The Tolkien Lovers (IMDb) Community
The store for information that is seen on the Internet Movie Data Base Discussion Boards, the topics can be diverse, but generally have to do with Tolkien, Middle Earth and it's depiction on screen.
An Analysis of The Two Towers
By Ilkalliance
A very long analysis...proceed with caution. ;^) *** SPOILERS *** by - lkalliance (Wed Jan 1 18:10:23)
Well, now that the tide seems to be ebbing a bit (hopefully the new posters that are interested in a more substantive discussion that were "washed ashore" with the flotsam and jetsam choose to stay), I wanted to put this post out there.
There have been a lot of issues flying about concerning the film and concerning Peter Jackson's interpretations of it. Based on volume of posts (which I don't take as being definitively representative of the opinions of moviegoers in general), I'd have to guess that those that are bothered by some or all of the "liberties" taken by PJ with the text outnumber by a small margin those that are not bothered or are bothered too little to worry about.
I've been continuing to mull over the whys and wherefores behind those decisions and this post is by way of covering a lot of it. It's a long post and a lot of it is repeats of other posts I've put up here. I have to say that I'm more and more thrilled with TTT the more I see it (three times now) and the more I think about it in this way. Personally, I'm not at all put out by the fact of the changes; all I care about is that there are good narrative reasons for those alterations.
In fact, I was hesitant to call them "changes." I prefer to call them "differences" -- ways in which Jackson's vision of the story is different from Tolkien's. I think it's the same story, but that Jackson chose to couch it differently (in a way that would come across much better on film) and that his different approach necessitated some differences in story development.
I'm not a film expert, I'm just a regular guy. I've not got the background to knowledgeably talk about editing or effects or score or whatnot...I'm mainly concerned with the story.
If it sounds like I'm here to defend the film and that it's flawless and that I'm some sort of PJ apologist, well, I can't help that. I very much want to love these films, not just like it. I don't think if these issues really bothered me that I'd be able to fool myself into loving them. But I'm ECSTATIC about them!
As I've said in other threads, as well, I feel the films being a different perspective (and thus necessarily being different in detail) is a GOOD thing, so long as nothing important is tampered with...it enables me to love both the books and the film without having to "choose" between them. I've already got the pictures and sounds to the book...in my head, where they've been marvellously unchanged since my first reading years ago.
BACKGROUND
OK, I started by considering some of the basic tenets that Jackson seems to have embraced in creating this film. If a viewer doesn't buy into these, then he's going to have trouble, period, with my analysis:
The emotional development in Jackson's version is contained within the characters, not the institutions. I've posted this before; in Tolkien's work the individual characters don't undergo much in the way of evolution (except for the Hobbits). In general, they are what they are, and they have to overcome hurdles that don't really require them to grow. BUT Tolkien does allow his institutions to evolve. They change their natures as the people that make up those institutions rise and fall in importance. The people represent fixed sets of values; their relative importance suggests the priority of those values within the institution.
My favorite example is Gondor. Aragorn represents a fixed set of values or attributes. So does Denethor: a different set of values. So does Boromir and so does Faramir. The concept of "Gondor" changes depending on who's "in charge." Gondor under Denethor is more representative of Denethor's character than Gondor under Aragorn. Denethor and Aragorn never change; Gondor does.
Jackson instead wrote complexity into his characters. Aragorn is wonderfully complex in the films, much more so than in the books. He's got to grow and evolve, not just overcome. Elrond is much more interesting to me in the film than in the books. That's because in the books the institution of Elvendom is the thing that evolves, not Elrond himself. Theoden changes before our eyes, as well, in the film.
--Jackson wants to be as true to the story as possible. That means true to the themes, true to the main storylines and as true as possible to the fine details of plot, in that order of significance. I'm no good at themes, and I'm going to leave those out for others to debate. I think Jackson has identified these main storylines as primary (listed in no particular order, numbered for later reference):
- The Quest
- Aragorn's character evolution
- The race of Men overcoming its inner flaws
- Elves deciding their fate
- The Hobbits expanding beyond their narrowly-defined life.
- The Fellowship
--Jackson wants to make a film that will appeal to a mass audience. That being the case, he's got to cut and simplify where he can, while still being true to those storylines and being true to as many details as possible from the books.
OK, with these tenets as the backdrop, let's look at some of the differences between the film and the book and see if they flow logically.
HELM'S DEEP
There are lots of issues tied into Helm's Deep; a couple of them would have been considered "major" a year ago but seem not to have generated a lot of hubbub. But one of these differences plays a part in some of the other, more debated issues.
The Elves appearing at Helm's Deep was a big red flag to the text purists before the release of the FIRST film. I'm glad to see that it played out so well and seems to be getting very little lashback, because that plays right into both (3) and (4) and gives some insight into (2). And it doesn't interfere with (1): the net result is the same...a victory at Helm's Deep. It touches on (3) in the form of Theoden seeing that in fact old alliances do mean something, and that in fact he can count on help from others (per Elrond, the race of Men are "scattered, divided, leaderless;" they must overcome that division to be victorious).
Of course the Elves at Helm's Deep very specifically treats (4): Haldir's dying scene in fact keeps the question very much in doubt (it would be cliche to just assume that the right thing for the Elves to do would be to stay and fight; it's good that a very specific example of the downside is provided). I found the most subtle effect to be its relation to (2), as Aragorn is CLEARLY in his element when dealing with the Elves in the battle and less so when dealing with Men (witness his instinct to shout orders in Elvish rather than in the common tongue, and the camaraderie he shows with Haldir but not to Men -- let's not forget he had not met Haldir before FOTR to judge by their greeting in the EE). He must learn to appreciate the worthiness of Men as part of his inner journey towards the Kingship.
The other difference no one seems to mind is the evacuation of Rohan's people being to Helm's Deep rather than to Dunharrow. In fact, there is very subtle reference to the Paths of the Dead, which in the book exist in Dunharrow and not at Helm's Deep, thus completing the merger. There is no point to creating a Dunharrow location, of course...why introduce another location for a very limited purpose when so much already has to be put into Helm's Deep. Just let Helm's Deep assume the significance of Dunharrow, and it does so quite neatly and cleanly. But it has some consequences I'll cover below in "Aragorn's 'Death'".
In a similar vein but of less structural import is the changing of Eomer's role. I, for one, prefer the treatment of Eomer in the film to the books. Eomer is far from the most developed character in the books, his main characteristics being (a) a fine warrior and leader of his men, (b) loyal to Theoden despite rough treatment, and (c) someone who trusts Aragorn when he has no reason to and who becomes a close friend (and an ally) later in the story. Personally, I feel that (a) and (b) were well-established in the film and that (c) can still be well-established in what remains. And you get the benefit of having an established character be the hero that leads the cavalry behind Gandalf in the climactic scene. All you miss is some specific heroics in the earlier battle; no loss there, in my opinion.
THE ENTS
There seems to be some acrimony involved in PJ's treatment of the Ents; they're characterized as "short-changed" by some posters. The more I analyze the more logical their treatment seems to me, though. In trying to build on (5), Jackson naturally needs to do so on two different story lines: Frodo/Sam's and Merry/Pippin's. There's this feeling that PJ somehow made the Hobbits less "heroic" than in the books -- I can't think of anywhere that comes from besides Ebert. The Hobbits have been at least as heroic and arguably MORE heroic up to this point in the tale.
But that's neither here nor there...the finest moments for the Hobbits come in the part that hasn't yet been told. The fact is, though, that the middle film, where it stood, offered no chance to build on storyline (5) for Merry and Pippin as it stood, so I'm theorizing that PJ opted to make their role in rousing the Ents more active. To do so, he may have judged it wiser to dumb the Ents down a little, so as to make this leap of confidence by the Hobbits (especially Pippin's) more believable.
Still, a lot of people feel that this "ruins" the Ents. That may or may not be true...the question is, how important is that? The Ents serve a very specific plot purpose: the destruction of Isengard. There is no greater resonance they have in the story within the limits of LOTR (within the totality of Tolkien's universe, sure). They represent an element that Jackson has greater liberty to adjust to meet the needs of the film, because the "damage" is localized. The story has moved on...the Ents are no longer a part of it.
The same kind of analysis can be put to Gimli (and in fact I have on other posts) and his use as comic relief. If you need comic relief (and you do), Gimli is the natural character to provide it. You can't do it with Merry and Pippin...in their screen time Jackson has to work on (5). You can't do it with Aragorn or Gandalf or Theoden, obviously; it has to be either Legolas or Gimli, who are the two "free agents" among the main characters. Legolas, as an Elf, has a dry sense of humor and a nobility that does not lend itself to the purpose. Gimli is the best option. Those that feel this somehow "ruins" Gimli need to answer the same question: how important is that, given what you gain by having some comic moments in a very very serious film?
ARAGORN'S "DEATH"
More than ever I am now convinced that Aragorn's Death plays a part in several of these storylines, and most importantly in (2). The Aragorn / Arwen / Eowyn love triangle is a major issue in (2), and the events that happen between Aragorn and Arwen in TTT (or are flashed back to, at any rate) are not specifically stated in the text, even in the Appendices, but could very well have happened if we assume that Aragorn is a more conflicted character than in the books, as Jackson has portrayed him.
OK, so given that there is clearly more "meat" to the Eowyn-Aragorn part of that triangle. In the books, Eowyn meets Aragorn at Edoras. Then Aragorn and the rest ride off to to battle at the Fords of Isen and are diverted to Helm's Deep, while Theoden entrusts the evacuation of Edoras to Eowyn. The battle ends, Aragorn rides to Dunharrow with Legolas and Gimli, where he meets Eowyn again before taking the Paths of the Dead.
Now, let's replay that via film, only this time everyone leaves Edoras at the same time for Helm's Deep, and the Paths of the Dead are there at the Deep. Aragorn meets Eowyn at Edoras, but this time they share the road to Helm's Deep. There is no separation, no time for Eowyn to reflect upon Aragorn in her own mind, free to imagine being with him. You need that separation...you don't want to have them resolve things right then and there. So Aragorn has to disappear. The insertion of the Warg attack accomplishes two things: (a) it gives Theoden a chance to task Eowyn with the evacuation, while the "real" warriors deal with the attack. Eowyn gets to chafe at that. And (b) it provides the necessary separation. Aragorn rides off to battle, Eowyn stays with the women and children, and when Aragorn "dies" Eowyn is now free to dwell on what might have been, in the self-pitying way that she does in the books, in fact.
So while so many people just see this as an "unnecessary change," I in fact see it as something that actually brings the film CLOSER to the books!
I've argued, too, that Aragorn's Death enables some reflection on (6). In the books, even after the Fellowship is fractured, there is an awareness of the continuing bonds of the Fellowship...Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli go after Merry and Pippin; they get split up again and reunited again in Gondor; everyone is reunited again at Cormallen. And there is this awareness that they're still a group that belongs together, even though their original purpose is gone. Aragorn's Death brings that into focus sharply. "You don't know what you have until it's gone" as the saying goes, and Legolas and Gimli have "lost" Aragorn, and not just Eowyn.
Finally, the episode enables more detail to be written into (2), specifically the Aragorn / Arwen part of the triangle. We've already learned through flashback that Aragorn has pushed Arwen away; Arwen's intervention as Aragorn floats down the river is a nice insight into Arwen's thoughts.
I don't have a detailed analysis of Arwen's scenes except to say that the Aragorn / Arwen relationship is central to both (2) and to (4)...you've got to have a few minutes of screen time, and that's all it is, is a few minutes.
A little cheesy and Hollywood? Maybe. Could all of this have been accomplished differently? I don't know, I'm not a screenwriter. But in my view, I feel I now have a clear understanding of why this scene is there, and a heightened appreciation for it and for the brilliant job Jackson et al have done in adapting the storylines.
FARAMIR AND OSGILIATH
Finally, there are all the issues revolving around Frodo's part of the story. Let's start with Faramir.
Tieno posted a link to a wonderful post on TORN with a very detailed analysis of Faramir's part in the text of TTT (it's here: click!). It turns out that the film interpretation is not nearly as different as people think it is. But let's set that aside for a moment; granted, the scenes feel different than the books.
It's obvious to me, though others have said they don't take it this way, that Faramir HAS to be tempted by the Ring to be true to (3). In fact it's crucial...how can a Man have the strength to easily cast the Ring aside when Men have been set up as the most corruptible of races? There has to be some conflict within Faramir -- especially given that, as I've postulated, Jackson wants his non-Hobbit characters to show more internal strife than Tolkien's did.
Secondly, taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath accomplishes two specific goals: (a) It gets Frodo to the Crossroads between Osgiliath and Minas Morgul, where he'll need to be at the end of the film, and (b) it gets him into a warzone. Concurrent with Frodo et al being at Osgiliath, you've got the charge of Eomer at Helm's Deep and you've got the attack of the Ents. Sam gets to say his piece with all three of these scenes as a backdrop, and there is no drop in tension. The book, of course, is divided differently; Frodo and Sam's part is told all in one piece. By the time you get to the end of Frodo and Sam in the text, you're two hundred pages removed from the climax of the other story threads! There is no need to match up the tension and the drama of the different threads. In Jackson's telling, with the stories interweaving, some attempt had to be made to normalize the tension in the threads.
Some have complained of their distaste for the Frodo-Nazgul scene at the end; in my view this as well accomplishes a specific narrative purpose; Sauron is supposed to be alarmed into launching his war earlier than he might have. This plays out in the book of ROTK as Aragorn looking in the Palantir and revealing himself. But now Jackson has bought himself some extra screen time, if he needs to...Sauron's early start to the war could just as easily be because he KNOWS the Ring was in Osgiliath and that the Nazgul did not return with it...he may suspect that Gondor has it now.
AS WE HEAD TOWARDS ROTK...
I take great pleasure in knowing that the story is right on track. Frodo, Sam and Gollum are headed towards Morgul Vale, Faramir having let them go and risking the wrath of Denethor in doing so. The rest of the Company is victorious at Helm's Deep, with the denoument with Saruman to come and then events in Gondor.
The only difference of any significance I see is the location of Narsil. Jackson has clearly invested the sword with a lot of symbolism (Narsil not only is there in Rivendell but it's also held by the figure of Elendil at the Argonath in the film; it's also on Aragorn's breast in the scene where Elrond is painting a picture of Arwen grieving after Aragorn's death. So it makes sense to withhold its reforging until the last film, which of course is "The Return of the King."
All in all, I'm incredibly thrilled with how the second film worked out, and deleriously excited for ROTK!
