“I like it, but...” - Episode #2

The Lord of the Rings - Part 2: Aragorn's Destiny

This is the second instalment of what I hope will become a semi-regular entry on my blog, “I like it, but...”, where I will discuss films, books, games, and other such things that I really do like, but there are still a few things I'd like to complain about. This is Part 2 of my discussion of the film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

One of the most enormous changes to the plot between the books and the films is also one of the things that irritates me. Aragorn, as anyone who's seen the films or read the book will know, is the heir to the throne of Gondor. In the Return of the King, he comes to Gondor's aid in its darkest hour, wielding the sword Andúril, reforged from the shards of Narsil, and he is crowned King of both Gondor and Arnor after the Ring is destroyed and Sauron is defeated. In the book, there never really seems to be an obvious point where Aragorn questions his heritage; whether he wants to be King or not is unclear, though, if what he says to Éowyn is any indication, it may be that all he really wants is to simply live in peace in Rivendell with Arwen, the woman he loves, but he feels he has a duty to bear his part in the war with Sauron and to lead the race of Men to victory against their oppressor. That means he has to become King, whether he wants to or not, and he has accepted this reality from before we, the readers, have even met him. Of course, it is possible that there was some coercion from Elrond involved; as Bilbo tells Frodo when he reaches Rivendell, Elrond has decreed that Arwen will not be the bride of any Man less than King of both Gondor and Arnor. It could be that Elrond, being at least as wise as Gandalf (possibly wiser), realised that Aragorn was the last, best hope for Men in Middle-Earth and refused to allow his daughter to wed with Aragorn until he had fulfilled his destiny; so, it is entirely possible that Aragorn, at some point, didn't want to be King, but that Elrond threatened to withhold from him the one thing he truly desired in order to motivate him. Even reading the appendices, which give Aragorn and Arwen's backstories, doesn't make this terribly clear, and a lot of it is down to interpretation. One thing is clear though: Aragorn intended to become King when the Fellowship set out from Rivendell. Indeed, he originally intended to go with Boromir to Gondor and it is only after Gandalf is lost in Moria that he begins to consider going with Frodo all the way into Mordor; only the capture of Merry and Pippin by Saruman's Orcs at Parth Galen, near the Falls of Rauros changes his mind.

In the films, it's another matter entirely. Aragorn makes it clear (especially in the extended edition), that he has no wish to be King. Ostensibly, he fears the same weakness that Isildur succumbed to; he does not want power, because he is afraid of being corrupted by it. The sword is not reforged until later in the story (in The Return of the King, in fact) and Aragorn sets out from Rivendell with the same basic intent as Gimli and Legolas--to help and to protect Frodo on his dangerous journey to Mordor with the Ring. Only on the eve of the Rohirrim's ride to Gondor does Aragorn change his mind. Elrond arrives at Théoden's encampment at Dunharrow, bearing the reforged sword, Andúril, and he persuades Aragorn to put aside the Ranger and become the man he was born to be. With Gondor in dire need of a saviour and no one else who can do the job, Aragorn accepts his destiny and takes the sword.

Now, to be perfectly honest, this change may serve a cinematic purpose that I've underestimated. Perhaps the screenwriters, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, felt that Aragorn didn't have much character development in the book and wanted to fix this by making his journey one of realisation and acceptance of his destiny, whereas in the book, he had already done all of this and was simply fulfilling his destiny. Perhaps the intent was to make Aragorn a more interesting character, by having his most important character development happen on screen, rather than before the audience even joins the story. I can understand that, honestly, and, if that's the reason, I may even withdraw my objection to this change. Perhaps. But there's something about it that doesn't sit well with me, though I don't think I can articulate it as well as I did with my objection to the changes made to Gandalf. Just to be nitpicky though, I fail to see how Elrond could have arrived at Dunharrow so quickly. He must have really rode that horse of his hard to make it all the way from Rivendell to southern Rohan in what could not have been more than a couple of days. It took the Fellowship much longer to journey south from Rivendell--Gandalf said it would take forty days to reach the Gap of Rohan on foot. Do horses really confer that much of an advantage?

This seems like a good segue into Part Three, where I will continue to discuss some of the more minor details about the films that irritate me.