Rules      FAQ       Register        Login
It is currently March 28th, 2024, 9:54 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2006, 4:37 pm 
Hobbit
Hobbit

Joined: 05 February 2006
Posts: 31

Offline
I find the points presented by previous speakers quite interesting and in many cases compelling, and no less so by the fact that I myself am in contention with a fair few.

I will start off by allaying any suspicions that Peter Jackson's (it took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out who this PJ everyone referred to was) view of Faramir was given precedence over Tolkien's, as I am one who initially fell for the books long before any movies were even thought possible. I personally felt a degree of respect and good-will to both versions of this figure. However, it was Peter Jackson's portrayal which finally allowed me some degree of connection with the character. Attribute it to lack of virtue, but I am hard-pressed to relate to any character singularly capable of simply... not wanting the One Ring.

I was able to understand the refusal of the Wise, of Gandalf, of Elrond, of Galadriel and all others who refused the Ring either directly or indirectly- they told me why. Gandalf expresses this most eloquently in the movie of the Fellowship of the Ring when he warns "Don't tempt me, Frodo! I dare not take it. You must understand Frodo, I would use the Ring out of a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to be imagined" (this is also expressed in the book, but I prefer the wording of the movie). And such is the reason of all of them- fear and understanding of this fear. But, in the books, Faramir shows no such motivation in his own refusal- he just doesn't want it.

It is this lack of motive which irks me somewhat in Tolkien's description, though the rest of the character I like well, especially his rather extensive report to Frodo of the peril and history of Gondor, showing his knowledge and understanding of its past. It is therefore with ever mixed perceptions that I view Faramir of the books- Peter Jackson's character provided me with one, solid, coherent character to relate to, and for that I am appreciative. Both have their strengths and weaknesses to my eyes.

Forgive the extensive length of this post if you will, but I had a deal of ground to cover for my own dissenting opinion.

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 6th, 2006, 12:24 am 
Vala
Vala
User avatar

Joined: 10 September 2005
Posts: 5839
Location: P3X-774, Rohan, Moya, or my TARDIS

Offline
I like the long posts. Too often I see short little sentences with no context. (Somtimes I do that too. Sigh)

I really think that Faramir wanted the ring. WE can'tsay for certain what Tolkien was thinking when he wrote it, but I would say that Faramir wanted it, but he knew he couldn't have it, and he knew it had to be destroyed. So, though there may have been a battle raging inside of him, he chose not to show any emotion toward the ring, almost like he was denying the want of the ring. He is also very mentally sound. He is wise, much wiser than his brother, and I think that he knows the ring will cause madness, and he has seen what madness has caused his father to become.


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 7th, 2006, 11:00 am 
Hobbit
Hobbit
User avatar

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 35
Location: UK

Offline
In the Lord of the Rings we mostly have Heros or Monsters of cruelty. We all know the affect of the Ring on one's mind so I believe that Tolkien gave us a refreshing prospective with Faramir's attitude towards the Ring. He is a man of Gondor and yet he has more strenght then Isildur himself! He is the Anti-Hero who saves the day in despite. The character does not fit in any known category. He is the guy who defies the logic of a story! He has all the qualities of a hero but his qualities go far beyond the classic archetype of a herolike Aragorn for instance. He is selfless and noble; he remains in the shadow of hi brother and does not want the spotlights on him. He is not after the golry but after the salvation of his people. Even Aragon's reaction to the Ring is not that defined. Forgive me if my memory lets me down, but I do not recollect one moment where Aragorn put himself in direct contact with he Ring, he remains quite distant and only relates to it through Frodo. Whereas Faramir looks at it and confront it. It is also to say that Faramir will become the stewart of Gondor and that his attitude confirms that he is worthy of the task. He will be the true guarant of Gondor's perenity whilst Aragorn goes campaining. He has a far deeper input in the story then we think. Sometimes things do not have to be explained black on white. You only have to perceive the meaning of actions with your senses. Tolkien wanted us to sense and understand Faramir with our heart. And by not defining how Faramir interacts and relate to the all stroy, Tolkien has given him that full bodied, and immenseky seducive dimension that we do not see appear in the film I am affraid.


Top
 Profile       WWW            
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 8th, 2006, 8:56 pm 
Hobbit
Hobbit

Joined: 05 February 2006
Posts: 31

Offline
Many credible insights exist on this thread to the nature of Faramir, but the post by Fleur strikes me as one of the more comprehensive defenses of Faramir's character in the novels, and it is a rarity to my experience. As such, this is the post I will address for the time being.

Fleur wrote:
In the Lord of the Rings we mostly have Heros or Monsters of cruelty. We all know the affect of the Ring on one's mind so I believe that Tolkien gave us a refreshing prospective with Faramir's attitude towards the Ring.

Refreshing? Perhaps. Confusing? For one such as myself at least (I am still open to the possibility this is related to a short-sightedness on my own part), most definately. This is the part which sets me off slightly in the novels, though I still like the character.

Fleur wrote:
He is a man of Gondor and yet he has more strenght then Isildur himself!

Is it strength, or just the unnatural absence of weakness?

Fleur wrote:
He is the Anti-Hero

I disagree somewhat with this categorization, as an anti-hero is one who is conspicously lacking in heroic qualities. In other words, for him to qualify as an anti-hero, an action such as saving Middle-Earth by using the ring would have been more appropriate. Rather, he takes on the characteristics of some form of meta-hero.

Fleur wrote:
who saves the day in despite.

He saves the day?

Fleur wrote:
The character does not fit in any known category. He is the guy who defies the logic of a story!

I can see that this would have an allure and awe-inspiring effect to some. Purely due to personal preferences (not reflecting on the story or even character), its main effect is rather to irk me to no small extent. Why is this one person so different- even Tom Bombadil had some degree of reason behind his own careless refusal of the Ring due to his inhuman nature.

Fleur wrote:
He has all the qualities of a hero but his qualities go far beyond the classic archetype of a herolike Aragorn for instance. He is selfless and noble; he remains in the shadow of hi brother and does not want the spotlights on him. He is not after the golry but after the salvation of his people. Even Aragon's reaction to the Ring is not that defined. Forgive me if my memory lets me down, but I do not recollect one moment where Aragorn put himself in direct contact with he Ring, he remains quite distant and only relates to it through Frodo. Whereas Faramir looks at it and confront it. It is also to say that Faramir will become the stewart of Gondor and that his attitude confirms that he is worthy of the task. He will be the true guarant of Gondor's perenity whilst Aragorn goes campaining.

These are all very good points and insights- I just fail entirely to understand their presence in a story of Tolkien's style.

Fleur wrote:
He has a far deeper input in the story then we think.

I find that quite possible. That being?

Fleur wrote:
Sometimes things do not have to be explained black on white.

I find little in the character but.

Fleur wrote:
You only have to perceive the meaning of actions with your senses. Tolkien wanted us to sense and understand Faramir with our heart. And by not defining how Faramir interacts and relate to the all stroy, Tolkien has given him that full bodied, and immenseky seducive dimension that we do not see appear in the film I am affraid.

Literary tastes differ greatly, and perhaps offer some input on the matter- I wonder, are you a fan of Hemingway?

I am intrigued by such a defense of the character of Faramir in the novels, and indeed I like his character as well. It is interesting discussion.

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 8th, 2006, 11:02 pm 
Vala
Vala
User avatar

Joined: 10 September 2005
Posts: 5839
Location: P3X-774, Rohan, Moya, or my TARDIS

Offline
Isildur's Bane wrote:
Fleur wrote:
He is a man of Gondor and yet he has more strenght then Isildur himself!

Is it strength, or just the unnatural absence of weakness?

I like that idea! He is very strong, but he also has a bit of an absence of weakness. Very interesting.


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 11th, 2006, 4:46 pm 
Hobbit
Hobbit

Joined: 05 February 2006
Posts: 31

Offline
Nauriel Rochnur wrote:
I like that idea! He is very strong, but he also has a bit of an absence of weakness. Very interesting.

The question begs to be asked then: should this lack of weakness be taken as strength, or some other trait?

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 11th, 2006, 7:17 pm 
Vala
Vala
User avatar

Joined: 10 September 2005
Posts: 5839
Location: P3X-774, Rohan, Moya, or my TARDIS

Offline
Wow. I was thinking the same exact thing this morning while I ws cleaning my room! Since he does have an abcense of weakness, then this could be considered a strength. It is a strength, but not the strength we would say that Aragorn or Gandalf have. So his lack of weakness makes him strong, but not in the way of others who resisted the temptation.


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2006, 8:29 pm 
Hobbit
Hobbit
User avatar

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 35
Location: UK

Offline
Faramir is just mystical and charismatic. That is perhaps why you do not seem to be able to understand him. He has the gift of foresight. That should say one thing in itself: Faramir is one of a kind. No reason, no logic behind him. Black Romanticism in its pure form. That is Faramir. Tortured and gifted.

Tolkien was a believer. In Faramir, he put all the selflesness and generosity of Christian faith. He sacrificed himself and was a real martyre.. Perhaps Tolkien wanted to translate these notions in Faramir's character.


Last edited by OneRingVision on February 15th, 2006, 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile       WWW            
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 13th, 2006, 8:43 pm 
Hobbit
Hobbit
User avatar

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 35
Location: UK

Offline
A Anti-Hero do not lack of heroic quality. A Anti-hero is someone who has all the qualities of a hero but refuses to admit it. Anti-heros never impose themselves as such because they are made to believe that they are not worthy and therefore engage themselves in a very destructive journey to gain the recognition of either their public for Rock Stars or His own father in Faramir's case. Let us remember that Faramir is in away prepared to go to its own death in order to regain his Father's attention and love. Anti-heros are confused and charismatic but always end up doing an eroic gesture despite themselves or in the shadow of others. Faramir let the Ring go which could endure him a lot of grief from his father and the laws of Gondor but to the few people in the know could appear like the most heroic gesture.

Anti-hero is in fact a very positive statement and far more powerful status than the hero himself. Full o mystery and confusing to the vast majority of people.


Top
 Profile       WWW            
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 13th, 2006, 5:18 pm 
Elf
Elf
User avatar

Joined: 22 December 2005
Posts: 1363
Location: The gap between dimensions

Offline
Faramir was really a goody-two-shoes type guy in the books. I didn't mind TOO much that they made him a little evil

_________________
<center>~*The Not-Too-Much-Obsessed-With-Nature A-U Gentle-Woman*~<center>
"To hate, or not to hate. This shouldn't be a question."
Image
Image
~*PM Me for graphics*~


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 19th, 2006, 11:27 pm 
Vala
Vala
User avatar

Joined: 10 September 2005
Posts: 5839
Location: P3X-774, Rohan, Moya, or my TARDIS

Offline
Well, my theory is that he was thinking about it, but he didn't show it. He kept it to himself and battled the it inside himself.


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 21st, 2006, 1:52 am 
Elf
Elf
User avatar

Joined: 10 December 2005
Posts: 1317
Location: Watching you. ALL THE TIME.

Offline
I liked Faramir much better in the books. I didn't like how they changed him in the movie. He was a much better man in the book. The fact that in the movie he didn't let Frodo go got me pretty mad. lol

_________________
Image
Image
^all banners by me - CJ's Request Thread
:hammer:


Top
 Profile       WWW         ICQ    
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 21st, 2006, 5:58 pm 


I thought he was better in the book also. It seems like in the movie, PJ played up his faults, which weren't all that bad in the book. :erm:


Top
                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 26th, 2006, 6:25 pm 
Mageling
Mageling
User avatar

Joined: 03 July 2005
Posts: 9846
Location: city that never sleeps

Offline
movies these days need some sinister characters to liven up the suspense. I too, did not like the change in Faramir, but you gotta admit it adds nice effect to the plot

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile       WWW            
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 6th, 2006, 5:51 pm 
Vala
Vala
User avatar

Joined: 10 September 2005
Posts: 5839
Location: P3X-774, Rohan, Moya, or my TARDIS

Offline
Well, it does add a nice change to the plot, but all the while I'm cringing, and muttering to myself "This is not Faramir, this is not Faramir." Somtimes I even rock back and forth and foam at the mout! (haha...just kidding. Maybe)


Top
 Profile                  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 6th, 2006, 9:15 pm 
Gondorian
Gondorian
User avatar

Joined: 05 April 2006
Posts: 208
Location: Greece

Offline
Well I cannot really see any reason why PJ changed Faramir's character. It is a totally unecesarry change.

_________________
<center>Image</center>


Top
 Profile                  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Boyz theme by Zarron Media 2003