Well, it's been at least a day or so since I blogged anything to do with Tolkien, so it's time. Herewith, my thoughts on female characters and such in the films so far:
In retrospect, it looks as if the inclusion/build up of existing female characters in the movie, supposedly to assuage the sensibilities of modern females who are used to seeing women on film doing stuff Just As Good As Men If Not Better (or at least hanging around with the guys like pretend equals), was a mistake. I don't think I have read one review or comment from a female saying things like: "I'm so glad we see more of Arwen!" At best the general consensus seems to be: "Arwen, eh." In fact, there are some women who could cheerfully dispense with her character altogether. Eowyn, now, is getting a lot more favorable notice -- but gee, it just so happens she is an active character in the actual book, while Arwen is in the background and doesn't even have a speaking part unless you count a message she sends to Aragorn through her brother. Go figure! Women are more concerned with faithfulness to the work of art being translated into film than in being good little feminists.
What's my take? Well, I see what Jackson and the screenwriter (scriptwriter? Whatever.) Philippa Boyens did -- for the first part of the film they gave Arwen the part (mostly) of Glorfindel -- which is no problem because we never see Glorfindel in the story again after the race to the Ford. And they pulled some stuff out of the "Arwen and Aragorn" story that is in the Appendices -- oh blah blah blah. Let me be frank. Liv Tyler is quite pretty and at least has dark hair, and her acting isn't bad -- it's not a complex part. And the flashback scene in The Two Towers with Aragorn and Arwen on the [I WISH] balcony of my house looking out across my back yard [/I WISH] is also very pretty, kind of like a Maxfield Parrish painting -- but it slows the film nearly to a crawl, and is an unnecessary diversion from the main action in a whole long sequence that they made up out of almost whole cloth. (Except for the Warg attack, which actually occurred in the first book before the attempt to climb Caradhras, and was perpetrated on the Fellowship, and no one got killed -- and [PEEVE] why does Háma have to get offed by a Warg, why doesn't he get to die before the gates of the Hornburg in battle, so the king can mourn him? Whatever. [/PEEVE]) I could cheerfully have dispensed with the love scenes so as to have either more battle scenes, or better yet, more scenes with Faramir that might have disclosed to us more of an idea of just what it is Jackson and co. thought they were doing with his character. I think that that notion, the whole we-must-build-up-the-distaff-side idea, is a sad side effect of living in these modern times, where even someone who dared take on something as unfilmable as Lord of the Rings still can't quite bring himself to tell the PC crowd to stuff it. Even so, this film is being tediously referred to as "a boy's film," even by the principals (I have the interviews on the dvd), so I can only imagine the outcry that would have rattled the cages of the filmworld if they had stuck closer to the story. Well, when I get the dvd I can always skip the mushy Arwen scenes. That's what that little fast forward button is for.
Side note: since I seem to be stuck on Anne Wilson's blog tonight, I'll talk about this post where she says that the ancient Germanic tribes the Rohirrim are possibly based on (they aren't really, actually -- not to the letter, but read on) were not really like the actual ancient Germanic tribes as recorded by Tacitus, of whose account she gives an example. For one thing, instead of being scared and weeping during battles, actual ancient Germanic tribal women were encouraging and cheered their men on, and so forth. Well, no doubt it would have been more true to history to show the women of Rohan shoving their boys out into battle, but that would never play in Peoria. (Or would it? Who knows.) I think the weepy women scenes were a) part of the buildup of doomy emotion Jackson seemed to be going for, and b) a rather tedious emphasis on The Horrors of War on the Helpless. And of course, keep in mind that the enemy besieging them was not, for the most part, human, so the fear factor has to be greater. For myself, I would rather have seen Tolkien's idea of what the Rohirrim were like: "...a stern people, loyal to their lord, and little weeping or murmuring was heard, even in the camp in the Hold where the exiles from Edoras were housed, women and children and old men. Doom hung over them, but they faced it silently." But maybe that wouldn't play in Peoria either. But we'll never know.
Posted by Andrea Harris at January 15, 2003 09:09 PMEverything you suggest here would have played quite well in North Carolina, I assure you. Or in whatever theater I happened to be in, anyway.
Posted by: Mike at January 15, 2003 at 09:44 PMYou were doing so well, and here you are back on Tolkien.
You don't need The Two Towers. You need the twelve steps.
Posted by: Steve H. at January 15, 2003 at 10:41 PMWhat gets me is that Eowyn has so many feminist lines in the book that she hasn't had (well, at least not yet) in the movies. If it's all for feminist sensibilities, why not include lines about "don't make me stay home just because I'm a woman" and so forth?
Steve, are you the Steve H. from HHN webboards?
Posted by: Marybeth at January 15, 2003 at 10:59 PMI think that the main reason for beefing up Arwen's role is so that, at the end of Return of the King, audiences not familiar with the book aren't scratching their heads wondering why the hell Aragorn isn't marrying Eowyn. Personally, I liked the Arwen/Aragorn flashback in TTT because, when riding off to war, men DO think about their wives and fiancees and girlfriends. To know that, while riding off to war, Aragorn isn't thinking about his destiny as a King or worrying about whether he'll be weak like Isildor, but rather is thinking about Arwen humanizes the character and adds depth to his portrayal.
As for Faramir, I think they changed his character the way they did because a) Jackson & co. wanted to remind audiences of the power and temptation of the ring--not just the corrupting effect and b) since the movie ends a little early, Frodo and Sam needed SOME conflict to keep up the dramatic interest in their storyline. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Alex Knapp at January 15, 2003 at 11:00 PMAlex (we have to stop meeting like this), I agree party. Arwen does need added scenes in Two Towers to maintain the emotional credibility of their relationship into the ROTK. I also agree with you about Faramir, and I in fact think his character was moving towards being MORE intersting then his static, help-along-the-way role in the book. They tried to give him some depth, but failed by not providing a coherent basis for his sudden change of heart.
Posted by: Sean Kirby at January 15, 2003 at 11:12 PMSorry to break the line. But, I must only write my ode to the film. Go Elvin Magic. Some of the most beautiful sights I have ever seen in props and creative beauty.
The light of the images are amazing. The best effort ever delivered in the history of film.
Posted by: Funny at January 15, 2003 at 11:18 PMJeez, Sean, are you stalking me? :) At any rate, I think--and I could be wrong--but it seemed to me when watching the film that Faramir's change of heart occured when he saw Frodo being drawn to the Ringwraith, and he seemed to realize the evil of the Ring. But I could be wrong.
Posted by: Alex Knapp at January 15, 2003 at 11:55 PMI have my own ideas about those Faramir scenes, but I haven't had time to blog them. But I will. (Nyah, Steve! Hey, I could be into Pokemon. Or beanie babies. It could always be worse.)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 16, 2003 at 12:14 AMor the dreaded Precious Moments. don't forget those!
for my part, wrt women in the films, i was happy with Galadriel. they did a decent job. well, except for the annoying crappy flaming CGI effects when she parses the presence of The One Ring. UG.
she is the most powerful female character in the books; arguably the third most powerful person IN Middle Earth who is not evil, and fifth most powerful overall. i'd even seat Radagast just under her - angel or no - because of her possession of a ring of power.
and Cate did a good job. Liv Tyler, EH. even Eowyn was a bit watered down. i agree - where is her cold belligerence?? why the hell is she ONLY making moon eyes at Aragorn for 2/3 of this movie? she was much more. she was supposed to be a lot more.
she'd better be a lot more, in the third movie.
if any male character, or Arwen, kills the Nazgul, i'm going to hunt Peter Jackson down.
ok, must go actually sleep.
Posted by: chris at January 16, 2003 at 12:47 AMActually on theonering.net they have a list of scenes cut from TTT, and some of these should make it in the extended version. One scene has Eowyn fighting some orcs that make it into the glittering caves.
There is also more Faramir. Faramir delivers a eulogy for the slain Haradrim that is actually Sam's internal monolgue from the book.
A lot of other cool stuff, more Gollum and Sam in the taters sequence.
Apparently Arwen was in the Helms Deep battle orginally but they cut alll those scenes out. THANK GOD!!!
I would have prefered Natalie Portman as Arwen. I wish they traded her with Tyler. Tyler is too bland for my tastes.
But let's be real people, men make the best warriors. Women have rarely figured in any wars. Nor did they tromp around the countryside having adventures like men in the old days. Unless they were either camp followers or nurses. This is not some dig at women. Just reality.
Women like Joan of Arc were a rarity. And she didn't do much fighting, if any.
Posted by: James Hudnall at January 16, 2003 at 01:57 AMI think you can trace every change PJ made to his sense as a filmmaker.
In the novel, every major decision is made without drama or tension. The Ents cheerfully, calmly agree to go fight. Aragorn gives Eowyn's goo goo eyes a courteous smile and a pat on the head. You never think he'll go for it. Faramir turns Frodo loose without a second thought.
In a film setting, this would be suicide. Closer to the books, maybe, but bad filmmaking. Similarly, the Elves enter Helm's Deep because, quite frankly, you don't like them much if they don't help. In the books, they were busy fighting off orcs in their own turf, but that adds no drama or payoff in a film setting.
I heard tell that Arwen's scenes at Helms' Deep produced outtake after outtake of Tyler fumbling with a bow and arrow, which were played for chuckles at a wrap party. Ultimately, however, I think it serves to suspend the drama of the love triangle into the third film. It would be so much better to see her show up to kick a little ass on Pellennor Field.
Christ, I'm a nerd.
Posted by: Scott Ganz at January 16, 2003 at 02:32 AMI have a horrible feeling that Arwen will show up for the trip through the Paths of the Dead with her embroidered banner. There is no sign of Elladin and Elrohir, after all. No doubt much of Jackson's changing of the story is for the purpose of making a tighter film, but did he really have to futz with the plot SO much? I doubt it.
I have thought part of the reason for the Elves at Helm's Deep is the poignency of their fighting there. They are risking immortality, after all. Furthermore, they could get out of the whole thing; they could take ship to the West. Yet they care enough about the fight against evil to risk everything to oppose Sauron. And while Elrond browbeats his daughter into leaving he stays at his post in command at Rivendell, although he could go too. By this he risks being overwhelmed if Sauron wins and recovers the Ring.
Posted by: Michael Lonie at January 16, 2003 at 03:04 AMScott: I agree with you about the reason for the changes. In fact, I have more to say on the subject, but after I drink my coffee.
Michael: personally, I don't care if Arwen shows up to ride with Aragorn, as long as they keep her away from the Captain of the Nazgul. That baby belongs to Eowyn.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 16, 2003 at 09:50 AMAh yes, the prophecy of Malbeth the Seer- 'not by the hand of man shall he fall'.
The main gripe is that we really need nine movies not three to get everything in. Oh well.
I didn't like the Arwen stuff in the Two Towers from a story PoV, but from a Perv PoV it worked wonders. For me, anyway.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein at January 16, 2003 at 10:21 AM"I would have prefered Natalie Portman as Arwen. I wish they traded her with Tyler. Tyler is too bland for my tastes."
I couldn't disagree more. Liv sounds so fabulous speaking Elvish. I don't think Natalie would do as well (although I do like her).
Also, Natalie is too young. I know Elves are immortal, but on screen I don't think she and Viggo match up.* (Liv isn't much older, 4 years, but has a more mature presence.)
Finally, Count Dooku is already Sauruman; Queen Amidala as Arwen would have been too much. (Having never read the books, when I saw FOTR, I kept thinking, "so this is where Lucas got that idea." I don't think it would serve the LOTR films to invite more Star Wars comparisons.)
Denise, it was Stuart Townsend who was originally cast as Aragorn.
As to Arwen, after seeing FotR last year, I said that I bet they replace Arwen's brothers with her in RotK. TTT made me feel even more sure that's what's going to happen. A little detour from the Grey Havens [g]
Damn, I get sucked into these Tolkien posts of Andrea's! It's not like I don't obsess over the subject enough on my own blog.
I think I'd better do some actual work now!
Posted by: Ith at January 16, 2003 at 11:55 AMDenise,
The point was, I think, that Natalie Portman is a good actress, while Liv Tyler can hardly act her way out of a wet paper bag. That much said, I agree that she would be too young for Arwen.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 16, 2003 at 12:14 PMWell, I can understand why no one wants comparisons to Star Wars. Especially since Star Wars is so derivative. (Harry Potter owes A LOT to Tolkien also, but Rowling doesn't even list him as an influence!)
I conceed the point that Portman is young against Viggo. Tyler just doesn't have much spark as an actress. She can pronounce Elvish, but it takes more than remembering your lines to be a good actor. The pickings are admittedly slim trying to find someone right for the Arwen role. As good as Cate and Liv look, I imagine their literary characters to be a lot better looking. But where are you going to find people with beyond human beauty? (And on the Male side, Weaving doesn't look anything like I imagined Elrond to look. For one thing, he had black hair).
I just can't wait to see the extended TTT DVD, 'cause if it's like the FOTR extended DVD, these extended versions will become the "real" versions in people's minds.
Hud
Posted by: James Hudnall at January 16, 2003 at 12:32 PMMarybeth: I am the Steve H. of Little Tiny Lies and Littletinywit.com.
Posted by: Steve H. at January 16, 2003 at 04:31 PM