Screencap of the Day! 3/5/08

Noneoftheabove

Noneoftheabove

Lorien
Gandalf advises Theoden in place of the treacherous Grima Wormtongue.

http://www.framecaplib.com/lotrlib/html/episodes/images/ttt/ttt0617.htm

Finally things begin to change for the better in Rohan! Life and color is restored to the Hall as well as to the King.

Despite Theoden's loss, he will not take action against the threat to his realm. Shouldn't he realize that Saruman will surely strike against him more directly now? Why does Theoden resist the truth that Gandalf and Eowyn bring him? The hold Saruman had over Theoden still lingers in some ways even though the socery is gone, why else would he not fight back?


1. What do you think of Theoden's reaction to the state of things now that he is free from the treachery of Grima?

The use of lightening is key in these scenes, suggesting Theoden's return to life; Where everything was darkened previously in his despair..

2. For this scene and others, was the use of lighting necessary or a crutch for storytelling?

Things are still pretty dark ahead for the protagonists!

And finally the commentary with PJ and the writers paints this scene in a pleasant light by comparing Gandalf to Grima.

3. The two may be at opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to their motives; But is it right to even think for a moment Gandalf is in the wrong by urging Theoden to a certain outcome?

It was only in joking to compare the two, but it still bothers me!
 
Theoden couldn't be trying harder to hide from the truth!

I figure the realisation of his role in Rohan's current crisis is hitting home: Because he was under Saruman's influence through Grima, because he wasn't a strong enough nor wise enough King to not fall into Grima's trap, his people are dying and his entire kingdom is likely to be overrun by Saruman's forces. He has failed to do the very thing that a King must do: Protect and guide his people.

It's little wonder that he doesn't want to be pulled in any direction by any advisers, given what happened when he listened to his last adviser. Now he's going to be the King who is in charge, the King who needs no one to help him find a solution - and he is so determined, he is belligerent about it and declining to listen to even the Wizard to rescued him from sorcery.
 
Your description of Theoden's thought process seems to be the most likely reason for why he is being stubborn.

Theoden may feel like he was weak to fall into Saruman and Grima's trap, but he really wasn't. Grima just played on his fears and poisoned him with lies that were already beginning to trouble his mind.
 
I thought the altering of the book stuff, and trying to force in some dramatic tension by going "oh no, will Theoden do what Gandalf wants?" was just pushing it; felt forced to me and while it does make some sense that "Theoden should still be a bit fuzzy and a little wary after Wormtongue", it just didn't work for me
 
He says somewhere on the commentary that he wanted Theoden to have an uneven journey "with little falls" from time to time - moments where he doubted himself or resisted the tide.

It didn't work for me either. Nor did Aragorn's resistance to his destiny, or Gandalf's doubts in the last movie. I kinda wanted to slap them. (I didn't mind Faramir's short detour to the Dark Side in Ihilien, oddly enough.) But listening to the commentary I understood that the actors really liked those moments. They didn't want to play a completely good and sure-of-himself character who has no "arc," who doesn't develop, just is who he is.

I'm just reminded of an interview I read with James McAvoy where he said that it was hard to play his character in Atonement for the first half of the movie, because the guy was completely good then, a strong moral character with no dark side to him. Once they got to the part after Robbie's been in prison and is now a soldier, when he's got a lot of bitterness and unsureness, McAvoy said it was a lot easier to play him.

Maybe you have to be Gregory Peck to be able to play a highly moral man with no moments of self-doubt for an entire film and enjoy it?

It's too bad though, because part of the appeal of LOTR to me was those moral people who held true throughout no matter what. They were role models for the teenaged moi - and are still.
 
Last edited:
(okay, playing devil's advocate here [evil] ) but why should self doubt be immoral? Or even amoral? Of the examples you cite, I personally don't see Aragorn, Gandalf's, or Theoden's momentary "Can I actually handle this situation? If I do the wrong thing, things will go wrong for a lot of people" as turning away from their underpinning morality. In fact, you could say that someone with fewer morals might be less concerned about making mistakes that would cost others.

Whereas you can interpret movie-Faramir as giving into temptation, briefly, but only because he didn't understand the full situation -- he thought bringing the ring to his father was being moral.
 
Obviously I chose the wrong word to try to describe what I saw in the book as a teenager. I admired so many of the characters in the book because they did the right thing and kept their word, no matter what. If they doubted, it didn't affect their actions. Theoden never hinted that he might not come to the aid of Gondor, Aragorn never tried to step away from his destiny, Legolas never doubted him, Gandalf didn't get cold feet at the last minute, Sam never left Frodo . . .
 
It's kind of forced: real people don't UNIVERSALLY go through an entire cycle from self-doubt to total confidence in a short space of time.

Sometimes in war story stuff this makes sense, or biopics that span many years but...

...in real life, very often people pass through self-doubt in their youth or when they're "new" at something, but then become confident as they mature.

The point of Aragorn is that he actually *WAS* quite unsure of himself or could have been......60 years ago when he started being a Ranger.

This is a guy who has been fighting and being a Ranger for 60 years and already accepted his destiny, and already "plighted his troth" to Arwen, etc.

Within the timeframe of "Lord of the Rings", we only see Aragorn at the END of his "journey" and thus only in his "final phase".

While some character growth is needed and expected....if EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER starts going througha PREDICTABLE "Well I had self doubt but now I don't!" thing it would get forced, very forced.

Faramir's "character arc" actually made more sense in the movies....that is, in the Extended Version where they bother to show that "he thinks this is how to get his father to like him and he quite understandably feels kind of desperate".

Simply having Faramir be "instantly, the best nice guy you've ever met" (as he was in the book) is a bit rushed and we should see the rest.

But Aragorn is ALREADY the confident warrior Theoden's healing by Gandalf ALREADY restored his confidence, and inserting self-doubt where its kind of not justified is kind of forced.
 
V"It's kind of forced: real people don't UNIVERSALLY go through an entire cycle from self-doubt to total confidence in a short space of time."
Click to expand...

In the movies I did not perceive Aragorn or Theoden to pendulum back and forth from complete and almost prideful confidence back into self-doubting. That would be silly and obvious! They seemed to have believable human traits, given their incredible situation. And despite that, the film does compress time from what is probably years to seemingly a few weeks.
 
is that Gandalf is literally taking Grima's place as councellor... both physically, psychologically and emotionally. The one thing that really indicates Theoden's realization of this is when Gandalf rests his hand on the arm of the throne just as Grima had done hundreds of times. The one thing different is that the King resists Gandalf's advice... possibly because he's over-reacting to having been influenced so much by Grima that he won't let it happen again no matter who is offering the guidance, even if he's wrong.
 
But it's more after he decides to follow Gandalf -- he says he misses Grima at one point, and at another time says that Gandalf's advice sounded better inside the Golden Hall than in the light of day, when they are facing an actual battle.

I think there's a book basis for the film portrayals here, but what they did was take a thread of the story that Tolkien didn't emphasize as much and build it up.

I guess that's what comes from having a film maker's view of the story -- Jackson and his team look at LOTR and see the cinematic aspects of it, which means playing up some things and playing down others. If they were feminist film makers, or Freudian film makers, or socialist film makers, or Catholic film makers, we probably would have gotten other aspects of the book emphasized. So I guess I'm grateful we got fan film makers, who didn't try to focus on any particular message or interpretation beyond the universal themes of leadership, friendship, sacrifice, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top