, you can't lump those two together.

(And you know it. )

My first SoC ever