I would really, really like to assure you that the grabs from here on in aren't very tragic and sad. I'm afraid that would make me a liar.
The thing with Faramir: Saintly!Faramir worked well in the books, because Aragorn, as the personality-less character he was, was not tempted by the Ring and had a very clear view of what he Had To Do. However, Jackson gave us a properly human, insecure, flawed Aragorn -- you know, somebody we can really care about. However, my theory is, this couldn't work alongside saintly! and notreallytempted!Faramir. I suppose they couldn't have tempted!Aragorn -- the Aragorn who cannot answer when Frodo asks, "Would you destroy it?" It's not the best reasoning, to be sure, but I suppose it serves its purposes. Jackson could have done with keeping everyone closer to book-canon-characterisation, but then I don't think the movie audience who never read the book would have cared enough about Tolkien's personality-less Aragorn. I know I never did. He was actually my least favourite character for that reason.
In addition to that (and all my ramblings), I am under the impression -- particularly after having seen the extended edition preview -- that Jackson is playing up the dysfunctionality of the Steward's family. I think we're being fed the idea of a Faramir who is forgotten, neglected, and desperate to prove himself. The one thing I always noticed is that he says that they will take the Ring to his father. Not that he will take it, not that they will take it for Gondor -- but that he wants to take it home to daddy. "Faramir sends a noble gift."
Ultimately I guess it comes down to the fact that Jackson raped every character to one extent or another. A flawed, angry Faramir -- particularly when David Wenham played him so brilliantly that he seemed to actually evoke Sean Bean -- is far easier to swallow than the caricatures that are, say, Legolas and Gimli *G*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-23 05:16 pm (UTC)The thing with Faramir:
Saintly!Faramir worked well in the books, because Aragorn, as the personality-less character he was, was not tempted by the Ring and had a very clear view of what he Had To Do. However, Jackson gave us a properly human, insecure, flawed Aragorn -- you know, somebody we can really care about. However, my theory is, this couldn't work alongside saintly! and notreallytempted!Faramir. I suppose they couldn't have tempted!Aragorn -- the Aragorn who cannot answer when Frodo asks, "Would you destroy it?" It's not the best reasoning, to be sure, but I suppose it serves its purposes. Jackson could have done with keeping everyone closer to book-canon-characterisation, but then I don't think the movie audience who never read the book would have cared enough about Tolkien's personality-less Aragorn. I know I never did. He was actually my least favourite character for that reason.
In addition to that (and all my ramblings), I am under the impression -- particularly after having seen the extended edition preview -- that Jackson is playing up the dysfunctionality of the Steward's family. I think we're being fed the idea of a Faramir who is forgotten, neglected, and desperate to prove himself. The one thing I always noticed is that he says that they will take the Ring to his father. Not that he will take it, not that they will take it for Gondor -- but that he wants to take it home to daddy. "Faramir sends a noble gift."
Ultimately I guess it comes down to the fact that Jackson raped every character to one extent or another. A flawed, angry Faramir -- particularly when David Wenham played him so brilliantly that he seemed to actually evoke Sean Bean -- is far easier to swallow than the caricatures that are, say, Legolas and Gimli *G*
And wow, that was long...