Was it out of character?

[Boromir88]

Much dislike has been said towards the Aragorn and MoS encounter. The point of this thread isn't to discuss which way is better, the book or the movie. It's to discuss was Aragorn's act out of his character, and did he break the rules of war (killing a messenger)?

I find this act of beheading extremely out of Aragorn's book character, but this isn't the book character, this is the movie chracter. So, I only find it slightly out of Aragorn's "movie" character. Seeing that he is a future king, he should be able to control his anger, but in this case he isn't able to. However, we have seen acts of rage by Aragorn before...Lurtz, and when thinking that the hobbits are dead, he screams and kicks a helmet. So, I find this only slightly out of Aragorn's character.

Next onto the "rules of war." I love this term, it's sort of an oxymoron, rules...in war? what? Anyways, there are certain rules in war, the accepted fighting style during that time. (Example, the "regiment" system back in the middle-ages). Another "rule" of war, is you don't kill messengers, if you do, it's considered something like "cold blooded murder." So, that would definitely make it appear that Aragorn broke the laws he was bound to, and murdered a messenger...However, one may break the rules of war if your opponent had already done so (or if you feel your opponent is of lesser status then you). With that being said, did Sauron break the rules of war, making Aragorn not bound by these rules? Let's say Sauron's hordes murdering women and children (yes the women and children were there in the movies), or by launching decapitated heads into the city?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Next onto the "rules of war." I love this term, it's sort of an oxymoron, rules...in war? what?

I would agree that there generally are rules in war, but it being war, they are frequently broken, whether by use of cruelty or development of new weaponry or military tactics. We currently have the Geneva Convention but we only have to watch the news to see it being broken by forces of all nations to varying degrees. And the development of rocketry during WWII led to some devastating new tactics.

I liked (if liked is the correct word?) the bit in the Siege of Gondor where the heads are catapulted over the wall, as it did add to the sense of horror and showed what the Orcs might be capable of. I know someone who does historical re-enactment and I've heard some great tales of tactics used in siege warfare, including the catapulting of enemies' heads over walls. Arrows would also be dipped in rotting corpses, in the hopes of spreading disease, and sewage would also be used as a projectile. I think it's in The Life of Brian where a dead cow is used as a projectile, and in actual fact, this is not far from the truth. Which is what makes it all the funnier!

Reading what you've said about Aragorn's character in the film, then his beheading of the Mouth of Sauron is not entirely out of character; he does display anger and what might instead be properly called frustration during the course of the films. This is quite different from his book portrayal, but not uncomfortably so for a film audience. After all there are those who think him pompous in the book, aren't there?

[Lyta_Underhill]

It's to discuss was Aragorn's act out of his character, and did he break the rules of war (killing a messenger)?

Totally gratuitous, in my opinion. After all, it doesn't really matter whether or not Sauron broke the rules before Aragorn (head catapulting and all...); if Aragorn uses the tactics of the enemy, he becomes no better than the enemy. As he stands at the Black Gate, ready to fight what could be his last battle on Middle Earth, it would disconcert me a little to know that he would stoop to the tactics of the evil guys. It makes me wonder what he would do at the last extremity and allows some doubt to enter in about the purity of his purpose. But then again, I'm an idealist. On the other hand, it broke the tension of the scene and moved things along in a definite way by movie-logic.

Incidentally, Lalwendë, I used to find the book Aragorn almost intolerably pompous, but as I've read and re-read, he is slowly becoming one of my favorite characters as I come to understand the difficulties of his position and mandate. Whereas I passed over incidents in previous readings, they recently became more resonant, i.e., Aragorn's effective understanding, mercy and shrewd use of the troops marching toward Mordor after Pelennor, who, for one reason or another, did not have the strength or heart to continue on to the Black Gate...he allowed these soldiers not only to save face but to contribute meaningfully to the retaking of Gondorian territories. And his poetically perfect decision regarding Beregond after the latter's transgression at the entrance to Rath Dinen. That is not the same Aragorn who cuts off the head of the Mouth of Sauron in the movie.

I guess I just see them as two different people, and what might be in character for Viggo-gorn would not be in character for Aragorn-proper. I suppose I didn't really address the question of consistency within the movie context, though, did I? Oops!

Cheers!
Lyta

[The Only Real Estel]

So, that would definitely make it appear that Aragorn broke the laws he was bound to, and murdered a messenger

Although the Mouth of Sauron is certainly a messenger in the books, a great point was brought up in another thread. Essex offered the fact that, in the movies, MoS never offered any parly or any real message (aside from the opening pleasantries). Since he appeared to be there more to mock than to parly, Aragorn wasn't necessarily bound by the same laws that he was in the books.

That said, I still am not comfortable with the scene. It certainly was out of character for 'book-Aragorn', but whether it was for movie-Aragorn or not is definitly a tougher question. As Boromir brought up, MovieGorn was not able to control his emotions on other occasions--kicking a helmet after assuming Merry & Pippin were dead, throwing himself into combat after Haldir's death, etc--so that makes it difficult to decide whether or not he should've controlled himself here or not. I suppose the best measuring-stick for this one is your feelings, & I know it didn't feel much like Aragorn to me, regardless of any arguments I brought to myself.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

Incidentally, Lalwendë, I used to find the book Aragorn almost intolerably pompous, but as I've read and re-read, he is slowly becoming one of my favorite characters as I come to understand the difficulties of his position and mandate.

That's one of the frequently expressed opinions on the 'Downs that I find fascinating, that Aragorn is pompous. I never found him to be so, but after hearing this opinion, I can see how some might find him to be pompous, especially when compared to characters such as Faramir. What I was thinking was that for some reason maybe the scriptwriting team (or even Viggo Mortensen) also found book Aragorn a little pompous and wanted to add some 'temper' to him.

In the books he is certainly the kind of character we would not see much of these days; the media constantly search for all the failings in our figureheads, and if we had an Aragorn today they would no doubt try to do the same to him. Perhaps they sought to 'humanise' him in some way? An interesting comparison can be seen in the way superheroes are portrayed in contemporary films. Spider-Man is filled with angst and doubt, and the X-Men each have difficult personal histories and character failings including anger and resentment. I'm not saying that book Aragorn is perfect, because even here he displays some failings, but he is not presented to us as someone with notable failings, such as the anger his character displays in the films.

I'm quite happy with both versions as they are used in different contexts, but I do have to say I much prefer book Aragorn. I find his character more subtly drawn, and I think I too am an idealist and like to think of him being somehow 'above' anger!

[Essex]

thanks for making the above point Estel. To add to this, Aragorn killed the MoS to stop him spreading the rumour of Frodo's death and therefore the end of the West's Quest to destroy Sauron. Imagine Aragorn's Men hearing this claim. They would lose ALL hope, and some may have also deserted (or lost heart as some do at the Crossroads), leaving Aragorn and co in an even worse state.

As he says "I will not believe it".

He had to stop this poison spreading and this is how he did it (movie wise). Obviously in the books, the MoS came to Parley, and we can see his frightened stance as he declares that he cannot be attacked precisley because of this point.

Also, in the book, the scene is slightly different as the MoS declares Frodo as a SPY, and therefore meaning that the Ring was not found in his possesion, as this would have totally changed the context of his Speech and what he says.

As a Movie Lover as well as a book lover, this scene is one of my favourites in the EE, even though it was different to the Book in certain circumstances.

Although it also leaves another Jackson "plot hole" as my 6 year old (who loves the MoS) keeps asking me - where did his Horse go? (and his body for that...) I just tell him it ran off!