![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was having an annoying conversation today on TORC about Movie!Frodo. It really amazes me how casually judgmental and cold-hearted people can be. And yes, I know he's a fictional character, but the points being made are about wider principles in general.
I can understand people preferring Book Frodo (I prefer him myself). This isn't about people preferring Tolkien's original story to what PJ&Co. did with the characters. But here's the thing, I did this detailed post a while ago where I went through what I saw the movie doing with the F/S/G storyline, but on a basic level it seems like PJ&Co. looked at the three basic characters in canon, looked at their situation and thought, "How can we mine this for personal conflict--aka drama."
That's what dramatic writing is about. We don't have a narrator, we just have these actors inhabiting these roles. We get information based on how the characters interact with each other. This is pretty much the way we understand life as well. So it just drives me crazy when people talk about the LOTR movies adding character arcs as making the characters "self-centered" or less noble or whatever they're calling it. This conversation that annoyed me was about Frodo and pity--apparently Movie Frodo is self-centered and his sparing of Gollum is based solely on some selfish need to prove to himself that he can be saved from his "addiction problem." This proves that PJ feels that altruistic heroes are boring, so he's replaced them with self-centered ones.
Just to review, Movie!Frodo willingly sacrifices everything for a Quest he can't enjoy the benefits of--he saves the Shire, but not for himself. And he's fine with that. But apparently this doesn't make him altruistic in some peoples' eyes, because he showed signs that he would have preferred to not do that. He's selfish creature to hope he might be able to return to the Shire after the Quest, desperately enough to project it onto Gollum for a time and even take steps to make himself believe it.
That's what gets me about it, that it's so damn judgmental and cold-hearted. If someone looks at this fictional character and sees someone self-centered I think that says a lot about what they think altruism is about. Frankly, it makes me wonder if I'm talking to one of those annoying people who pretends they never think of themselves while crushing everyone them with their huge ego. We were discussing pity in the thread, some people felt was destroyed in the movie by Frodo's feeling connected to Gollum (you can't feel pity if you don't see the other person as "The Other.") I said I agreed with Tolkien that, "...pity is of two kinds: one is of kinship recognized, and is near to love; the other is in difference perceived and is near to pride." Another person claimed to agree with this, but then, imo, supported exactly the opposite by saying: "Pity is not the feeling of kinship one experiences upon encountering an old work colleague who has been unemployed for years, and divorced or maybe even homeless as a result. Pity is finding some point of kinship with Osama bin Laden, in the moment he is preparing to shoot another video announcing mass American deaths, while casually ordering one of his wives beaten off camera. Pity, as you can see from this example, is not easy."
Here's my problems with that: first, I'm really getting annoyed with the 9/11 examples, period. It's like the anti-Nazi analogy or something. Second, I think the Osama example is exactly the kind of prideful pity Tolkien described. When Movie Frodo spares Gollum's life Gollum's just tried to kill him (and what could make Gollum more "The Other" than that??). He, as the victim, is the only person who can forgive Gollum for what he's done. This other example sounds more like that kind of fake sympathy you get from people enamored of their own compassion. Me feeling pity for Osama bin Laden is practical (because it can make me more able to look at things objectively) but it doesn't necessarily say anything about my being a good person, since I've been relatively unscathed by his actions so far. It really costs me nothing to pity him while he beats some other woman or kills people other than me.
::sigh:: I just get really frustrated by this idea some people seem to have that Tolkien's characters all had only one motivation: to do what was right because it was right. And I realize this was what Tolkien wanted people to get from them. But reading the books I always thought the characters had personal motivations. I always thought Frodo was going through some serious internal conflict while he trudged along and probably thought a lot of the things Movie Frodo shows himself to think in the movies concerning Gollum and Sam. I thought all the hobbits had healthy egos and personal desires: Sam wanted to be needed and for everybody to know he was needed; Merry got a kick out of proving himself the Hobbit with a Plan in bigger and bigger situations; Pippin kind of suspected the sun didn't rise until he got up in the morning and thought it quite rude when it didn't and I suspect Frodo hoped it would be officially announced that he was surrounded by idiots. All of them wanted to be heroes, as most people do. But to hear some people talk every single one of them had the exact same motivation: to do what was right. That the moviemakers didn't use that just proves they were afraid to be daring and show real heroes because they think they're boring. Well, what was just described was boring! It makes all the hobbits exactly the same, and passive at that!
Jeez, it's weird how people are ashamed just by being human, like aspiring to be anything less than a good-deed-robot is a sign of corruption.
I can understand people preferring Book Frodo (I prefer him myself). This isn't about people preferring Tolkien's original story to what PJ&Co. did with the characters. But here's the thing, I did this detailed post a while ago where I went through what I saw the movie doing with the F/S/G storyline, but on a basic level it seems like PJ&Co. looked at the three basic characters in canon, looked at their situation and thought, "How can we mine this for personal conflict--aka drama."
That's what dramatic writing is about. We don't have a narrator, we just have these actors inhabiting these roles. We get information based on how the characters interact with each other. This is pretty much the way we understand life as well. So it just drives me crazy when people talk about the LOTR movies adding character arcs as making the characters "self-centered" or less noble or whatever they're calling it. This conversation that annoyed me was about Frodo and pity--apparently Movie Frodo is self-centered and his sparing of Gollum is based solely on some selfish need to prove to himself that he can be saved from his "addiction problem." This proves that PJ feels that altruistic heroes are boring, so he's replaced them with self-centered ones.
Just to review, Movie!Frodo willingly sacrifices everything for a Quest he can't enjoy the benefits of--he saves the Shire, but not for himself. And he's fine with that. But apparently this doesn't make him altruistic in some peoples' eyes, because he showed signs that he would have preferred to not do that. He's selfish creature to hope he might be able to return to the Shire after the Quest, desperately enough to project it onto Gollum for a time and even take steps to make himself believe it.
That's what gets me about it, that it's so damn judgmental and cold-hearted. If someone looks at this fictional character and sees someone self-centered I think that says a lot about what they think altruism is about. Frankly, it makes me wonder if I'm talking to one of those annoying people who pretends they never think of themselves while crushing everyone them with their huge ego. We were discussing pity in the thread, some people felt was destroyed in the movie by Frodo's feeling connected to Gollum (you can't feel pity if you don't see the other person as "The Other.") I said I agreed with Tolkien that, "...pity is of two kinds: one is of kinship recognized, and is near to love; the other is in difference perceived and is near to pride." Another person claimed to agree with this, but then, imo, supported exactly the opposite by saying: "Pity is not the feeling of kinship one experiences upon encountering an old work colleague who has been unemployed for years, and divorced or maybe even homeless as a result. Pity is finding some point of kinship with Osama bin Laden, in the moment he is preparing to shoot another video announcing mass American deaths, while casually ordering one of his wives beaten off camera. Pity, as you can see from this example, is not easy."
Here's my problems with that: first, I'm really getting annoyed with the 9/11 examples, period. It's like the anti-Nazi analogy or something. Second, I think the Osama example is exactly the kind of prideful pity Tolkien described. When Movie Frodo spares Gollum's life Gollum's just tried to kill him (and what could make Gollum more "The Other" than that??). He, as the victim, is the only person who can forgive Gollum for what he's done. This other example sounds more like that kind of fake sympathy you get from people enamored of their own compassion. Me feeling pity for Osama bin Laden is practical (because it can make me more able to look at things objectively) but it doesn't necessarily say anything about my being a good person, since I've been relatively unscathed by his actions so far. It really costs me nothing to pity him while he beats some other woman or kills people other than me.
::sigh:: I just get really frustrated by this idea some people seem to have that Tolkien's characters all had only one motivation: to do what was right because it was right. And I realize this was what Tolkien wanted people to get from them. But reading the books I always thought the characters had personal motivations. I always thought Frodo was going through some serious internal conflict while he trudged along and probably thought a lot of the things Movie Frodo shows himself to think in the movies concerning Gollum and Sam. I thought all the hobbits had healthy egos and personal desires: Sam wanted to be needed and for everybody to know he was needed; Merry got a kick out of proving himself the Hobbit with a Plan in bigger and bigger situations; Pippin kind of suspected the sun didn't rise until he got up in the morning and thought it quite rude when it didn't and I suspect Frodo hoped it would be officially announced that he was surrounded by idiots. All of them wanted to be heroes, as most people do. But to hear some people talk every single one of them had the exact same motivation: to do what was right. That the moviemakers didn't use that just proves they were afraid to be daring and show real heroes because they think they're boring. Well, what was just described was boring! It makes all the hobbits exactly the same, and passive at that!
Jeez, it's weird how people are ashamed just by being human, like aspiring to be anything less than a good-deed-robot is a sign of corruption.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Swatkat
From:
no subject