In this post I want to talk about a minor difference between the Lord of the Rings films and books. When Frodo arrives at the Cracks of Doom in the books, he succumbs to the temptation and puts the ring on. Gollum attacks Frodo, takes the ring, dances around in ecstasy, and falls into the lava. In the movies, essentially the same thing happens, with one minor difference. Frodo slips off the edge along with Gollum, and Sam pulls him back up as the Ring melts in the lava. This is just for added drama, right?
Not quite. The scene plays out like this: Gollum falls into lava and dies, and the ring lands on the surface of the lava intact. Frodo stares down the chasm, obviously contemplating letting go to be with the Ring. Sam urges him not to let go. Frodo turns back to Sam and grabs his hand, and then Sam pulls him up as the ring melts. Here’s the catch: Frodo lets the Ring go. It’s out of his power at this point to save it, but he chooses to leave it to be destroyed instead of going with it.
Why do you think the filmmakers chose to add this decision by Frodo? Is it just to make the ending more satisfying because Frodo was able to overcome his temptation in the end? Also, more importantly, does this easily overlooked moment change the entire point Tolkien was making in his work? Tolkien makes the point that none of the ordinary characters can overcome the temptation of the Ring, only resist it for a time. If we take the Ring to be a religious allegory for evil, Tolkien’s point is inherently religious - nobody can overcome the evil out of their own strength (hence the need for a God). In this light the change in the film reflects a more Humanist (Hobbitist?) viewpoint. Frodo overcomes the evil of the ring and is able to leave it behind before it is destroyed. Through this argument that small moment could be said to reverse Tolkien’s entire worldview.
Personally, I don’t think the filmmakers were trying to change Tolkien’s point. Rather they wanted Frodo to do something at the end to give up the Ring on his own to make it more satisfying for audiences, without making it dismantle Tolkien’s theme. But did they succeed?
What do you think? Is that change really so significant? How did the filmmakers intend for it to be taken? Or do you think what Frodo did actually was what Tolkien would have written him to do, had he slipped off the edge?
~Ulmo
2 comments:
Ulmo,
This change seems significant. To me, I imagine it was a compromise on the part of the filmmakers to 1) not upset readers too much and 2) not leave new viewers with the same sense of dissatisfaction the readers were forced to feel. It is, however, a disappointing choice. I think Frodo not giving up the Ring is too important to remove. He, like every other person, is not as strong as the Ring's temptation. I always felt like Frodo was meant to be like us: normal. Just a normal person put into abnormal circumstances. He is strong, brave, and hangs on longer than most people would, but he is not perfect: if he had been, he would've been dehumanized, in a way.
This is something the Harry Potter movies do to Hermione: they remove a good number of her faults. They also give the accomplishments of others (like Ron) to Hermione. This doesn't make her a better character, it makes her unattainable. By giving Frodo a final choice, and letting him succeed, the film makes Frodo unattainable.
That is an interesting observation, i had never looked at is as being more than a little drama, but I think you have made a good observation. Frodo had nothing to go back to, the ring was going to be destroyed and he could do nothing about it. He could have succumbed one last time but he did not. Movie Frodo is more of the Hero that we need than book Frodo. I still believe this is a movie thing because movies do not have the same freedom to make characters ambivalent, we tend to like clear heroes.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.