Charisma?

[Nogrod]

I just saw Oliver Stone's movie about Alexander the Great the second time as it was shown on television here in Finland today. The thing that striked me (again) was the lack of charisma with Colin Farrell. A second of Anthony Hopkins had more presence than an hour with Farrell...

But this has been an active topic with PJ movies as well. We have praised certain actors for their charisma and blamed others for lacking it. I myself realise me praising the Ians (McKellen and Holm) and scorning Viggo and Elijah Wood... That's an old story.

But why do we care for charisma indeed? Shouldn't ordinary hobbits just be so uncharismatic as Elijah Wood is? I mean he's supposed to be an ordinary guy! (well, a too pretty one to my taste for an ordinary guy from any neighbourhood, but surely nicely calculated for some screen audiences)

Hitler was a charismatic guy and so was Stalin. Napoleon seems to have been one and Pol-Pot also... But why do we need charismatic people in the movies? If people try to act ordinary persons, why should they be charismatic (or extremely good-looking)?

Whom of the LotR you think should be plain ordinaries except the Hobbits?

[MatthewM]

Well, I don't think any of Tolkien's main characters are "ordinary". They all have their own personalities and parts which they all play. I would say all the oridinary people are still back in Bree, or Archet, and parts like such...that's why there aren't any main characters from there...because they are the ordinary of Middle-earth (amongst other places).

[Volo]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Well, I don't think any of Tolkien's main characters are "ordinary".

Who is?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Well, I don't think any of Tolkien's main characters are "ordinary". They all have their own personalities and parts which they all play. I would say all the oridinary people are still back in Bree, or Archet, and parts like such...that's why there aren't any main characters from there...because they are the ordinary of Middle-earth (amongst other places).

There are many refferences in the books, Gandalf and Elrond in particular, and in the letters (LotR as a study of the "sanctification of the humble"; the weak and the unknown which "turn the wheels of the world") which point to humble, ordinary individuals making a difference.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ah, but I do not think the hobbits in the fellowship were so "ordinary". I think they are the very opposite of ordinary. Look at this in regard to a discussion of hobbits and how those who were "chosen" were not ordinary at all:

Bilbo was speciially selected by the authority an insight of Gandalf as abnormal : he had a good share of hobbit virtues: shrewd sense, generosity, patience, and fortitude, and also a strong 'spark' yet unkindled. The story and its sequel are not about 'types' or the cure of bourgeois smugness by sider experience, but about the achievements of specially graced and gifted individuals. I would say, if saying such things did not spoil what it tries to make explicit, 'by ordained individuals inspired and guided by an Emissary to ends beyond their individual education and enlargement".

The italics belong to the author.

The problem comes when you introduce the word "charisma". Is this what Tolkien is talking about? I guess it depends on what our definition of charisma is.

Dictionary.com lists several variations:

1. Theology. a divinely conferred gift or power.
2. a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.
3. the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like.

Interesting, I never thought of Bilbo as "charismatic". (I'm not talking about the actor here.) Yet, if we take Tolkien at his word, what he says in the quote above does seem to come close to meaning number one in dictionary.com (not so sure about 2 or 3).

Still, I don't think Bilbo's neighbors thought of him as being charismatic. Rather they saw him as a non conformist. That certainly seems to be the case from Gandalf's dialogue in Unfinished Tales. Perhaps it is only someone like Gandalf who can look at a hobbit like Bilbo and see the potential for charisma (as defined in #1 above). Perhaps others who are "ordinary", at least those hobbits who were not close to Bilbo, could only see strangeness and think him an "odd" fellow.

Nogord - Regarding your comments on the actors, I do think the two Ians were more commanding on the screen (just as Boromir was), but that's simply a matter of lucky casting. If someone else had played Frodo, perhaps his character would also have had more of this dynamism. The kind of charisma you are talking about here may be more attunded to the luck of casting rather than any true representation of the characters in the book.

[Raynor]

Ah, but I do not think the hobbits in the fellowship were so "ordinary". I think they are the very opposite of ordinary. Look at this in regard to a discussion of hobbits and how those who were "chosen" were not ordinary at all:

A minor comment: Bilbo was not part of the fellowship; and even of him a good deal of his abilities that got him selected are general to hobbits. Although the spark element is to be noticed, Tolkien also wrote to Milton Waldman that The Hobbit is "a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting", emphasis added.

[Lalwendë]

Nogrod, the thing is, an actor just has to have charisma or the part doesn't come across well on screen and it's incredibly boring to watch, or painful if you're really unlucky. An actor with no charisma can ruin a film and destroy a story.

If you're saying that Hobbits should have been played by actors with no screen presence then nobody would have liked them as characters as even the simplest of audiences can easily detect poor acting.

The problem with some of the actors chosen for LotR was that they were chosen for looks not acting ability and this doesn't always work depending on the role. Orlando Bloom got away with it in style as he could ham it up as Legolas (and continues to ham it up in his best roles) whereas Elijah Wood failed as the subtlety of Frodo couldn't be carried off on simply staring round-eyed at things and letting a bit of spittle run out of his mouth. Likewise Liv Tyler is more wooden than a forest of Ents but got away with it by whispering whimsically in subtitles.

If you look at a Ken Loach film, he often uses total unknowns and amateurs who have never acted before, as he believs they bring across the gritty reality he's hoping to portray much more effectively - but none of them lack charisma or screen presence or we'd just switch off.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There are many refferences in the books, Gandalf and Elrond in particular, and in the letters (LotR as a study of the "sanctification of the humble"; the weak and the unknown which "turn the wheels of the world") which point to humble, ordinary individuals making a difference.

I am aware of this, but there is no doubt that the characters we read about in The Lord of the Rings are all characters of great strength (be it body or mind), each with internal workings of their own. "Ordinary" perhaps when looking at the desposition of a particular character (say, Sam) in respect to their whole race, but indiviually, these characters (The Fellowship, for example) set themselves apart from the "common folk" when they become the Nine Walkers.

I don't know if that's understandable, but it makes sense to me and right now is the best way I can describe it.

[Raynor]

these characters (The Fellowship, for example) set themselves apart from the "common folk" when they become the Nine Walkers.

Yes, that is relevant from Child's first quote. These two positions are perfectly compatible; they were simple, ordinary people, which were elevated to a higher status in order to achieve their quest; they weren't left to their own devices (or abilities) to achieve this, since the outcome was too important. I don't deny various levels of "sparks" in each and everyone one of them, and also their "normality" doesn't diminish their uniqueness; the fact remains that they are exponants of the common people in uncommon situations.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

they were simple, ordinary people, which were elevated to a higher status in order to achieve their quest

Or rather, they were elevated to a higher status by achieving their quest. If they were given some kind of Power Up this would both make them instantly anything but ordinary and diminish their astonishing achievement. They serve to show us that we can all do it (whatever 'it' might be) if we try hard enough. And then going on from what Formendacil says, the Hobbits are also not 'ordinary' in the sense that they are not stereotypical Hobbits (in fact are any of the Nine 'stereotypical'?); all of them are a bit 'queer' apart from Sam, and he becomes that way simply by taking part in this adventure and doing what a stereotypical Hobbit would not do.

All of which points to needing actors with a little charisma to play the roles - actors who could show the strain of trying to do their very best without Power Ups and actors who were not stereotypical. Which I'm afraid some of them were...just vapid pretty boys and pretty girls.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Raynor

the fact remains that they are exponants of the common people in uncommon situations.

By all means this is opinion, not fact. I think you are trying to give them too much of an ordinary make up. Take a look at some of The Fellowship- Boromir was son and heir to the Steward of Gondor, Gondor's most renown warrior. People in Gondor looked up to him. He was not considered "ordinary" by his folk, I'm sure. Aragorn can claim kingship to Gondor and he is known amongst the very wise of Middle-earth. The only true argument you could give would be for the Hobbits, but really, only Sam applies at first. As Formendacil said, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo were well off and for the most part, well known in their respective provinces.