Faramir: Book Vs Movie
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- A lot of fans think Peter Jackson messed up Faramir’s character. In today’s video, we talk about the differences between book Faramir and movie Faramir, and determine whether or not they’re right.
Support me on Patreon: patreon.com/us...
Got video Ideas?: forms.gle/VNTu...
Donate to my tip jar: ko-fi.com/part...
Follow me on Instagram: / jess_of_the_shire
Contact me: jess.of.the.shire.business@gmail.com
Music by Epidemic Sound. Check out my referral link here: share.epidemic...
Sources:
Carter, Steven Brett. “Faramir and the Heroic Ideal of the Twentieth Century; or, How Aragorn Died at the Somme.” Mythlore, vol. 30, 2012, pp. 89-102.
I remember reading the book after watching the films, and was *shocked* by how kind, level-headed, and hospitable he was to Frodo and Sam. It did lower my opinion of The Two Towers' theatrical cut big time, he was barely a good person in that version.
Then I watched the extended cuts for the first time and felt they gave a clearer depiction of Faramir as a more moral character nevertheless suffers temptation and pressures from his father. By Return of the King he was more closely aligned to his book counterpart. I learned why Jackson, Boyens and Walsh made their choices; I understand what they were aiming for... but I still think they pushed him too far from the book's intelligent, noble characterisation.
in the movies Faramir was portrayed as a megalomaniac who wanted to take the Ring for himself to take the place of Sauron, which is what in the books Boromir ended up attempting.
@@jwenting Nice joke.
@jwenting In the movies, Faramir was portrayed as a loving son who was watching his family and city crumble, desperate for some way to grasp ahold of his father's love. A "megalomaniac" is a bit dramatic
@@liztolley8488 In the movies, Faramir is portrayed as someone who will allow his men to torture Gollum in order to extract the information he wants. Real upstanding guy.
I think maybe that character is just very hard for an actor to portray. Actors like flaws they can show, and Faramir just had very few.
Looking forward to watching this, but yes, Faramir was a pacifist warrior who had no interest in power and thus was not susceptible to the ring - a point that somehow went over Peter Jackson's head. Ruining Faramir and turning Gimly into a comic relief character were the two most egregious Jackson transgressions.
Jackson’s version of Faramir dragged him down to being and acting like a little boy with father issues. It was a very one dimensional character treatment for such s pivotal character in the story. Now if only they shaved ten or so minutes off that interminable Helms Deep siege scene and fleshed out Faramir a bit more - and included his and Eowen’s mutual healing moment after the siege of Gondor…
Awesome video! Love from Madrid, Spain😊❤
Book Faramir is the perfect man put to paper. I love Eowyn but nobody was good enough for Faramir.
Faramir and Denethor were alike. Denethor is what happens to a person if you allow sin to take root in your soul. Faramirr is the result of defending all borders and saying no to sinful thoughts before they can take root. Faramir is my favorite character because there is nothing special about him besides his resolve to stay faithful to God and allow saving grace to work through him. If you'll notice, neither charter took the ring, yet Denethor fell to it, and Faramir defeated it. Surprisingly, Broamier also defeated the ring in his confession to Strider (The King) on his (Broamier) death bed. Aragorn says to Broamier something like, "You have won, Bro! Few have obtained such a victory! (or something like that). Have a nice day. 🙃
Faramir is certainly on the list, but at the top is Aragorn, followed by Gimli, followed by Treebeard.
The travesty of this is emphasized by the more difficult characters whom the movie treated brilliantly, including Samwise and Gollum/Smeagol.
Not even if I found it by the roadside would I take this thing.
The love story between Eowyn and Faramir is beautiful, and actually more interesting than Aragorn and Arwen, both are scarred by the war, and heal each other.
Pippin and Merry, bff. Pippin saves Faramir. Merry saves Eowyn. Faramir and Eowyn end up in the same place to get healed. together Merry and Pippin unintentionally make the Tolkien cupids!!
Could not agree more. People seem to think someone who is a constant, faithful, loyal person is boring. This mystifies me. Don't people remember Rosa Parks etc. There is a long line of heroes who we remember exactly because it's exceptional. Not boring. It's not because it was easy for them. Most suffered greatly. Faramir bore the same weight that Boromir did, but without the respect of his own father. That's a compelling story. Furthermore I loved Beregond's loyalty paying off saving Faramir, which shows how great a comander Faramir was that others would face death for him in more ways than battle. I don't get how people don't think that's compelling
The love story between Eowyn and Faramir is one of the most beautiful love stories I’ve ever read. It’s so real.
“Though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater”
One issue with romance between Faramir and Eowyn is that he is going to outlive her by a factor of four.
First, if you had asked me what characters they changed the most, I'd start with Gimli and Treebeard. Faramir would come third (maybe fourth after Denethor).
But the quibble I'd like to put forth (yes, it's an extremely tiny quibble) is when you said that Denethor didn't understand Faramir. My impression from the books is that Denethor understood Faramir pretty well, and that is why Denethor considered Faramir a disappointment.
The way I read Denethor is that he, himself, was also rather sensitive, intelligent, and bookish (at least in his youth). The difference between Denethor and Faramir is that Denethor hated that part of himself. He wanted to be bold and brash like the heroes of old. So when Boromir became exactly what he wanted himself to be, he idolized his first son. Boromir was his ideal man.
And Faramir was everything Denethor hated about himself. So you have the idol son and the eternal-disappointment son. Boromir being what Denethor always wanted to be and Faramir being what he hated about himself. Denethor also seems prone to confirmation bias, meaning that whenever Faramir screwed up, it was duly logged in Denethor's mind, but when Faramir proved himself to be a beloved and effective leader, Denethor just handwaved it away as doing something anybody could do.
There were, of course, great differences between Denethor and Faramir. Faramir didn't have the pride, self-hatred and confirmation bias that Denethor had. It's just that Faramir wasn't what Denethor wanted to be and Boromir was.
Of course, there are probably a plethora of other interpretations for the Denthor/Boromir/Faramir relationship, but that's the one I got from the books. I think the text backs it up, at least a little.
Denethor living vicariously through Boromir is not a take I expected to encounter today, but it is a good one.
Have a like friend
I suspect Pride and Hubris are the only way that some leaders like Denethor would be able to cope with the burden of leadership. I mean it's a pretty big deal - you are the ruler and protector of the last legacy of Numenor. It'd be easy for any man lesser or greater to fall into despair and madness with that much pressure on you. Book Denethor has my sympathy, though film Denethor has only my contempt.
If I recall correctly, Denethor was not a fan of Aragorn in the past. Of course, at that time he did not know it was Aragorn. So, Denethor, as a youth, was already not happy with people liking someone else more than him. This has carried over into his relationship with Faramir, because Faramir's men loved him as a brother, which was something Denethor could not achieve.
I know I’m a few months late to this but this a great interpretation of Denethor and his sons. It kind of fits with the idea that over the course of the story all 3 of them are faced with impossible odds and unimaginable stress and we see how it affects them not just as individuals but also as a family. The idea that Denethor idolizes one son and disregards the other for being like himself kinda makes movie Denethor’s despair feel a lot more appropriate, not only did he lose a son but he also lost what he viewed to be the champion of Gondor so of course he’s nothing but doom and gloom afterwards
I think that's a great interpretation.
I love the quote you chose, it’s the only quote I wrote down as I was reading the Two Towers because I thought it was really poignant even on its own, although it does encapsulate Faramir’s character, namely:
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise.”
I love how Faramir respects women
I agree. It is a powerful and a beautiful quote, and consistent with what true warriors still say to this day. Tolkien was a warrior who experienced the horror of the trenches (the real and true trenches, not like that word is used today for everything from football to most every job - and it shouldn't be) and the terrible losses, many of them very personal, in World War I. You will almost never hear true combat veterans talking crap, bragging about made-up heroics, or trashing anyone else. Those are the keyboard commandos of the internet age - that type was always around, but usually sitting by himself at the bar. Faramir was not only a very effective warrior, he was a true leader, and loved and was loved by his men. He was not at all interested in Glory; rather, he wanted to do his job and keep his men alive and lead them as an effective force against invaders to protect his home (city) and the civilians in it.
I love this quote so much ❤ It's what made me love Faramir!
It shows how incredibly tight of a story Tolkien wove that even changing one detail will snowball into changing entire characters and storylines.
Er... "Tight" is never a description I would attribute to Tolkien as an author. He meanders quite a fucking lot. I'm not saying he was a bad writer, but he certainly wasn't tight in his storytelling.
@@rkstevenson5448 In what way does he meander? Just because his books are long and descriptive in their world building doesn’t mean it meanders. It was all intentional. I guess though that any scene longer than a page is too much for ADHD dopamine addicts to comprehend.
@NoahMillerAppleTechnology lol I like the salty ending there. I do. Couldn't resist you rascal
And with that in mind, think about how long Frodo resisted the Ring - until the very moment it could be destroyed by that kind of accident. If the Ring had had even a _little_ bit greater influence, they would not have gotten that far, and Sauron would almost certainly have gotten it and risen again, with all the horrible changes to the hisotry of Middle Earth after that point.
And now consider Frodo's motivation for sparing Gollum. In the book, it's pity, with the thing about Gollum being able to show them a way into Mordor being more of a bonus, if not simply a justification towards Sam to spare him. In the movie, Frodo is far more calculating, the way into Mordor is pretty much on par with pity.
And finally, think about why Bilbo was able to resist the Ring's influence so long. Gandalf even says so - because of his pity, because he spared Gollum in those Ork tunnels.
So now we have a less pitiful Frodo in the movie compared to the book. Which means a greater influence of the Ring over Frodo. Which means a failure of their attempt to destroy it, which means a _massive_ change to Middle Earth's history.
Jackson didn't just change a few things here and there - he made a fairly subtle, but actually *_huge_* change, and then simply didn't think the consequences through (or ignored them).
Loved how you could only manage a few sentences before becoming nasty. You're a bad representation of Tolkien fans and should no longer speak in our spaces unless you can be kind.@@noah.millsss
As a lifelong Tolkien nerd (first read the books at age 7 and reread them continuously after that, was 18-20 when the Peter Jackson film trilogy was released), Faramir was the character whose book-to-film changes I found most upsetting...in the second film. In the third film, Faramir was much closer to his book form, and Denethor was the one whose changes were most upsetting. The changes to Denethor made a complete mockery of Jackson's spoken excuse for his earlier changes to Faramir, which Jackson described as giving Faramir "a growth arc". Infuriating as the changes to both characters were for me, the films were still amazing and I consider them the best film series ever made. On another note, the most horrifying thing shown in Jackson's films was the way Denethor ate tomatoes...
Not for me. The time has made me less charitable. Do you not understand that because of Jackson's movies, elves are now depicted primarily with curved swords. There is a noticable shift in fantasy depiction elves, and Jackson is the reason that elves went from being mostly shown with double edged straight swords to being shown with curved swords, which was not what Tolkien intended.
@@jacobwalsh1888 That is really nitpicky. TOLKIEN is the main reason we associate gracefull angelic beings with pointy ears and long hair with the idea of "elves". Having curved swords makes actually sense for their mobile fighting style and fits their style in general. They represent a people who live in close harmony with nature. Curved sword seem more natural than a straight longsword. Before Tolkien and Jackson elves were very rarely dipicted with any kind of weapon! Think of the tooth fairy, nymphs, etc. But the origins afaik are childlike inhabitants of the forrest from germanic myths.
There are a lot more problematic artistic choices than curved weaponary. Like when Legolas uses his negative gravity to jump up falling rocks.(In the Hobbit). Yeah thats just bs.
@@jacobwalsh1888holy fuck, go outside.
Me too. 1977 was the first Tolkien book for me. mom gave me The Hobbit in 5th grade and I have every Tolkien book published by the Tolkien estate plus bio`s etc. She is selling Denmethor as a good man. She uses HALF of Pippins thought on Denethor vs. Gandalf eye to eye. He thinks Denethor looks more Kingly and noble. But does not finish Pippins thought. But by a perception deeper than sight he knows Gandalf is wiser and much more powerful. And he is older FAR older.. Where is Gandalf from? What IS Gandalf? And why did I never think of that before? That is deception. A half of a story. How about telling Faramir "your bearing is lowly in my presence" Boromir would have brought me a mighty gift, he was no WIZARDS PUPIL. He tells Faramir he wishes he was dead and not Boromir. Yeah, real good guy. She loses all respect in my eyes here. The half and unfinished thought is bothersome. Maybe she should get into politics.
@@jacobwalsh1888… wait, that’s it? Wow, and here I thought you were going to point out actual problems, not incredibly tiny nitpicks that even Tolkien would probably not have had an issue with.
Seriously, what is it about the Elves wielding curved weapons that somehow lessens the quality of Tolkien’s work? That’s a bunch of horsesh*t and you know it
I was also disappointed how Faramir was portrayed in the movie… in the book he was noble and Kingly, but had a close bond and was respected by his men. He cared for Eowyn knowing she admired Aragorn and he greeted Aragorn as the last Stewart willingly succeeding his authority.
The character of Faramir shows some of the Numenorean traditions were still preserved and Gordor would be willing to accept Aragorn as king. Without that evidence, Gondor seems a relatively backward kingdom in the movies.
A major theme in the books is one of redemption, particularly for that of men and the weakness perpetrated by Isildur. Faramir was designed to show that there was still strength and nobility among men, the exiled Numenoreans have not all faded, and he serves as foreshadowing for the king Aragorn would become (which is particularly noteworthy, because Aragorns main arc is his self-doubt on whether or not he shares the same weakness of his forefather.
I agree with all your points.
I feel compelled to make one correction. Succeed means to take over control, or to attain something. Cede means to give something up. In the context of your sentence, cede is the correct word.
...willingly *ceding his authority.
Well I saw the extended version and to me Faramir is the closest to a real knight prince character. He is only hard at first as he should be facing random little people and gollum and it actually helps building him later. He has a great introduction, casting is spectacular too
Looks like PJ went out of his way to cast an oaf/stiff to play Faramir. Perhaps this casting choice was intended to make Denethor less of a moron-slob, but it didn't work.
I wonder how the story would have changed if Faramir went on the quest and not Boromir. He has one of the best quotes in the LoTR.
That's probably one of the most interesting what-ifs of the entire story.
Same, the tragedy of how he was the one who was supposed to go, it having been his dream… a very great what-if
Denethor, unaffected by the Palantir, may have made the choice to send Faramir. Yet another instance of the long reach of Sauron.
there is a video about this somewhere in you tube land
The only thing I can 100% remember is that Faramir goes with Frodo and Sam
yes... and imagine if he had had more time to study under the tutelage of Gandalf!
Great video! I do think that Faramir is much better in the books. However, I do love the scene in the extended edition, when Faramir and Pippin have a sort of heart-to-heart moment. And when I read the appendixes in ROTK I was very interested to learn that Pippin was also the son and heir of a "noble-hobbit" and the youngest in his family, like Faramir. It's made me look at scene differently ever since.
His father was a farmer
An excellent analysis. Many people tend to think of book Faramir and Boromir as opposites, but this isn't true. They were always compliments, with each having the qualities of the other but with different emphasis. I like your idea that they are examples of warriors for different eras of battle, each with the skills necessary to the fights they were thrown into. Boromir was just as much of a hero as Faramir, but his flaws opened him up to the temptation of the enemy while Faramir's flaws warned him against it.
Faramir had helped Gandalf when he'd gone to research The Ring. Everyone seemed to know of The Ring, but having spent time with Gandalf he'd have been acutely aware of the dangers of it. That's why Faramir never tried to take The Ring. The woman that wrote the screenplay tried to explain why he acted as he did in the movie, but that's not how Tolkien wrote him. She either didn't read the appendices or decided to ignore them. I won't comment on turning the story into a romance :P
@@thhseeking Well, there is _some_ romance in the books. Faramir and Eowyn is one of the great romances in the mythos, which was sadly all but ignored in the movies. There's also Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, but I kinda don't count them since to my mind they are avatars of nature rather than characters. On the other hand Aragorn and Arwen are a bad example, since in the book she's more of a prize Aragorn gets for achieving his destiny. Sam and Rosie are a better example, at least hinted at in the movies. There is an argument to be made that the friendships between Gimli and Legolas or Merry and Pippin are examples of possible gay romantic relationships, but I don't hold any strong opinions on that either way. (Depending on your interpretation, Gimli could even be female.)
Another important aspect of Faramir and Boromir, which was consistent in the book and the movie, was their deep love as brothers for one another. There was no competition or rivalry, only genuine two-way love of older and younger brother.
@@tarmaqueI’d also argue that there’s ambiguity to Frodo and Sam’s relationship. They could be close platonic friends or there could be some romantic love there … I don’t think either interpretation undermines their special bond, since the point of their relationship is that they have *love* for each other; labels are quite irrelevant.
My favorite part of Faramir's arc in the books was the burgeoning romance between himself and Eowyn. It felt like there was no real reason for them to be together in the films, even the Extended version, and that's a heavy loss for me (but I understand that there are only so many stories the 12+ hours of film can tell).
got a point, they just stare at each for a minute and then start randomly hanging out when at least the book showed they had a reason to met and talk with each other
That's kind of the issue; book Faramir is worth being a main chacter, and the movies don't have room for another one.
I actually was not too upset with the movie's description of Faramir & Denethor. While it did not do the character's justice from the book's portrayal, it created a moving subplot and some great acting from John Noble. Man that guy can eat!
I always felt that they made Faramir a much weaker character in the movies so that Aragorn can shine more. Same thing with Theoden. I love that in Tolkien's world they all can exist next to each other as the amazing characters they are without diminishing each other's greatness.
You are 50% correct... because interesting characters need weaknesses. At the very least for modern audiences, but I would argue that the best characters are always flawed, and need to be tempted or challenged by those flaws.
@@jakejohnson2334 By "weak character", they might not have meant "a character with weaknesses", but that the characters of Faramir and Theoden have lost much of their characterization and personal charm in the adaption, especially when compared to Aragorn.
@@Kiiriminna I was going for a bit of word symmetry there, I think understood what she meant. My point was that weaknesses make for stronger characters not weaker ones. Both Faramir and Aragorn are much more self assured and developed already in the books. In story telling if someone can grow and change throughout the story that will almost always trump an emotionally static character. Peter Jackson was able to give much more interesting arch for them, Farimir always living in the shadow of his brother (even Boromir is much more weighed down by the weight of his responsibility), and Aragorn haunted by his legacy. I have no doubt if he could have made 3 6 hour movies he could have Benn able to add the same amount of depth that was in the book, but now with character arcs. And on re-reads I find myself wishing that arch was there for them, and I have no doubt if there was a re-write by Tolkien these changes would make these books somehow impossibly better. If I had one complaint for his writing it's that his lack of character growth, and not because they are emotionally stunted, but that they are already fully formed.
@@jakejohnson2334 Oh, okay.
A point that bears to be remembered is that Tolkien describes both Denethor and Faramir as having the blood of Numenor running more clearly within them, while Boromir did not. Boromir was more like to the Rhohirim. My two worst adaptations though are Gimli and Legolas. Gimili is just comic relief in the movie. Legolas is more the heroic warrior even than Aragorn. There was no nuance of the differences between dwarf and elf (and humans or hobbits). You lose the feeling of difference between them and men.
Agreed!
Yeah, poor Gimli
This is a great point! Thanks for sharing
Entirely agree.
I hated John Rhys Davies as Gimli. I thought the whole movie was blighted with terrible casting, but Gimli was by far the worst. JRD was nudging 60 when he did the movie, while Gimli was supposed to be a young dwarf. The dwarves are supposed to be stoical and hardy, but the chase of the Uruk-hai makes him out to be kind of whiny. The dwarves in the Hobbit movies irked me even more and brings up the other of my two dislikes of Jackson's movies. The stying of everything .... clothes, hair, Rivendell... was so camp and over the top. The elves in the extended version of Fellowship were looked like a Pride parade, rather than people who would have to be vigilant while traveling in a time of low level conflict. The elves were tougher than humans and better warriors, as well as being poets and philosophers. The scenes with them and the way they were presented did the story a disservice (in my opinion)
I'll return to Faramir in another comment, but I was far more bothered by what Jackson did with Treebeard! I'd maybe also put Gimli maybe slightly above Faramir as I hated a lot of the slapstick comedy that was put upon Gimli...
Dwarf tossing !!!! Outrageous!!!
I agree. I don't know why Jackson didn't have the hobbits verbally convince the Ents to act, as Merry thought he had done, (and then Treebeard admitting quietly to the hobbits that he had decided this years before but needed one extra push - and in doing so the hobbits were central but not in a contrived way) but NO Jackson seems to prefer characters changing drastically for big emotional impact despite these moments not really making sense. How had Treebeard not seen the destruction of the forest before and so why was this particular revelation enough to send him to war?
@@davidbellamy2612 It's the bit where he is unaware of parts of his 'flock' being cut down and despoiled that I find most egregious, but I wonder how much of the blame for this should go on John Rhys Davies who seemed to want every character he touched to be comedic. There is a real melancholy to the Ents in the book that the film misses entirely
This is another insightful, and extremely enjoyable deep dive into Tolkien. I have been a fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings since the late 1970s, and yet Jess brings a fresh, balanced, thoughtful, and engaging perspective to this body of work yet again. I just discovered her UA-cam channel a few weeks ago and it’s like chatting with a friend about my favorite books. Keep up the great work and please keep the videos coming!
yes she does
I too have been a Tolkien fan since my mom gave me The Hobbit in 5th grade, 1977. I want to slap her right now. Denethor was a good man?? Horse shit. How about her using one half of Pippin`s thoughts on Gandalf vs. Denethor. She tells us He looked more noble and Kingly, what about, "as he looked he saw with perception other than sight that Gandalf was wiser and far more powerful, and he was older, FAR older, and why have I never thought about that? Who is Gandalf? Where did he come from? Denethor flinches twice in two eye to eye 'fencing". Denethor tells Faramir "your presence is lowly in my bearing" He tells him he wishes he was fuckin dead!! Boromir would bring me a gift, he was no Wizards pupil. Denethor is even WORSE in the book imo. This girl might have love for Tolkien, but she is using half thoughts, to try to make her point. That is deception. I just lost all respect for her in one vid.
Just get the characters' names correct please, and what the heck has WW1 got to do with LOTR, please tell us? How can anyone compare either one against the other? If you were so clued up what should have been instead of what was in the movie, then how come you weren't PJ's scriptwriter??Come on lady, you need a reality check. All your blah blahing, is intensely nauseating 😢
Take a breath
Note: Shee-Lob, not Shay-lob. It’s a little Tolkien philological joke as it literally means female (she) spider (lob).
Nearamir...FARamir...wherever you areamir...
Faramir is my all time favorite character in any book. I read him growing up, a few years before the Peter Jackson movies were released, and was instantly drawn to him. It was the silent protagonist, the temperate personality, and the compassion he had with all peoples that I found was the ideal personality to strive for in my own life.
I didn't like how movie Faramir was "temporarily" seduced by the ring and how aggressive he was toward the hobbits initially, but I also understand how this was built from a cinematic perspective. The One Ring was more center stage in the movies, so there may have been a need to show that the immediate danger that the ring was going to pull on everyone that it could. In spite of the alterations of Denethor, it does seem like Faramir was gradually pulled back more in line to the books, though most of his participation in Return of the King was largely absent (including all the character building with Eowyn in the Houses of Healing, ugh!).
I loved how you went into detail about these things in this video. New subscriber, and I look forward to going over your other video and your future ones!
Oh, great, now I'm have that song stuck in my head all day.... 😉😂
It took a lot out of me not to make that joke in this video
The Lord of the Rings movies are really overrated in general. They are visually stunning, have an amazing cast, but the script is really a very poor adaptation. While I strongly agree that Faramir is greatly misrepresented in the film, he is far from the most poorly adapted. Sadly most of the "Men" characters are poorly adapted, all pretty much for the same reason. Jackson did most of the men characters wrong based on trying to make them all weak (I think because the books say that men were weak, so he took that as necessary to show in all of them, instead of the specific examples of the books...Namely Boromir and Denethor) In doing so he weakened both Faramir and Aragorn. Personally, I think Aragorn letting Frodo go on his own was such a sad alteration to the story. I do not believe the book Aragorn would have ever abandoned Frodo or thought of taking the ring either
The worst change to a character in my opinion though is none of those, but Saruman. In the books, Saruman was NOT working for Sauron (At least, he didn't realize he was) Saruman was not working for Sauron. Saruman wanted to BE Sauron. He did not want to give the ring to Sauron. He wanted to use it to defeat him. It took a character who was a great representation of the grey areas of the story (The whole idea that people can do evil things with great intentions) and turned him into a minion...
This was my conclusion. If only as much effort had been put into the script as was put into the sets, wardrobe and props.
With the benefit of time and consideration (and help from cozy-vibed-yet-thoughtful-and-informative UA-cam channels!), most of us who'd read & loved the books before the films were released have at least come to understand and somewhat respect why Jackson made the major changes that he did... But back then, sitting in theatres watching them at midnight-screenings back in 2001/2002/2003, with no idea what we were about to see, I must admit that we were a lot more surprised and a lot less charitable!
That's totally understandable. But I'm glad that people are willing to step back a bit and at least examine why the changes may have been made!
The character changes often didn't make sense within just the script either. And they still don't. Like Gimli half of the time sounding Scottish. Or Legolas doing superhero stunts but the only Elf that does it.
I have zero respect for what Jackson did to Faramir and have accepted zero of his apologies.
I agree. Faramir was by far, the character I loved the most in the books. More than Aragorn, more than Frodo and Sam, more than Gandalf. When watching the movie the first time, I was in such intense expectation to see my favorite character appear in such an amazing production... that the fall was heartbreaking, and made me even angry in the cinema. The wonderful things that Peter Jackson and that huge team accomplished in the rest of the scenes of the movie mostly calmed me down, but a sour flavor remained, specially when the focus shifted with such intensity towards the battle in Minas Tirith, and the absurdity of the appearance of the elves there, and the surfing Legolas. I wasn't young enough to enjoy the surfing Legolas, I guess. Of all the changes in the adaptation, the ones that affected my enjoyment the most were in The Two Towers. That didn't meant I didn't enjoy the movie and re-watched it several times, but for sure among the three, it is the one I see with reserve. I went to the cinema with my best friend, who hadn't read the books, and had talked to him about Faramir being my favorite character, expecting to see it in that movie, and my friend of course couldn't understand why that character was so important for me. In retrospective, I agree it was difficult to do something different than what they did, and I can see the love they put in this, even if I didn't like it.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire With all due respect, I suspect your opinion on the change of Faramir would have been very different had you read the books and actually understood the books first, instead of your first introduction to Tolkien being the movie version. And to be fair, it seems that most people who had the same introduction were almost always quite happy to not see a problem, and that's kind of understandable. The thing is, people generally get attached to the first version of a story they see, particularly children. And this happens across the board. People who loved the first Charlie in the Chocolate Factory also generally most staunchly cite that one as being much better than the other one. I also grew up with the original movie and loved it. But, in reality that's not necessarily the case. The acting was good for it's time, the film was good for it's time, but it didn't have the CGI and technology of today, it's outdated, and acting in general is much better these days, much more realistic (although arguable in Johnny's case for that character), so WAS it REALLY the best? Well... I'm not so sure, regardless of my history with the movie. And this happens to all movies that are made a second time. The vast majority of people ALWAYS love the first iteration they are first introduced to because it's their first emotional interaction, like a first child, and that's what they judge the second iteration on when they encounter one. It's natural to do that. This is similar. You saw the movie as the first version, and totally accepted that iteration as your base, at least initially, and that will always be the version that introduced you, and the one you emotionally attached to. I also saw about half of Game of Thrones before I read the books (strangely for me, that particular book series hadn't initially grabed me) - about season 4 some of it started to seem...strange, I'm not sure why, so I read the books to see what I'd missed - the books are definitely better by a fairly massive margin, make a lot more character motivational sense, and contain, thus far, a lot more depth. And the movies, for me at least, seemed to become weirder and less coherent as they progressed thereafter. But the characters I see when I read the book are the characters acting in the movies for this reason. That's not the case at all for me with Tolkien. I see mostly the characters that were in my mind's eye when I first read the book.
And you could say the same about me, too, of course. But, as with JRRM, the author knows his characters and their motivations better than anyone on the planet. Some of the smaller changes that were added to the movie story I quite liked, eg Aragon falling off the cliff probably actually added depth to story in some ways. And Bombadil was always, of course, going to be left out. But utterly changing a major character to be something very different to the author's creation, and against the author's intentions for the book themes is just not acceptable, and it never was. And it's kind of disrespectable to the author - I doubt that Tolkien would have approved the changes. It changes much of the overarching meaning of the story. Those of us who knew that story by heart understood Faramir, his role in the story and why he was there in the story. Peter was quoted at one point saying that he actually didn't BELIEVE Faramir's character, citing that as apparently one of the reasons he changed it (although it was very obvious when I walked out the the cinema that Jackson had changed the story to make a bit of a false riveting ending to his second movie), so that suggests he didn't really understand the character fully either, or it's role in the book, so had no real compunction in changing it. I left the cinema annoyed that someone has such an audacity to utterly change a character to almost unrecognisability and still expect the story to be respected. Before the making of the movies, I was quite sceptical that Jackson could actually pull off a series like this respectfully and faithfully (and so did a lot of people), given his movie making background, but he quite surprised me at the time. I fully respected the movies up to that point (and Peter Jackson's iteration, up to that point). I respect most of the three movies, changes included, but I, and probably most people who knew the books VERY well before the movie, don't respect this particular change. For us the movie is, on the whole, surprisingly pretty good but not this change that changed the themes of book. And that's despite the inclusion of some rather....typical Jacksonish.... scenes in the fights that had little to do with the story, which were head-shaking at the time (by a LOT of people), but weren't surprising, given Peter Jackson at the time, quite frankly.
You're entitled to your opinion (it's very thoughtfully and intelligently expressed), but you were also very young at the time as you admit, and young people's first views are VERY, VERY impressionable. I know this because I worked in children's theatre for years. Children do NOT see what adults see. Adults see mistakes and acting hesitations and most of the imperfections, and don't suspend believe well unless the acting is particularly good. Children are VERY different. They just generally gloss over all those mistakes and imperfections and less 'good' acting in their imaginations, lol, just seeing the story as intended no matter what the quality of the stage show. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, but I'm am pointing out that this IS a factor in it, whether you realise that or not. Just be aware of that 'first viewing' bias, particularly a child's first viewing, is often difficult to get past.
“Crazed tomato-eating father” 😆
Faramir and Tom Bombadil had the same problem-their complete disinterest in the Ring completely undercut the power of the Ring. In Jackson’s version, the Ring doesn’t call to Faramir’s desire for glory in battle, it calls to his desire to be loved by his father. It adapted to his character. I think Jackson’s Faramir is entirely noble for having felt the pull of the Ring and come to understand it and resist it. I love movie Faramir.
Faramir in the movie is a poor rehash of Boromir. It isn't interesting, it is even worse upon rewatch, and in comparison to Boromir he has no redeeming qualities in The Two Towers.
When he says "we finally understand one another Frodo Baggins" after Sam's speech, it makes me want to punch him in the face.
Comparing Faramir that is a crucial character in the books to Tom Bombadil that would've never fit into the books is disingenuous. We actually lose precious time doing fuck all in Osgliath, slowing down the plot for NOTHING, just to cut even more material from Book 1.
No
Jackson's version of Faramir, and the dynamic between him, his brother and his father is more relatable, realistic and interesting than Tolkien's version.
Nailed it. Faramir in the books is kind of boring. We already have one idealized "hero" in Aragorn, we don't need another.
@@jamezkpal2361 Relatable? Is it hard to you to find a man that is admirable that much? What happened in the movies that Denethor turned into mad Boromir and Faramir turned into discount Boromir.
They were stripped of their actual characteristics for Jackson's version of the ring that it corrupted people instantly.
The other guy here tries to compare Faramir to Aragorn, but Aragorn from the books also doesn't exist in the movies. They're not the same characters in the book either.
Faramir is supposed to represent some of the wisdom of the Men that is left as well as the anguish of the youth for the renewal and acknowledgement of the wisdom of the kings of old, which is brought forth by the older and more experienced Aragorn, that actually embodies that wisdom and power.
You don't need more 'relatable' characters in the story, that's what the hobbits are for, that's why we follow them throughout the books. People dont need to project themselves into every character and doing so doesn't necessarily make the story better.
I'd love to see you do a series on characters that DIDN'T make it into the films and why you think that is (I'm including roles that are perhaps on film but no attention is called to it); Fatty Bolger, Farmer Maggot (though he's technically in the FOTR), Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Barrow Wights, Radaghast the Brown (though he ended up in The Hobbit films), Bill Ferny, Glorfindel, Quickbeam, Erkenbrand, Ghan Buri Ghan, Halbarad, Beregond, Elrohir and Elladan, and my absolute favorite of these and the omission that broke my heart most, Prince Imrahil of the Dol Amroth.
This!
This would be super fun!
What do you mean? Fatty Bolger and Farmer Maggot('s scythe) made it into the film just fine! We got to see the back of Fatty Bolger's head for one second, what more could you ask for?
I just did a rewatch of the lotr trilogy and was struck by how Faramir is constantly being a chill dude who makes good decisions and never for a second shows the slightest sign of being under the power of the ring
The character who _really_ got insulted was Isildur. Just read what he was like in the books as opposed to the movies; they didn't even know what the One Ring _was_ at first, and Isildur claimed it to study it and find out what it was. After a lot of research he figured out what the Ring was, said "Oh Shit!" and set out to take it to Elrond at Rivendell when he got jumped by the orcs. The movies made him out to be a literal sneering villain.
do you have a source for that you could share with me? Because neither like Silmarillion or the Wiki say anything about that, just that Isildur kept the ring as an heirloom in memory of Elendil and Anarion, went and proclaimed himself king, and eventually was ambushed by Orcs and killed on a completely unrelated journey to see his wife and son in Rivendell... It was only I can find in addition to such a reason that Isildur went to speak with Elrond about it, as the ring was beginning to pain him, he couldn't use any of its power beyond invisibility and wanted to be rid of it. He definitely didn't just claim it to study it, he claimed it as a trophy, a spoil of war, that part is undeniable.
From what I can tell, Isildur NEVER had any intention of having the ring destroyed, nor did he ever understand the gravity of what he'd done and nor were his reasons for taking it justified, as they were born from grief and pride. And like what study? He cut it from Sauron's hand himself and what? He couldn't have known it was a bad thing, even with Elrond and Cirdan telling him he should destroy it?... The films had no room for any of this complexity, and so epitomizing him as one of the great failures of men that he was in being the one responsible for the ring's and thus Sauron's enduring, only outdone by Pharazon (both being fooled by Sauron by some means into causing his rise after a previous defeat and indirectly causing immense harm to the people of Middle-Earth). The film's version leaning into what Isildur meant to the wider world and timeline was not a negative for the film, they had no plans to tell the story of the second age. It's just consistent to say that the ring enchanted him into refusing to destroy it and spellbound him into cherishing it until it became too much of a burden to carry.
This does counter what both Elrond and Gandalf report in The Council of Elrond...
Edit to add a ps a day later:
I want to say I agree with op's sentiment, but not the facts.
Isildur had just seen his father killed, and a major heirloom of his house destroyed (Narsil broken). The ring ensnared him using it's usual manipulations of finding the character weaknesses of its victims and controlling them through a will to power. Isildur was "inspired" to take the ring as an heirloom and as war compensation for the death of his father.
Isildur was not a villain, but one more tragic victim in a long line.
Bro is writing fanfiction in the comments 💀
On my last couple rereads Faramir has become my favorite character I think. Eowyn is very cool as well and I appreciate their ending together a lot more than I did as a kid.
That romance is so complex. It finally heals Eowyn. But that also involves her going back to a "woman's role" (something that does not sit well with many these days). One thing not often pointed out is how this marriage leads to Faramir's descendants and Aragorn's going in different directions, intermixing "lessor blood" into Faramir's descendants, while Aragorn's bloodline gets refreshed, you might say, from the original wellspring. Tolkien is clearly fond of the Rohirrim. But he clearly thinks them inferior in power and wisdom to the Dunedain.
Book Eowyn is superior to movie Eowyn. Not because of Miranda Otto, who was fantastic, but because of the script. Eowyn wasn't an activist, she was an adventurer burdened with responsibilities and duties... who shows her mettle when the moment arrives. She's like George Bailey, but even more satisfying when she gets her happy ending.
@@ThomB1031 IMO, there are no improvements in the movies over the books, and Eowyn is no exception. I agree, though, that Ms. Otto was tremendous.
@@richardmather1906 What people miss about Eowyn "coming back to woman's role" is that Faramir too is coming back to being a booklover, scholar, good ruler, wise etc., everything but a warrior. He wants to go in Ithilien to "plant a garden"! He effing HATES war. He was a soldier who defended his country, not a warrior seeking glory. That's why he can heal Eowyn, who thought that her only chance at being praised and glorified (and just plainly "seen") was to be a warrior and dying in battle. Eowyn doesn't want to be a warrior because that's what she is: she just wants her valour to be tested, proved and acknowledged, after years of being just a nurse for her uncle. With Faramir she can be appreciated for herself, and not for her role or for her glory. Tolkien didn't think so high of war or warriors, after the carnage of the WWI, war was just the mean to an end (protecting your country and your loved ones). So Eowyn still wanting to die in battle for him was clearly a psychological issue to heal.
@@richardmather1906 But Aragorn made the stewards' line now princes of their own kingdom and interconnected with Rohan. He gave separate cities to Imrahil and Faramir, and is allied with Eomer.
I agree that the changes to the ring's corruption ruined Faramir, but it's effect on ruining Frodo is far worse. So many moments were lost like when with his last breath Frodo defies the Nazgul at the ford (also ruining one of my favorite things in the book- everything that is sworn over the ring comes true). Frodo's main trait in the book is his uncorruptability but in the movie he goes crazy well before the pits of doom. Also the battle at Osigiliath was a was just at set piece that Jackson wanted "an urban battle" that ended with the truly stupid bit where Frodo offers the ring to the Nazgul that in turn makes the Nazgul and Sauron look ineffectual.
I think Jackson slowly discovered that he isn't as good at story telling as Tolkien was but by the time he had admitted that to himself it was too late. By then the various plot devices had been constructed for those big emotional "change your mind" moments to end each of the 3 films e.g. Faramir changing his mind about wanting the ring. Let's be fair, if Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas etc can withstand the temptation of the ring for months then so can Faramir. No, he was just a plot device to stir emotions; implying Jackson didn't think he could pull that off with something more subtle, as was done in the books.
@@davidbellamy2612 'I think Jackson slowly discovered that he isn't as good at story telling as Tolkien was...'
There were two other people involved with all of that.
Frodo goes crazy before the Crack of Doom in the book too. When Sam rescue him at Cirith Ungol and give him the Ring, Frodo basically tears it from his hand calling him "thief". And the scene is repeated later when Sam offers to take the Ring himself when they are on their way to Mount Doom.
@@Laurelin70 Yeah but that was after being stung and beaten by orcs, not just having Sam "framed".
I’ll explain what they did to Faramir by diving into Denethor II: Denethor was done dirty: He was way more noble & mighty in the books. Not to mention he contended wills with Sauron for decades nonstop & ontop of that even now he was never broken nor could Sauron alter what Denethor would see in the palantir even then he couldn’t control what Denethor had control of which was how he chose to interpret the visions given to him. Using it all to Gondor’s advantage! ❤ he also lit the beacons and got the women & children far away from the city longer ahead of time. So the movie butchered him as well as faramir but they didn’t butcher faramir as badly thankfully. He could have been shown to give Pippen his newest order to light the beacons so then it wouldn’t change the scene much at all as presented! The story here is Faramir’s birth ended up killing his mother Finduilas(named after an elvish princess from the era of Children Of Hùrin was set in);she was a Numenorean woman of the Faithful which her ancestors survived the Cataclysm of Númenor by the way! He was hurt deeply by her death. But also Aragorn when he went by the name gifted to him as Thorongil Denethor’s father basically overshadowing him from his own father so he is as psychology goes: treated Boromir the same way his father treated Aragorn/Thorongil. Note that Boromir and Faramir are half Númenorean which is a big thing as far as the legendarium goes!
Denethor actually did many things the movie shows him not doing or neglecting. He was VERY competent and mighty in many craft and (even a lore-master to a degree). He had quite alot of mental and “magical” might which is why he could contend with Sauron too without being harmed in there process in any way!
I didn't mind that particular change as much as some did, because it doesn't really change his character that much - notice that he never once tried to take the ring for himself, he left it in Frodo's possession the whole time. He didn't want it, he just wanted to make his father proud. The character that film did the biggest injustice to was Isildur - Elrond never led him to Mount Doom and bade him throw it in, and Isildur didn't simply flee and abandon his men like it appeared in that prologue scene, he was trying to get the ring to safety... Elrond is lying!
Definitely, good presentation. I think the main problem with paragon characters is that they're really hard for your typical writers to actually write. People say, "They aren't interesting" or "they don't have room to grow".
@ek5371 Even with Superman, one notices writers trying to get away from that and write him with serious flaws ever since at least the 80s or so, because writers don't know what to do with genuine good guys. The funny thing is that I know quite a few people who are far less flawed than any modern hero is generally allowed to be.
And yet Tolkien manages it perfectly well.
You are on a roll with this series. Very well thought out and applied 😀(sorry, old fart teacher here, appreciating great evaluation)
You deserve at least 10 times more subscribers!!! Love your content and how nuanced you discuss each topic in a sophisticated and humorous way. Amazing job! ❤
Agreed.
Well said, could not agree more.
I don't have a problem with the changes in Faramir's character. I had a problem with him hauling Frodo all the way to Osgiliath where Frodo nearly gives the ring to a Nazgul and then Faramir decides, "yea, yer right, I should let you go into Mordor and hopefully you won't pull that stunt again!" Not to mention the fact that if I were that Nazgul, regardless of what happened to my fell beast, I would have had that area swarming with orcs faster than you could say "Ash nazg durbatulûk!" It was a dumb plot choice.
Very good point.
Yeah, that whole scene was bonkers! If the Ring is revealed to a Nazgul it is revealed to Sauron! It SHOULD have been game over. Frodo and Sam would have had no chance. Yet there's no sequel at all. One of the dumbest things in the films.
The truest line in that movie was Sam saying, “We shouldn’t _be_ here!”
@@ivanheffner2587 Yes, exactly! At this moment in the movie I can't help groaning.
A painfully astute observation 😬
This was an excellent presentation on a topic that tends to bring out the orcish side of some Tolkien fans. Thanks for being so eloquent while presenting your case.
I wish that Jackson could have given a little more attention to the relationship between Faramir and Eowyn. The movies glossed over that a lot but their mutual recovery in the house of healing after Aragorn healed them from the same malady was lost in the film.
I've read The Lord of the Rings more times than I can count, so I can't recall everything about my experience of reading it for the first time. But I can say with certainty that Faramir became my favorite character outside the members of the Fellowship. My love of the books makes my feelings toward the movies fraught. The casting and the visuals were, for the most part, wonderful in my eyes, but I simply could not accept the shift in tone and themes. I that is because the movies are action/adventure blockbusters, when what I wanted was more of a heroic drama. I've come to the conclusion that the movies just aren't for me, and that's okay.
Thanks for sharing this perspective! I think this is a super healthy mentality. Adaptations are great for some people, but some people just prefer the source material, and there's nothing wrong with that
Yeah: The books have their major centre of gravity at " the wonder of the little things" , on all those pages where apparently nearly " nothing of major importance" happens, apart from small-talk, songs and poetry. Jackson, on the other hand, went with the bigger-is-always-better, Star Wars as Fantasy, route, reducing the actual drama for the sake of action .
One famous sentence in the movies already shows the dramatic changes in philosophy, compared to the books: " You Shall not Pass! " ; - Gandalf as an Obi-Wan style Badass, with the Highground, displaying his huge moral authority over the Balrog.
While, in fact, the (altered) sentence in the books is actual "Heroic Drama" : All hope is lost, "Fly, you Fools!" , no way out, the only desperate option is a useless ultimate sacrifice, with two of the most powerful creatures of Middle Earth having their last stand. - Irresistible force hits equally immovable object: " You Cannot Pass!" - A far more powerful message for the reader, indeed; but Jackson's version of the sentence obviously creates one of his beloved cheap effects.
Great video on what can be a touchy subject.
Apparently the actor who played Faramir had nor read the books before being cast, so he did so after getting the job.
He too noticed the same differences as you had, and asked PJ why the changes had been made. Peter replied by saying (as you also perceived) that the script had spent so much time building up the ring as this powerful force that quickly snares and corrupts all who come near it, that they could not make an exception without feeling jarring to the audience.
I really don't hate film Faramir, but the book character is really so much better.
I always really liked Faramir in the books and I liked that he was this almost talismanic reminder that Gondor and the world of men has good in them. I also thought that PJ did a good job with the adaptation of him to tell the kind of story they needed to, despite giving him a bit of a raw deal concerning his arc and the way that his story with Eowyn played out. I do quite like how their relationship goes actually with her consistently wondering about Aragorn and Faramir being like "um, I am here and also kinda great you know".
Interestingly, with Denethor I had completely blanked on the way he is represented in the book because the movie version totally took over that space in my mind. It only took a re-listen of the audio book to be like "oh, of course!" I like the kingly tragedy he suffers in the books but I think PJ made him a very entertaining villain that still had a tragic side to him - as if he had just been pushed to the brink by the constant threat from Mordor.
I love how Boromir and Faramir reflect the romantic and modern warrior archetypes. But I think that theme still holds up if Faramir is tempted by the ring. It upholds the risk of the corruption of evil in men's hearts. And I think it supports the idea that Faramir's views, while undeniably honorable and good, are still a fragile thing within the minds of men. That is the test of man that Eru Iluvitar crafted them to face. And despite everything he has going for him, Faramir himself isn't anybody special. Part of his theme is that these views can foster within anyone as long as we face and pass Iluvitar's test. Faramir has negative themes within him, stemming from his familial background. The ring is a concept that can latch onto this and punch it up to whatever degree is appropriate. Faramir's temptation also provides an interesting barometer for Frodo's struggle. It shows that even though Faramir has the qualities befitting not just a ring-barer, but any decent person in general, Frodo was the most qualified in the story for the job. And lets remember, that even Frodo eventually fell to the ring's temptation. And so, even though disagreeing with Tolkien feels wrong and is something I rarely do, I think that making Faramir immune to the effects of the ring strips his character of most of that depth.
Great video! I love how it's concluded that faramir represents a greater warrior that came out of the world war era and it's worth pointing out that is a bold new step in the histology of world war 1. The Great war was initially thought of war to end all wars due to its brutal nature; however, this was seeing not to be the case. Later in the 20th century the noble attributes of war were giving up for the total condemnation of war as seen in the hippie movement-make love and peace not war. To conclude faramir as a bold virtuous new type of warrior is a fascinating progression to The narrative of how the world war era has been viewed, and it's fabulous here how you've used j.r.r. Tolkien to do just that. I'm fast becoming an avid fan of yours thank you for sharing keep up the wonderful work!!!
The correct way to pronounce "Faramir", at least the movie version is "Far-From-The-Book-A-Mere"!
I think this is a justifiable sacrifice. Faramir is my favorite character in the books and he's my favorite characters in the movies. IMO even without the medium change having Faramir have internal conflict and bring the Hobbits to Osgiliath (a place of much greater danger for the ring to get taken by the Nazgul) really amplified how powerful the ring is as well as making Faramir stronger for enduring the full pull of the ring and still making the right decision at the end.
Quick question. Why did the Nazgul (in the movie) not immediately alert Sauron to the ring's location when he saw Frodo in Osgiliath? The attack on Gondor would have been delayed and all forces would have descended upon Frodo. Minor complaint, but I think Peter Jackson dropped the narrative ball for a cool looking scene.
@@johnwerkheiser5555 Because he sees Pippin through the Palantir anyway so he would either have assumed he left to join up with Aragorn or the Nazgul didn't get the message to him in time. I guess I'm not 100% sure on this but I assume the Nazgul still have to physically travel in order to notify Sauron or send a message with an orc.
@@johnwerkheiser5555 There is no good answer. Clearly, in the movie, the Nazgul is unable to realize that Frodo is right there with the Ring. IN the world of the book, he would clearly have been aware of it.
1:20
Boromir had the dream too..
You are so awesome. I have never heard any discussions that match yours. You read the books like I did. You know them. I love the movie too but the books...a whole nother thing! Bless you for putting out this info to all the young people who have missed it and might benefit from a read!
I've read the books many times. After seeing many of your videos i don't feel any desire to see the movies. They sound like a Frankenstein science experiment.
I myself was very disappointed in the movie transformation of Faramir.
Faramir was more a descendent of Numinor than Boramir. Thus, he was able to resist the ring (the way Aragorn did in the movie).
Faramir reminded Denethor of his dead wife, which is why he treated him that way.
Wrong they are brothers same blood it was his learning when studying with Gandalf when he was researching the ring hence the nick name " wizards pupil"
@@anthonyparker4202 Wrong. The blood of Numenor flows more true in Faramir than Boromir. Thats the entire point. Boromir is "just" a well 'ard dude. A great captain, but just a man. Faramir, Denethor and Aragorn (and the rangers to most likely) are bit more than "just" men.
@@jamesmaybrick2001 where in the LOTRs does that say it? page pls
@@anthonyparker4202 Gandalf states it to Pippin , i cant remember which page. Quote; re: denethor "He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best. He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try."
@@jamesmaybrick2001 thank you ill look it up... But THAT DIDNT keep him from taking the ring.. it was his knowedge he gained while helping Gandalf Research the ring after he left the Shire the first time
I think Frodo was screwed up more. People who only have watched the movies don't recognize Frodo's true value. His heroism.
Do Denethor next. Excellent video as always. Keep up the great work!
Wow another great video on Tolkien. I loved your take on Tolkein's new hero type based on his experiences in war. So glad to see you channel continue to blow up! Looking forward to the next one!
Thanks so much for watching! I appreciate the comment
You've got to be the BEST Tolkien commenter I've EVER encountered. I can't say enough how much I love what you do on this channel!
Always knew I liked Faramir. Thank you for articulating those characteristics that defined him in Tolkien's work.
Your description of book Faramir puts me in mind of Celtic Mythology. Characters like Fionn mac Cumhall depended mostly on guile and trickery and superior knowledge of their situation, which they often learned through subterfuge. Perhaps the archetype that Faramir fills isn't a new type of soldier, but something old come again, needed for brutal times when war is more than just a foolish formality.
Thank frack for the extended versions! One of my favorite recent clothing purchases is a t-shirt that reads "Book Faramir Would Never."
Thank you Jess for another insightful piece. Faramir and Aragorn are very similar in many ways, both full blooded Numenoreans, noble and honourable. Both true paladins, the chivalric ideal. No wonder Jackson felt the need to “humanise” them and magnify/introduce flaws to make them more modern and relatable charcters.
The movie I think fails also to show how Denethor was corrupted by the Palantir.
The nice thing about your videos is the love and the effort you put into them, it feels nostalgic like sitting in a class and having a detailed conversation about a masterpiece to dig as much as possible to be able to understand the author's reasons and thoughts...thanks for all the nice contents on your channel.🌷
Oh, I'm so glad you enjoyed the video!
I'm glad that you watched the movie first. The movie ruined one of my favorite characters from the book. I agree with your assessment, but that was not the Faramir I admired from the books. Eowyn was the other character that I felt was badly done in the movie, again because she was one of my favorites from the books. You noted well that Denethor was changed for the worse, but he was not one of my favorites, so it didn't matter as much. Jackson did, however, bring Merry and Pippin more alive than the books did.
You came up in my recommendations today. I've watched two of your videos so far, and subscribed about one minute into this one. You are very good at this UA-cam thing, you know a lot about Tolkien, and you are wicked smart.
I think you hit all the marks on Faramir. He has always been one of my favorite characters. Your discussion of him as a new type of warrior is fascinating, and I would broaden the term 'warrior' to Hero. So much of what Tolkien writes about has to do with different types of power, and of strength, of character, and of motivation. All of which circle in on what it means to be Good. Compare almost any two characters in the story -- Gollum to Smeagol, Gandalf to Saruman, Bombadil to anyone -- and you see the differences in moral strength. The Ring corrupts anyone, but it works slowly on those who are strong of character, and very quickly on those who seek power for their own ends. The Ring is Power, and power corrupts. The seeking and gathering of power is not a good thing to Tolkien. Something else that WWI made very clear.
BUT. Now do Sam. He's the character that almost made me give up on Jackson (the Hobbit movies made that easy to do). When Frodo tells Sam to go home, and Sam starts off to do so? I literally stood up to walk out of the theater, but my wife pulled me back into my seat. I said -- kind of loudly -- 'Sam would NEVER leave Frodo; didn't they even read the book!' (I actually may not have said it out loud, but my imagination wants me to have.) Sam wore the ring for a bit, but the only power he wanted was what was needed to get him back to Frodo. He and Bilbo (and Bombadil) were the only ones ever to wear the ring who gave it up freely.
AND there's Eowyn. I've re-read TLotR at least ten times in the last 45 years, and the scene in the book that gets me hardest each time in the gut is when Eowyn says, 'But I am no man!' to the Witch King and smites him through his face. She has ridden here to die, with thoughts of glory in despair. But she now sees her loved uncle lying (as to her) dead on the battle field. She rises up and Kicks Ass. The movie has her nearly witless with fear. She HAD been afraid, but she was not in that moment. She was gloriously, unabashedly, and righteously pissed. More than any other change Jackson made, as far as I'm concerned, this one only made the story and the drama weaker, with no good reason. And it's one of the most powerful moments in the entire story. Ugh.
Jackson didn't 'ruin' anything. The character of Faramir in the book is not changeable, and will always be the way Tolkien wrote him. Being portrayed differently in the film does not in any way ruin what is fixed indelibly in the book.
Yes, I've always been surprised by people for whom an adaptation "breaks" the original. because they can easily not look. but they stare and suffer. For what?
Completely changing a character is a time honored tradition in movies. Clayton in Disney's Tarzan is a prime example. But I'm still bummed Jackson Completely changed how the Hobbits left the shire and how they returned.
The burning of the Shire would have been fantastic to see, but the ending would have been too long.
@@Kasino80 it probably could have been an entire movie by itself
The Scouring of the Shire was the part of the story I was most excited to see in movie form, and most disappointed that they left out.
It's obviously Faramir. He passed the test of the ring in the book. In the movie, he failed.
Not necessarily failed if you watch the extended edition you can see what Peter Jackson was trying to do and that was to build more depth into his character and why he seemed tempted by it
There is probably no way to insert Eowyn’s thought “here was one who no no night the mark would outmatch in battle” into the movie. To me it defines Faramir as one who doesn’t value fighting despite being very capable of it, when needed.
I think you misspoke saying Faramir doesn't "value" fighting. It is a theme in the story: the value of fighting when needed.
Perhaps you meant he didn't seek a fight nor revel in it?
One can only wonder how Faramir's being in the Fellowship would have changed their path. But I also have to wonder about Boromir - what destiny was he denied? What role did fate have reserved for him in Gondor, that he never got to play? Perhaps, by sending Boromir to Faramir's job, Gondor was denied not one, but TWO heros.
Faramir (as he is portrayed in the movies) feels more like Boromir-lite to me.
A bigger problem (personally) is the detour to Osgiliath, it always seemed insane to me how much time Frodo & Sam would have lost, just to get there and then getting back on track.
Yeah, not sure if keeping the history like it was and ending the movie on the Shelob cliffhanger would be better for the movie. Also then Faramir would have even less protagonism...
I was outrageous at the time, but now I think that maybe was the right thing to do. All the movies work better together and in isolation as they are and the changes just condense some arcs that would had been very hard to explain anyway.
Blasphemer here. In my opinion, Film-Faramir is the better character.
He is less static. I consider 'the perfect warrior' (be it a new and modern one) quite one-dimensional.
To give Faramir a layered, flawed personality, with weaknesses, from which the ring can chip off, enriches the original story.
And as an archetype, there is too much redundancy to Aragorn for my taste.
I EVEN DARE to say, Film-Faramir is the better Tolkien-Faramir than Book-Faramir. His mini-arc mirrors the big themes of LOTR and Tolkiens work back to even the Ainulindale better than any warrior-archetype could:
To act good is not the privilege of the great and the strong (or the perfect warriors). It is not necessary to be immune to temptation. That there is evil in everybody makes their good actions shine, not despite of the evil, but because of of the decision against it.
THIS is the third theme of Iluvatar's melody, that takes the most shining tones of Melkors music and builds its own glory only further on and not against them.
THIS is the better Faramir.
I was one of those people who thought the movies did Faramir a disservice. You give a great argument for why it may have been necessary for translation to film, and it's nice to hear your perspective as someone who was acquainted with movie Faramir first (I had a hard time noticing the details of movie Faramir because I was so fixated on his differences from book Faramir!)
A couple other problems that arise with the movie Faramir and with the movie portrayal of the Ring's power: The fact that book Faramir was willing to fight (and good at it) when it was necessary, but would prefer not to, was pretty instrumental in his changing Eowyn's mindset--of course the movies almost completely skipped the development of their relationship! Secondly, if the Ring has such an instant effect on even Gandalf, Galadriel, and Faramir, it makes Aragorn's resistance to its temptation rather implausible.
I thought Frodo was the character they screwed up the most. The little guy is 50!... 5....0.... FIFTY! and yeah, the ring makes him look 17 years younger but even then he would look 33 but act 50... and he does... in the book. All of this would have been pointed out in the long history of the ring given to us in the Council of Elrond... so for anyone to look at him as if he is a child on this quest... just doesn't hold water.
Your defense of the movie was the best I’ve heard yet. I disagree with the adaptation at this point, however, and believe that ending the Two Towers with Frodo in the clutches of Shelob would have been a nice cliffhanger. I would have much preferred that to the virtue-stripping ruination of Faramir’s character. Your Tolkien lectures are all excellent! Thanks for your insights.
100% agree. Magnificent defense, but still, don’t dig on the movie version. The book version Faramir was a paragon of goodness. Movie Faramir was just another guy.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! I know some people aren't going to like the movie version (or the movies as a whole haha) no matter what, but it's definitely worth exploring why the characters are changed, if only to learn more about what made the original character so great.
One additional problem with making the encounter with Shelob the climax of the second movie is that it would rather mess up the chronology. In the books although this happens at the end of The Two Towers, it actually takes place at about the same time as the siege of Minas Tirith is beginning in Return of the King. In the movies this is even highlighted when Frodo and Sam see the signal go up from Minas Morgul and it then cuts to Gandalf and Pippin's point of view from Minas Tirith (which incidentally I thought was a neat way of visually tying the plotlines together.) While they could have adjusted events to make the timeline work, this arguably might have meant even more major changes than what they did with Faramir.
@@xyllar I wanted the Two Towers to end with Frodo weeping in despair at the army coming out of MInas Morgul which I think would time well with some of the other incidents. I always thought that scene would have been a powerful cliff hanger
Regarding Denethor, from the book, we know that Palantirs (both Saruman's as Denethor's) are tools for Sauron to pervert his opponents. So the movie Denethor is not shocking for me having read the book many times before discovering the movies...
Like you said, in the book he immediately dismissed the ring as a weapon on principle. To me, Faramir represented the strength and principles of humanity, his brother the sins and weakness. I was really ticked by this change in the movies.
Movie Faramir is way better. Faramir in the movie is good and just, but he still longs for the approval of his father, and looks up to his brother. You could argue that it's all to heavy handed. It went from a "brief respite" to an actual conflict, and an additional arch. All without fundamentally changing the story, I will always take that. It's fine to say that someone is a paragon of virtue, but it's more interesting to find out how he became that shining light. And I'm not saying there isn't nuance in the book, but I think this move is for the better, especially in contrast with Boromir. Tolkin consistently writes these interesting characters, but I feel like Peter Jackson and co. were able to better able to highlight them. some get cut short like Gimli and Legolas (mostly just losing wisdom) but if PJ could have written a 6 hour movie I'm sure he would have included that nuance.
That said, Great videos and great channel, keep em coming.
Your kindness to Jackson is touching but this and Elrond are the two characters I think he messed up beyond imagining. I enjoy your deep dives into the characters though. Keep up the excellent work!
Same with Gimili
@@echosword6468 That's fair too, but I don't see him as completely ruined I guess.
I think Hugo Weaving is more to blame for Elrond...
@@bobnolin9155 Obviously but Jackson was the one who cast him and the writing also seems to spin Elrond as not at all lighthearted, but perpetual doom and gloom, and a despiser of non-elves.
@@echosword6468 Gimli was comedic relief in the books as well.
I think people (and yes I include myself in this) give Faramir too much credit for his ability to resist the One Ring's influence.
Boromir, a person who actively wants to use the ring as a weapon against Sauron, was in the presence of the One Ring for at least two months before turning on the fellowship. Even after this, the One Ring's hold on Boromir was not complete, as Boromir still acted to protect Merry and Pippin rather than pursue Frodo and the One Ring.
The Fellowship left Rivendell on Dec 25 3018 and breaks on Feb 26 3019, which is also when Boromir dies. Also note that the Council of Elrond took place on Oct 25 3018, and so Boromir could have been under the One Ring's influence for as long as four months, but for this argument, I'm limiting my thoughts to just the time that Boromir actively travelled with Frodo.
Faramir meets Frodo on Mar 7 3019 and they part ways on Mar 8 3019, and the One Ring was destroyed on Mar 25 3019. So Faramir was only in the presence of the ring for at most 2 days compared to Boromir's two months, and even if Faramir had stayed with Frodo until the end , he still would have spent less time with the One Ring than Boromir had.
In the films, the One Ring works as a meat clever, rapidly working to unsubtly hack away at a person's weakness and bend them to its will. However in the book the One Ring works more like a surgeon's scalpel slowly and insidiously working away to peel back the layers and then turning someone to its will.
In the case of Boromir the One Ring worked on him for at least two months and was only partially successful, despite Boromir being willing to use the One Ring. But in Faramir's case the One Ring had only two days at most, its subtle and insidious effects not yet having carved away enough of who Faramir is to be able to get a measureable result.
I honestly think that if Faramir had spent more than a couple of days in the presence of the One Ring, then even he would have been susceptible to its influence. I think it would have taken longer than Boromir, but I think that the end result would have been the same.
I think I remember Phillippa Boyens saying in the extended bonus materials that the line (as she paraphrased it and I now paraphrase her) "I would not take it if it was laying by the wayside" robs the ring of all its power and on that particular thing I do agree.
Jackson also partly ruined Frodo. His courageous stand at the Ford was THE ENTIRE REASON the Elrond and others at the Council believed he could be the Ringbearer. But I guess female characters didn’t have enough screen time? Not that Elrond would have ever sent his daughter out to face the Nine. Can you tell it bothers me?
Ive been watching LOTR videos for years now, only ever watched the jackson movies and the old animated movie. Finally took the plunge and I'm listening to the books on audiobook. I love the jackson movies for what they are, but the themes are so much stronger in the book. Morality is faaaaar more important, and character's actions speak to their moral standing far more. Im glad I found your channel when I did, its nice having some analysis/context while I indulge in the awesome world of Middle Earth.
I get why book readers don't like the changes made to Faramir (i read the Two Towers before watching RotK, but after tTT, so my book and movie Faramir melt a little together in memory), but I think the crowd that are like "PJ ruined Faramir" are being very unapreciative of the challenges of adapting a book to a movie.
Movie Faramir is certainly a different character. But PJ didn't ruin the character. He changed him, but not ruined.
Yes, I have heard before that Faramir was a projection by Tolkien of himself more or less. And he was one of my favorites of the books, so I was disappointed in the presentation of him in the movies. The writing team of the movies transformed him into less of a person than Tolkien wrote him to be to stress the sibling conflict, so to speak. Oh yes with Denathor too...much better in the books. I had to explain that to my wife ad daughter who had never read the books how they transformed him poorly in the movies. Making movies of this epic work is pretty hard so I can't fault them too much I guess! Thanks for the video, good job.
I believe Tolkien called Faramir the man he wanted to be. Either way, it seems it was a character that he connected to on a very deep level!
@@Jess_of_the_Shire I've heard Faramir described as Tolkien's avatar.
Oh, bother! I suppose I'll have to respond...and not in the "Angry old man yells at cloud," way either. After seeing what the adaptation did to both Faramir and Denethor (and Isildur, btw), I had no trouble believing why Tolkien thought that LOTR could never be adapted to film.
For better or for worse, the video essayist Lindsay Ellis made the very cogent point that these movies aren't being made to simply please the fans. Their objective is to get people into theater seats, as many as possible, and if being more faithful to the original book will impede that, than sacrifices will be made. Sad, but true.
Jess, you are gorgeous AND well read. Legitimately a 20/10, fine-wine type of woman. ❤
I never felt the ring was portrayed as being too powerful. In the lore of the story, the ring’s power to influence depended on the person. Gandalf and Galadriel didn’t dare touch the ring because of its power to influence. Men were tempted, but not equally. Hobbits were largely unaffected by comparison. Smegel killed his friend to possess the ring…which made its hold on him absolute. Bilbo found the ring. Frodo inherited it. We only see adverse effects on Bilbo after 60+ years and the return of Sauron. The effect is faster on Frodo because the ring wants to be found…but even then, the story takes place over a 13 month span of time.
Likewise JRR held that NONE could destroy the ring because none could withstand its power, but the ring was destroyed through the inherent self-destruction of evil (Smegel didn’t destroy the ring…he fell into Mount Doom with the ring in his struggle to possess it).
Denethor was not maybe great, he was great . 👍🏻 As you already mentioned Pippin felt Denethor's superior presence (like Aragorn possessed and at times revealed) and Gandalf, when comparing him to Théoden, said that Denethor was "proud, subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though he is not called a king." Even in respect to Aragorn the two are quite comparable. It is said that:
"Denethor ll was a proud man, tall, valiant, and more kingly than any man that had appeared in Gondor for many lives of men; and he was wise also, and farsighted, and learned in lore. Indeed he was as like to Thorongil as to one of nearest kin, and yet was ever placed second to the stranger in the hearts of men and the esteem of his father."
He was presented in the movie as a lesser man given over to merely material interests, driven by his passions. Denethir was not depicted as a centered man, who was disciplined and "a masterful lord, holding the rule of all things in his own hand."
I read the books long before the movies came out, and I was very disappointed in the realisation of Faramir. If one saw the movies first book Faramir may come as a nice surprise later but as was said they locked themself in a corner. Faramir's character was sacrified for Aragorn. Movie Aragorn is the only one who isn't (shown) tempted by the ring. (Is that even English? - Sorry, not my first language).
Funny - with every video from you I dislike the movies more.
I think the characterization and narrative arc that Faramir goes through in the films is far more complex and interesting than what we had to settle for in the books.
I never made the connection before now between the change in Faramir, which I have always hated, and the change in Denethor, for which "I hate it" is far too weak a statement. I've been ranting and raving for twenty years running about how much I despise the Peej take on Denethor. In the book, Denethor is certainly cold and proud, but he is also wise, tireless, conscientious, even generous in his way (there's a reason Pippin swears himself to Gondor, and the reason isn't Gandalf!); he is the pride of a Gondor that does have a lot to be proud of, and his suicide is one of the most impressive and chilling scenes in the entire book. In the films, he's not only an asshole but *ridiculous* -- I was waiting for "Yakety Sax" to start playing while on-fire Peej Denethor ran down that long spike of the mountain to jump to his death. I could *just* excuse making him a villain with good intentions for simplicity's sake, but making him a laughingstock, I can neither forgive nor ignore.
Interesting. I've always preferred Jackson's take on Faramir on the grounds that book-Faramir powerfully undermined the Ring as a narrative force and the film version is a more relatable and believable man as opposed to a paragon of virtue. But I had not considered Faramir as a model of a new form of heroism. You've given me something to ponder.
He didn't undermine it at all, it was showing that someone with little contact towards the ring could refuse it. If he'd stayed around it he would've been corrupted. After all, Aragorn also turned down the Ring in the film and that didn't ruin the Ring as a narrative force now did it?
I'm glad I gave you something to think about! I was of the same opinion as you for a while.
@@LordVader1094 It's why I think the film should have had Saruman as someone who was corrupted purely by the thought of the ring. The corrupting powers of the ring were always linked to ambition, regardless of it was good or bad. Faramir resisting it to me is no different to Sam, and why I hate how overblown the scene with Galadriel is, when in the books she laughs sadly as she understands the power of it
Movie!Aragorn rejects the Ring 0.05 seconds after Frodo offers it to him in the first movie, lmao. Book!Faramir is briefly tempted (he has a "glint in his eyes" that makes Frodo and Sam back away from him), but he rejects that temptation at once. This is the exact same as Gandalf and Galadriel earlier in the narrative. The Ring doesn't just turn everyone who gazes on it into an instant asshole. This is a misunderstanding on your part.
I love faramir's noble character in the books but I also enjoyed seeing Faramir over coming their human flaws in the adaptation.
I haven't read the books so correct me if I'm wrong. When Smeagol overcame the part of him that was Gollum, we would need a situation that would bring him back permanently. Faramir mistreating" him was used to do this. It seems out of place with the overall character. Not so much though with the one influenced by the ring Jackson created.
Faramir changed bothers me, but not nearly as much as Frodo. Lots of other changes that bother me. Theoden in the movies is incompetent and cowardly until he is suddenly brave. Giving all Eomer’s best lines to others annoyed me. They made Eowyn into their girl power character is very different from the book. Merry was the real hero in that situation. Elrond was “as kind as summer” and didn’t hate or distrust men. Dwarves are not comical, they are bold, brave, and almost tragic. Elves aren’t solemn and stoic, they are, if anything, more openly emotional than other free peoples. Sam says of them that they are so sad and so gay(happy). Pippin is not a fool, he is young and impetuous. He doesn’t lack bravery or sense. Merry is very clever, and not at all a troublemaker.
I could go on and on.
Some things I understand why they were changed for the movies, but the book is far superior.
Fellowship is the only movie that I rewatch. It's faithful enough and a great movie. I was disgusted by the changes in the Two Towers and Return. And yes, the changes to Faramir are second worst only behind Frodo's turn on Sam on the slopes of Mount Doom.
And yes, I read the trilogy three times before I finished high school and long before PJ started butchering his screenplay so that indoctrination contributes to my affinity for the novels and feelings for the last two movies.
I think Faramir does come off a bit harsh in the movie (I havent read the books so i lose a little bit in comparing) I don't really understand the death penalty for being in the pool by Gollum. maybe it is justified but it's not fleshed out, it's just stated and expected to be accepted.) But in his other beginning scenes he also seems a tad bit harsh initially (his dialogue) allowing the physical abuse on Gollum (who's already subdued) but it's also tapered with a some compassion (his comments at the fallen soldiers his company dispatched) and sitting down to talk with Frodo and Sam. So the harshness could be explained as just being from war weariness and so much time spent at war defending his lands. Also you see his incredible story arc of him trying to live up to his father's approval always in the shadow of his brother's boots. As the arc progresses you see him resist the temptation of the ring, despite it being 'capable' of earning his father's approval when he sees what it's done and does to Frodo. Through it all he stays noble to his duties, defending Osgiliath (sp?), and going back to try and retake it. Considering the limited amount of screen time such a character is going to be able to have (where as a book can give all the time it needs) It does a pretty decent job on creating a viable (if not entirely accurate) character representation and character arc to fit within the confines of the run time.
Also, Aragorn in the movies was NOT the Aragorn of the books. That, along with Faramir, bothered me greatly.
I think that making Denethor into an irredeemable fool further reduces Faramir, since when he behaves like a wounded child pining for the approval of his crazy father and knowingly gets a bunch of his men killed, he shows himself to be weak and unable to do what was necessary for the good of his men, his country and the entire world by removing the crazy fool leading everyone to their doom from power.