serai: A kiss between Casey Connor and Zeke Tyler (DontMakeMeAngry)
[personal profile] serai
Where did all this about PJ, Philippa and Fran making Frodo somehow less than he could have been come from? That poor Elijah was directed into coming off passive, or weepy, or uninteresting, etc., etc., etc.? What Frodo is it in FOTR that we somehow lose along the way (other than the happy kid in the Shire who never survived in the books anyway)?

I don't know about anybody else, but I have no problems with Elijah's performance as Frodo. Yeah, there were some odd roads taken with the story, but Frodo himself? Was FINE. Other than the quirks that came along with those deviations (like the three and a half minutes he spent being pissed off at Sam in ROTK), he comes off, if anything, far more dynamic and interesting than the Frodo in the book, who always seemed to me a burdened sacrifical lamb more than anything else. There, Sam was the one who became truly interesting and traversed a real arc, while Frodo spent all his time carrying what amounted to a boulder fifty times his size for four hundred miles. In the film, Frodo got to go through a far greater range of emotions and reactions - fascination, desire, lust, anger, madness. In the book, he just seemed, more than anything, tired.

So how come suddenly I'm seeing people claiming that there's "so much more" Elijah could have done, if it hadn't been for the holding back and substandard writing/direction he was burdened with? What the heck more did you want from Frodo? Screaming, yelling, tearing out his own hair? Wasn't it just a few months ago that people were complaining there was too much of that?

Poor Elijah. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. For my money, his Frodo is just amazing, and hardly a picture of passivity or uninteresting flatness. He brought to life a complex, well-written (and well-adapted) characer with delicacy, strength and skill, and under the guidance of an excellent director. Because if all that is "lacking" in Frodo is the fault of the director, all that is FANTASTIC in Frodo is also the work of the director. You can't say "the bad is his fault, but he didn't have anything to do with the good". This was a group endeavor, and everybody shares in both the glory and the blame.

So make up your damn minds here, 'cause you're giving me a headache.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 02:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] westmoon.livejournal.com
Well, for my part, I don't think his acting was passive. He pulled me in and never let me go, and while I can acknowledge he's not canon!Frodo in terms of nitpicky book detail, he gets to the heart of the character, and for that reason alone I'll always love him. But I do think it's a shame that some of Frodo's snarky lines were excised from the script. Elijah plays the sly teasing of Gandalf very well in the beginning, and we see him as someone who understands (and deplores at the same time) the prejudices of the Shire very well. I missed that twinkle.

I don't obsess over him losing some of his more active scenes, because I personally love the race to the Ford the way it was filmed. The problem is that Frodo has always been devalued by many fans, and the emphasis on him as martyr/sacrifice/innocent in the film lends itself to that type of dismissal. I agree with you - there's much more depth to him in the latter part of the story as we see in the film, but for many people, it's still not enough.

I keep flip-flopping on the subject, because I love love love him and the films, but there are certain scenes in ROTK that I regret, and take me out of the film every time I see them (none, by the way, due to his acting). I don't know if they could have been saved had the script/direction been different, and I guess we'll never know.

I think Elijah played the part marvellously - and the subtle nuances he gave to Frodo never cease to amaze me. I'm just frustrated at how people over the years continue to miss the point - both about Frodo AND his acting. I'll never forget walking out at the end of ROTK and hearing someone say "So in the end it was all about Sam." That still makes me grit my teeth. What really grates is getting that message from PJ too in the hoopla and interviews during ROTK's time in the sun. When even the director starts talking that way, it's a lost cause.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how anything either the writing team or Elijah could have done could have salvaged Frodo's "twinkle". I mean, isn't the whole story (or that part that deals with him) exactly about the loss of his happiness and innocence?? This is something that's in the book. It wasn't made up for the film - Tolkien wrote it himself! Of course Frodo stops being sparkly and flirty. He's carrying the damn Ring, after all.

And I think you're misinterpreting what PJ said about Sam. He said Sam was the real hero of the story, and he is, in the sense of being a hero. Frodo is not a hero and never was. He is a sacrifice - his role in the story is very different from Sam's, which is why his ending is so different. I have no problems with that perception. Being a hero is not the only positive thing a character can be. There are other roles within a story that are just as important and valuable.

But then, I rather despise the way the term "hero" has come to stand for everything that is good in people, when originally "heroes" were berserker warriors capable of killing more people than anyone else around them. Like Herakles, who was only a hero because he was periodically afflicted with homicidal madness. Calling someone a "hero" because they survive something is extremely inaccurate usage, to say the least. Frodo's uniqueness and complexity comes from the fact that his own sense of failure is in fact justified - he didn't destroy the Ring. The fulfillment of the Quest was a group effort, a union of both Good and Evil, weakness and strength, love and hate. Frodo himself could never have done it alone - if any one of the characters involved were anywhere near capable of it, I'd definitely say it was Sam and not Frodo who could have destroyed it. But then, Sam would never have taken the burden on in the first place.

But I digress. I think blaming PJ or the writers for losing something in Frodo which they could never have salvaged without going even further against the story is unfair, in my opinion. But then, I don't have much problem with the rest of the movie, either. I've learned to accept the dodgy bits in ROTK as simply another version of the tale, and enjoy the different possiblities and ramifications of it.

Except for Denethor's death. I don't think I'll ever stop being pissed about that.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] westmoon.livejournal.com
Well, I certajnly won't argue with you about Denethor's death.

Twinkle: I phrased that badly. Frodo in the books is aware of the world around him, and we see him look at it bemusedly - before the Quest wears him down. We see that Frodo at the beginning, but once Gandalf sends him on his way, he seems more innocent, less worldly. I don't regret it in terms of drama or Elijah's performance, but it does take some of that inner maturity away from him.

One of the most telling scenes for me is the opening of ROTK, when the expression on his face tells us that he knows he won't be coming back, even if Sam doesn't know it. That's an example of incredible inner strength, and it's played perfecly. Yet all that's negated in the Crossroads scene, when he blurts it out loud as if he's just thought of it, and later on, when they use the last of their water and Sam says out loud (as if Frodo needs to be told) that there won't be a return journey. It's that kind of picky detail that I regret, because I know that Frodo knows what he's sacrificing, but the script takes some of that awareness away from him.

I too subscribe to the notion that the destruction of the Ring was a group effort. But what so many people forget (and what really irks me) is that Frodo chose to carry the burden, something no one else was willing to do. And he resisted the call of the Ring (with Sam's help, yes, but also due to his own inner strength) for much longer than anyone could have anticipated. And yet all that's forgotten by those with short memories by the third movie, which I do regret, and I don't see how to fix it.

Elijah brings a terrible beauty and cruelty to that final scene on Mount Doom, and really does (in my mind) become the Ring incarnate. It's about as far from passivity as it gets. It blows me away every time I see it, and I wouldn't change a thing (other than film the struggle with Gollum differently).

I can't even articulate what I would change. But when countless critics and fans ignore Frodo, something's not right.

Dammit - I'm digging myself into a hole here, and I don't see any way out, so I'm going to shut up now.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 07:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
Well, there are good reasons why certain scenes didn't make it into the final cut. One of the most common reasons for cutting a scene is overstatement - the scene belabors a point already made, and it's often not apparent until you're actually cutting the movie. That could well be why that moment at the Crossroads was cut. And I didn't see the later scene in Mordor as the same thing, because it isn't Frodo saying it, but Sam, and Sam hadn't believed it until that moment. It's an outward speaking of the moment Tolkien describes in the book as an inward event, that of Sam hardening and letting go of his certainty that he would see the Shire again. Sometimes a line can be lost so an actor can just convey it with his body/face, and sometimes a line has to be added because the thought is too complex and must be spoken.

And I honestly don't know what you mean by saying that we lose the idea of Frodo choosing to carry the Ring in the film. I mean, there he is, choosing to carry the Ring. In fact, in the film he doesn't get a dramatic silence into which he drops his line - he has to forcibly get everyone else to shut the hell up so he can declare his willingness to do what they haven't got the balls to attempt. Tolkien has Frodo being brave in certain ways, but I don't think Frodo is any less brave or steadfast or worthy just because his courage manifests differently in the film. I found Frodo very admirable and brave in the film.

Shelob's Lair is a potent example. In the film, he has to walk in without Sam there to support him, making the decision to go forward even though he feels at the opening of the cave that there is something awful in there. And when Gollum deserts him, he keeps going, even under the weight of his fear and his guilt. I don't think I could do that. To me, Frodo's courage is conveyed pretty much in one thing - he keeps going. No matter what, he never abandons the Quest, or tries to turn aside, even all alone facing Mordor, the very thing that had terrified him nearly to immobility at Parth Galen.

We all see this differently, but really, I don't understand what it is that people dislike. None of my dissatisfaction in the film has to do with Frodo at all. I find the direction of his story intriguing and interesting, the depths Elijah takes it to fascinating, and I'm really happy with it. And as far as critics and such go, I could hardly give less of a shit. To be honest, Frodo as a character would be very difficult to draw critical praise for, because he's just not the kind of character, and his is not the kind of journey, that draws that kind of praise. The fact that he's played by an pretty young actor doesn't help matters any. But that's critics for you. Fuck 'em.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lorie945.livejournal.com
The script does give Frodo some proactive things (like him figuring out the doors of Moria instead of Merry), but it also has him dropping his sword and falling on his ass when Frodo in the books was stabbing at the ring-wraith, cutting the hand of the barrow-wight, *going after* Shelob until Sam pulls him back and says "let's get the hell out of here," etc. In a lot of ways Frodo *is* diminished in the movies.

I love the films, I love Elijah's performance, and I can understand some of the changes they made. But lots of times when I'm listening to the writers commentary on the dvd's, I talk back to the TV saying "No. Wrong!"

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
I can't say I agree with you there. I've never agreed that the story in the film should have been just like the story in the book. When the writers talk about having to make changes, I understand just what they're talking about. LOTR is not filmable as written - Tolkien was absolutely right about that - and changes would have to be made by anyone trying to bring it to the screen. Had they not been the changes PJ's team made, they'd be other changes just as likely to disappoint people. I think about, say, the changes Boorman wanted to make, and I rejoice at how extraordinarily close PJ and Co. got to the books.

I've always had a bit of trouble with the leaps and assumptions that Tolkien made in his book, and the backtracking and change of personality his characters would sometimes go through. On one page, Frodo is an innocent hobbit who's never been outside the Shire and who's never encountered anything scarier than a pack of dogs on his heels. But then he's faced with five Ringwraiths, demonic figures of ghostly horror, and he suddenly gets the balls to go after one of them with just a knife? I was swept away by the wonderful action of the scene, but I always thought that was a bit farfetched. Frodo falling on his ass seems a far more understandable and true-to-character reaction to me. I'm not interested in characters who have reactions simply because the creator of the story says they do - it has to fit into what I've been told already, or I'm gonna cock an eyebrow at least.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lorie945.livejournal.com
So you think the strongest way to begin RotK was with the Deagol/Smeagol fishing scene leftover from TTT? I don't, and when they try to justify it I have a big disagreement. I think it was motivated by wanting to use something they had on hand and to give Andy some actual screen time, too. There are times when I agree with what they're saying in their commentary, and times when I don't. The whole "ring as heroin" choice vs. "ring as powerful, evil entity" bugs me, too.

And as far as Frodo's reactions go, throwing the ring in the river and running home to put his head under a blanket would be realistic, too. But the book is about ordinary hobbits finding courage and depth within themselves. Frodo is the oldest of the four hobbits, and it seems entirely plausible to me that he might discover courage within himself under pressure, or battle-lust, whatever you want to call it -- the kind of emotion that made ordinary men charge gun batteries in 20th century warfare. The kind of extraordinary reactions Tolkien saw in WW1, I suppose.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 06:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
Yes, I thought that beginning for ROTK was wonderful, not least because it reminded the audience of where the whole story had begun, and the kind of life the hobbits were doing all this to preserve. It started the film on a quiet, idyllic note, something gentle to reassure us that there was a reason for all this, before thrusting back into the Sturm Und Drang. Considering just how dark and dramatic and terrifying ROTK is, I was grateful for a little touch of sweetness at the outset, and I loved seeing something that reminded the viewers that Gollum had once been a person like anyone else. Otherwise, he would have been just a slimy villain, and I really didn't like that possibility.

As to Frodo finding battle-lust in himself, *shrug*. It always felt a bit forced in the books to me, and it's not a characteristic that I consider exemplary in a human being anyway, so I didn't miss it. I loved how the emphasis in the films was on Frodo's fortitude and steadfastness under strain, and the interesting developments of how he coped and didn't cope with the madness engendered by the Ring, and how no matter the dreadful pressures and torments and betrayals of it and his own mind, he still kept going, never wavering. So very one-pointed, which is something I do admire, not having that in myself.

It's a different Frodo, but then he's in a somewhat different situation, and I find him fascinating and wonderful. I know a lot of others don't. :)

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] malakhai.livejournal.com
I don't have any complaints with the way PJ wrote Frodo, except for the scene where he tells Sam to leave (of course). I realize that it would have been really great to see him stand up for himself at the Ford, but we can't always get what we want. PJ had to establish Arwen as a strong character.

The only other real complaint I have regarding Frodo is that I would have loved to see some of the Scouring of the Shire just to see all of the hobbits, in their armour, kicking some fucking ass.

That is all.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
You know, about three weeks before ROTK came out, I read an interview with Sean where he mentioned the steps of Cirith Ungol and how Frodo "sent Sam away". I was like WHAAA? It just lit a fire of perplexity under me - I just could not understand what the fuck he was talking about. I was all at sixes and sevens waiting for the film to find out what he meant. And you know, I was SO GLAD I'd had that clue, because if I hadn't, I wouldn't have been prepared for something. Whatever it was. So I wasn't nearly as pissed off as a lot of people were. More than anything, I was just stumped by it. And not really about Frodo sending Sam away - that was really the logical conclusion of Frodo's madness, that he'd finally turn against Sam. What really got to me (and what I still can't really accept) was the idea that Sam would actually leave. That's the part that I still find impossible to accept. Given that the Ring was acting on Frodo in a very different way in the film than in the book, OK, Frodo would finally snap. But Sam going along with it, and leaving Frodo alone with Gollum? I still have to just think "fuck it" and move on, because there's no way I can justify that bit, even though I understand why they did it.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] malakhai.livejournal.com
Yeah.

*scratches head*

I had no clue that was coming, and I just COULD NOT BELIEVE IT when Sam left. I actually stood up, I was going to leave the theater in protest. I saw a few other people around me that looked utterly horrified as well.

The only thing that stopped me was that my friend, who knew nothing about the books, grabbed my arm, and said, "You can't leave without me, I drove here."

She was right.

I was trapped.

I didn't really mention it afterward because I loved the movie so much after that, but at the time I was so *incensed*.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elderberrywine.livejournal.com
OK, now that is just flat out wrong. Even though those of us who loved the movies *raises hand here* could easily quibble about scenes here and there, I would totally not fault the acting from anyone in these films, only certain choices made in the writing of the script. And even then, I can understand the reasoning, even though I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. The writers didn't disrespect the books, only chose to, on occasion, present them differently than I would have. But then, I'm not a filmmaker.

And Elijah's performance? The thing about scripts, you know, is that they are so totally bare bones. I have seen them, and I know how much is added by an actor, past the raw words sitting on the page. Elijah's performance demanded so much more than the mouthing the words, it was an amazing performance for any actor, and even more for one barely out of his teens. An expressive face is always a plus, but one also needs to know what to do with it. And, my God, he does, at that.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 03:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
I've come to a place of peace with these films (mostly) by seeing them simply as different tellings of the same mythology. My love of the Greek myths has led me to read many different versions of them, and it's amazing how much variation can happen within the same story. I have no problem with a teller changing aspects of a tale, so long as the changes fit within the tale itself. The whole idea of creating a world, where you can do what you like so long as you obey the rules you set down. Which, by the way, Tolkien didn't always do. As pure storytelling, PJ's version is actually truer than Tolkien's original, as PJ didn't have the characters going against their own natures as he's established them nearly as often as Tolkien did. (See my above comments about Weathertop.)

Scripts, yes. It's not only how much an actor has to bring to the script, but how incredibly varied the things an actor brings can be. Every line can be said countless different ways, ranging all over the emotional map, which is why reciting the alphabet in ten different emotional states is a standard acting school exercise. When Frodo pulled Sam out of the lake, their scene could just as easily have been played as one of angry exasperation and cowed apology, which is certainly one legitimate way of reading the scene in the book. PJ and Co's version of this story is one way of telling it, their way, and I think a damn fine one. Somebody else will come along eventually and tell it another way. And we'll have all these arguments again! :)

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 04:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elasg.livejournal.com
I am not sure where you are reading these things but I have to admit, I am one of those who did have a hard time with movie!Frodo. I was fine with him in FOTR - there were changes, true, but at the end of the film I felt the same pride, love and admiration for movie!Frodo as I did for book. Unfortunately, I didn't respond as well to movie!Frodo in either TTT or ROTK. And this is not because I wanted the film to be a repeat of the book, but I wanted to be able to feel as much admiration and love for Frodo in the film as I did for Frodo in the book. And I couldn't. Quite frankly, if movie!Frodo had been my only introduction to this character, I wouldn't have ended up a Frodo fan.

Now, I wouldn't say it was the fault of Elijah's acting (which was the best performance in the film and was done with the hardest role), nor really the direction, but I do think that many of the script changes (that may or may not have had to have been made the way they were) robbed Elijah and Frodo of opportunities to show the character's maturity, intelligence and will. Others may not value these are characteristics, but I do, and even when I was just watching TTT as a movie in and of itself, completely forgetting the book, I had a really hard time finding any admiration in my heart for Frodo. You can point to this or that detail or specific plot change and say it was necessary and needed and I might even agree with you, but what I ended up judging the films and the characterizations by, was how the total product made me feel; and in TTT, and to a lesser extent ROTK, I simply didn't admire the character as he was presented on the screen.

This isn't to say that I didn't like the films. In fact, if I hadn't see enough of what I loved about book Frodo in movie!Frodo to make me want more of it, I wouldn't bother to angst over this stuff. I can see very clearly what I might have gotten if they'd gone in slightly different direction and because of that I do have sort of a love/hate relationship with the scriptwriters and director – though in the end, it simply comes down to the fact that PJ put forth the money, time and effort to make his interpretations into a movie. I give him full marks and every respect for his incredible effort and for the many things he did to right in these films, they are a marvelous achievement in cinema, but I refuse to give his interpretation of the characters more credence than mine simply because he made a movie with his.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 05:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
Well, the movie isn't the version I had in my head either, but I'm not going to hold that against the filmmakers. In fact, the version I had in my head was different enough that I don't feel all that pissed about any of the changes PJ made. Not that I would have anyway, since the changes were nowhere near as bad as they could have been. I suppose a lot of the reason for that (which I've mentioned before in other places) is that a few years before LOTR came out, my very favorite childbook, which I adored madly and still do to this day, got so viciously savaged by Hollywood that I still cannot bring myself to even see the trailer again (which is all I've ever seen of it, as I think I'd commit murder if ever forced to watch the actual film). So the changes in LOTR seem really insignificant to me compared to that soul-numbing horror. There were a lot of things that surprised me, and some things that I had to think hard about to decide on, and a couple (three, I believe) that I still do not like and don't accept, but nothing that makes me say PJ's version is not a beautiful and 99% legit interpretation (that being the operative word) of Tolkien's story. No, it's not my film, but that doesn't mean it's not just as valuable as the film I'd make, or as artistically sound. It's just different from my film. That being my viewpoint, I've found I don't understand the whole upset about the film's difference from the books. I've loved the books for nearly 30 years, and devoured them time and time again, gaining strength and joy and spiritual sustenance from then. Perhaps, given the kind of person I am, that makes me more accepting of differences in the story instead of less. After all, I'm a great believer in Paradoxy as opposed to Orthodoxy, so I have no trouble viewing both Tolkien's version and PJ's as the true story of Frodo and the Ring.

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elasg.livejournal.com
Hmmm...

I don't think I was looking for the book, and I know exactly what you mean by bad film adaptions! Disney did the same for one of my favorite childhood books! *shudder* No, I agree that PJ made a 99% legit film and as an adaption, he did an astonishing job, but I was really only looking for one thing out of PJ's film and it was something I didn't get - I wanted a Frodo about whom I could feel the kind of adoration I felt for the book character. That was it. He could have gone about it with any type of script changes he wanted, as long as I got a Frodo I could love wholeheartedly. *sigh*

I was deathly afraid he would make what I call a 'Sam coulda done it' film - and, well, he did. Even while completely forgetting what happened in the book, I ended up at Osgiliath REALLY wondering what was going through Faramir's head! If I had seen what Faz had witnessed (Frodo giving the ring to a Nazgul) I would have been 'No way, dude. Give that ring to your buddy and let him head south - I don't want my dad getting that thing - but seriously, you, like, need medication!' I would not have blithely handed this awesome weapon to this obviously addled, weakwilled welp to take it straight to the Dark Lord himself! Tolkien convinced me that Faramir would let them go, PJ did NOT.

*Shrug* I think if Frodo's characterization had not been important to me or if I had been more of a Sam (who came off smelling like roses, though he was not much like the book character) fan, I would have been delighted. I just wanted to feel the depth of emotion the book inspired in me, the angst I felt when this character I admired so much suffered so stoically. Since I was having a hard time admiring him it really cut the legs out from under the angst, and I was disappointed about that.
(deleted comment)

Date: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005 05:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com
Stuff I've been seeing around. I just got a bit irritated, less with the idea of Elijah not doing good acting than with the idea that PJ's directing and the writers' work was somehow subpar and limiting to Elijah. Hm. You know, I'm not one to put words in actors' mouths, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I know what Elijah might say to those charges.

I think a lot of it is the perennial "it's not the version I had in my head therefore it's not good" thing happening. What can you do with that? Not much. But it does tend to piss me off, for my own reasons. Yeah, it's different from the book. Yeah, I probably would have done it differently. But when push comes to shove, it isn't my movie, and it certainly isn't a shitty movie, and it's so many light years better than what might have happened, that I get irritated at the frowning and harrumphing.

And truthfully, a lot of my reaction comes from not understanding just WHAT the hell was so great about the bits that everybody bemoans aren't in the film. The Frodo stuff that a lot of people seem to think essential were mostly bits that I found a tad difficult to swallow when I first read the books. Stuff like him turning on the Ringwraith at Weathertop, and the "Neither the Ring nor me!" moment at the Ford, always struck me as a bit forced. I just found it hard to accept those moments coming from Frodo as he'd been presented by Tolkien. They just came a little too out-of-the-blue for me. Others seem to be more attached to them, but I don't miss them at all. In fact, it's Elijah's very talent (and PJ's, as a director) in the presentation of the scenes that does away with any qualms I may have had.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Profile

serai: A kiss between Casey Connor and Zeke Tyler (Default)
serai

November 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Saturday, July 26th, 2025 01:40 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios