“I like it, but...” - Episode #1

This is the first instalment of what I hope will become a semi-regular fixture on this blog, where I take a look at some of the films, books, games, and other forms of entertainment that I genuinely like, but I still have a few things to complain about.

The first thing I’d like to discuss is a big one and, to avoid the problem of people walking away saying “too long, didn’t read”, I’m going to do this one in several parts. What is it I’m going to subject to this treatment first? Why, nothing less than The Lord of the Rings film trilogy.

Now, I should just reiterate the point of this blog rant before I begin. I like The Lord of the Rings--nay, I absolutely love the film trilogy. It was the cinematic highlight of my year for 2001, 2002, and 2003, and I don’t think I’ve enjoyed any film on the big screen as much before or since; I always enjoy watching The Lord of the Rings on DVD (extended edition only, please) to this day, when I can make the time for it, and I watched it again only last week--watching The Return of the King is the last thing I did in 2010 (the film finished one minute before midnight, in fact). No film before or since has been able to affect me on quite the same emotional level as The Lord of the Rings, so it is quite safe to say that it is easily my favourite film series to date. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing in the films that I object to and that’s what I intend to discuss below.

The Lord of the Rings - Part 1: Gandalf's Mistakes...

For this entry, I’d like to discuss some of the problems I have with some of the strange changes to characters and their motivations between the films and the book. Now, let me just make it clear right now that I am not a literary purist; I won’t hate a film if it doesn’t follow the book word for word, because I appreciate that what works in a book may not always work in a film. Naturally, some things have to be cut for the sake time constraints, while other things may need to be changed or expanded upon to help a viewing audience better understand what’s going on or to just make things a bit more dramatic or entertaining. As such, I have no complaints about the complete removal of the Hobbits' journey through the Old Forest on their way to Bree and their meeting with Tom Bombadil (I used to find those chapters very boring when I was younger) and I approve of the expanded roles given to characters like Saruman and Arwen, who actually appear very little in the book despite being hugely important characters. Would you believe that Arwen's appearance in the main text is limited to a few lines in a chapter towards the very end? This is the love of Aragorn's life we're talking about too and we barely get to know her (unless, like me, you read through the appendices, which is where a lot of her material for the films was taken from). But I digress. While I can't blame screenwriters for changing some things, sometimes they make changes to the story from a book that either don’t seem to serve any cinematic purpose or they unnecessarily change something that worked perfectly well in the book, and there are a couple of rather major changes to characters in The Lord of the Rings that, as far as I can tell, seem to fall squarely into this category.

The first concerns Gandalf. When the Fellowship first sets out from Rivendell they try to pass the Misty Mountains further north than the Gap of Rohan, since that road passes too close to Isengard and will be watched by Saruman, who desires the Ring for himself. However, treacherous weather forces them to turn around during their attempt on the pass at Caradhras, the Redhorn Gate, which leads to the Fellowship going through the Mines of Moria. In the book, Gandalf first suggests the road through Moria privately to Aragorn some time before their attempt on the Redhorn Gate, but Aragorn is opposed to the idea and convinces the wizard that they should only make such an attempt when it is clear they have no other way. After the mountain has defeated them, Gandalf makes his suggestion once again, this time to the entire Fellowship. Gimli is the only member of the party willing to go through Moria (since he wishes to look upon the ancient home of his people), Legolas and the Hobbits do not wish to go, and Boromir absolutely refuses to go unless the vote of the whole company is against him; when Frodo is asked, he says he does not wish to go through Moria, but neither does he wish to refuse Gandalf's advice. However, he makes no definitive decision, and it is only after the Fellowship is attacked by Wargs (ostensibly servants of Sauron himself) that they decide for certain to go through Moria. In the film, however, this is done rather differently and I cannot see any good reason why.

In the film, it is Gimli who first suggests that the Fellowship pass through Moria (before they have even realised that the Gap of Rohan is unsafe), but Gandalf rejects the idea, saying he would not take the road through Moria unless he had no other choice. Only after they find the Redhorn Gate impassable does Gandalf allow them to consider Moria as an option, and then he leaves the decision in the hands of Frodo, who decides to go through Moria with very little hesitation. I don’t understand why the screenwriters, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, decided to make this change to Gandalf’s character. Does it serve any cinematic purpose? True, it leaves Frodo with a ton of guilt after Gandalf’s apparent demise battling the Balrog, but this guilt is never really explored, except in a few tears shed as Frodo looks back towards Moria after the Fellowship has escaped the mines. At no point does he appear to blame himself for losing Gandalf and, unless you choose to interpret Frodo’s decision to go to Mordor alone as a result of this guilt (a decision he also makes in the book, where he didn’t make the final decision to go through Moria), then it really isn’t revisited. To me at least, this makes the change of character seem a little pointless.

It seems almost as if the screenwriters wanted to make Gandalf a more perfect character, less liable to make mistakes or errors of judgement. However, in the book he made several mistakes, occasionally chiding himself for his own foolishness--his mistranslation of the words above the doors to Moria (which is preserved in the film, though Gandalf makes no comment about how obvious it should have been), his failure to realise that Saruman was using a Palantír to communicate with Sauron--and going through Moria was simply the single biggest mistake he made. It is clear that Gandalf knew of the Balrog, however, having passed through Moria unscathed once before (and evidently without having encountered the Balrog), he obviously believes he can safely lead the Fellowship through--at least, more safely than passing over Caradhras or through the Gap of Rohan. Indeed, it is partly due to his fear of being seen by the enemy’s spies that makes the idea of taking the dark and secret way through Moria seem like a good idea to him. While he knows there is a risk of Orcs, Gandalf, more so than Gimli in fact, believes there is a possibility of finding Dwarves in Moria; perhaps he believes the Balrog has left, has died somehow, or is simply too deep beneath the upper halls now to sense their presence. In the film, however, Gandalf seems to be mortally afraid that the terrible power of the Ring will draw evil towards it and that, by passing through Moria, the Fellowship risks luring out the Balrog. While this may have ultimately been true, I do wish the film hadn't tried to gloss over Gandalf's mistake like this. Gandalf may be one of the wisest beings in Middle-Earth, but as he himself said, “even the very wise cannot see all ends”. I don't think Tolkien intended for him (or any of his creations for that matter) to be a perfect character and, while the films certainly don't make Gandalf perfect, they do seem to have undermined some of what I think are endearing character flaws, without any good reason.

While Moria is the example that stands out the most to me, there are other similar examples later on. For instance, in the book, after Gandalf returns from death as Gandalf the White and he, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas go to the aid of King Théoden of Rohan, it is on his recommendation that Théoden lead his army to Helm's Deep, after initially riding out with the intention of meeting Saruman's army in the field. In the film, Théoden leads his people from Edoras as refugees to Helm's Deep, which is a change that doesn't really worry me, considering there were refugees from the Westfold at Helm's Deep in the book. But far from recommending they fall back to this well-defended fortress, in the film, Gandalf seems to think Théoden is making a foolish decision and leading his people into a trap. Instead, it is Aragorn who believes that Helm's Deep will not fail the Rohirrim.

Finally, and perhaps this isn't a terrible change, towards the end of the book, Gandalf maintains confidence even when things look grim. At no point does he doubt that Frodo and Sam are still alive, nor does he despair that he has sent them to their deaths in Mordor. Perhaps he feels that way, but he never expresses it; he keeps his chin up, perhaps because he knows that Gondor and Rohan are looking to him for guidance and it would have a dreadful effect on morale for him to despair. After the Battle of Pelennor Fields, where Sauron's army of Orcs and Haradhrim have been defeated at Minas Tirith, it is Gandalf who suggests leading an army to the Black Gates, to draw Sauron's eye away from his own land and to make the last leg of Frodo and Sam's journey to Mount Doom a little less perilous. But the films, once again, change Gandalf's character. After the Battle of the Hornburg at Helm's Deep, Gandalf wonders if Frodo and Sam are even still alive and has to be reassured by Aragorn that they are. Gandalf seems to lose all hope after the Battle of Pelennor Fields, believing that only death awaits Frodo and Sam as they try to make the impossible journey across a land full of Orcs towards Mount Doom, and again, it is Aragorn who shows the confidence that was Gandalf's in the book, and suggests leading an army to the Black Gates. Perhaps there's a good reason for this, mind you. These examples occur in The Return of the King, where, in the films at least, Aragorn is finally accepting the mantle of a leader; perhaps the screenwriters wanted to give Aragorn more of a leading role in the final acts of the forces of good, a passing of the torch, if you will, from Gandalf to Aragorn. This I should probably be willing to forgive. But it brings me to my next topic, which I will discuss in Part 2, which is Aragorn and his motivations.