Kings in Disguise

Yes, two blog posts in a row in one day!!!! A 2009 record!!

Well, now that my celebration is over, I want to point you to an article from the Mary Victrix website entitled, Kings in Disguise, which examines the character of "Aragorn" in his Lord of the Rings Trilogy. He compares Tolkien's idea of knighthood and kingship to the blockbuster movie made by Peter Jackson. There are tremendous differences.

I am also going through the Trilogy again for the third time and finding that many of the characters in Tolkien have been diminished by Jackson so that the story fits a modern blockbuster formula.

1. According to Jackson, Aragorn is definitely diminished as a hesitant leader who is trying to find himself and is trying to overcome the sins of his forebears, whereas Tolkien sees him as a powerful king in deliberate disguise to protect and defend the Shire and Middle Earth from it's foes. He is unsung and often despised, but uses this humiliation to cover his true mission. He also has the shards of Narsil remade into Anduril just prior to the Fellowship of Nine leaves Rivendell, not as Jackson places it, with a kick in Aragorn's pants by Elrond.

2. King Theoden of Rohan in the movie is an emotional and anxious king who is reluctant to face the enemy head on, running to Helm's Deep. Aragorn is the one who leads the final assault and inspires Theoden and the Rohirrim to follow. In Tolkien, it's actually Theoden who leads the final charge with Aragorn at his side.

3. Treebeard is also diminished in Jackson as a slow ancient treeherder that is unaware, self-absorbed and unwilling to fight against Isengard and Sauroman. In Tolkien, Treebeard is slow, but is VERY aware and even rallies the Ents to War. There is no cunning manipulation by Merry to get Treebeard to fight.

4. Jackson misses the poetic nature of the titanic struggle that is occurring between Sauron and Middle Earth. There is a depth of meaning that doesn't come through, the role and mystery of Providence, that seems to guide everything and yet allows for freewill of the other characters. There is a real danger of complete annihilation of Middle Earth, and yet, the nature of evil is not superior to the good. Jackson does a superb job in trying to make the battles come to life and capture their size and scope.

5. Finally, I don't think there is enough weight placed on Gandalf as the one who is integral to the entire epic. Plus, Jackson has the Nazgul King destroy Gandalf's staff, which is entirely against Tolkien. Gandalf has superior powers to the Nazgul; they could never have destroyed his staff as Jackson depicted. The transformation of Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White is critical to the Trilogy. Jackson's version creates tension in the viewer, but then begs the question, "If the Nazgul have so much power over Gandalf, and subsequently, over the Elf Kings and Queens, then why doesn't he obliterate Middle Earth? Jackson leaves a bit too much to chance, which heightens the tension; Tolkien increases the tension through the mystery that comes from the interaction of Providence and freewill in creation.

All in all, I'm enjoying my third read of LOTR. I've already read the Silmarilion, and The Hobbit, which helps the reading of LOTR. Check out the Mary Victrix article and let me know what you think.