Sam and Frodo: The Big Picture

[Child of the 7th Age]

Now that I have seen all three of PJ's theatrical films, I am trying to sit back and think what are some of the differences in PJ's interpretations, beyond the obvious changes in characterization and plot that have been much discussed in these threads. I am not trying to hurl tomatoes at things I don't like or toss roses at things I do like--merely trying to understand the different ways the book and movie approaches things. <P>One of the things that struck me is that there is a real difference between the book and movie in terms of Frodo's relations with the other hobbits ---Merry, Pippin, and especially Sam. Some of this difference stems from the question of age. In the book, Frodo is from twelve to twenty-two years older than his hobbit companions. We know that Tolkien was very careful in his writing and, if he created that kind of age difference, he had a meaning and purpose in doing so. <P>A group of hobbits who are all the same age would have a different relationship than a group of hobbits where one is markedly older than the others. PJ's hobbits seem to be virtually all the same age, and they act that way. If anything, it is Sam who looks and acts a bit older than the others. We never have a scene, for example, where Frodo admonishes Pippin and Merry to stop teasing Sam, which they were doing early in the tale because of Sam's status as a servant.<P>I know some folk have argued that this age differential in the movie isn't really important. They argue Frodo could have been older and still looked like Elijah. Since Frodo had the Ring, he would have been frozen in time for seventeen years, similar to Bilbo, and would thus look very young. But I don't buy it for several reasons. First, the movie is not at all explicit about when Frodo got the Ring and when he left Hobbiton. It may have been seventeen years; it may have been six months. We simply don't know. Secondly, even if the Ring had frozen Frodo physically, people do not stop growing and developing emotionally and mentally. The Ring has great power but does not have the power to do that. <P>So the movie Frodo looks physically younger and, more critically, acts less mature than the book Frodo did. He is less in command of the hobbit group and is on a more "equal" footing with the others. People have spoken at length about the fact that the movie Frodo was not as strong or active a character as the book Frodo. It's possible to make a long list of the scenes omitted from the movie that emphasize Frodo's courage or humor or "spiritual" side (for want of a better term). <P>PJ emphasized Frodo's vulnerability rather than the part of him that was resisting the Ring and growing more "Elven" (i.e., the light in Frodo's eyes, the comparison with the phial of Galdariel that Gandalf made at Rivendell, etc.) So the younger Wood fits in well with PJ's vulnerable interpretation, to say nothing of the fact that few fan-girls would swoon with a fifty-year old Frodo! <P>I think all of this has the greatest impact on Frodo's relations with Sam. In the book, where Tolkien has the luxury of developing things more slowly and carefully, Sam is not Frodo's close friend at the beginning. There is indeed much more of a master/servant relation, although one that is respectful and idealized. There are the classic scenes even later in the book where we get inside Sam's head. Sam looks at Frodo and sees the Elven light and says how much he loves Frodo. There is an element in such scenes of Sam viewing Frodo as his "better". (Tolkien made reference to this fact in his own letters -- how Sam viewed Frodo as "beyond him.") This makes the scenes at the end of the book, where Sam develops a more independent self, far more striking than those in the movie. The book Sam has even further to grow and change than the movie Sam.<P>Nowhere in the movie do I have this sense. We are dealing there with a relationship of essentially equals (despite the difference in social station.)<P>Interestingly, some people who read LotR today have great trouble with the character of Sam for precisely this reason: that he looks and act like a servant, at least initially, and is too reverential towards Frodo. If you check out the threads on the Downs about "least liked" characters, Sam's name surfaces a surprising number of times. At least it is surprising to me! These folk are probably going to like PJ's Sam/Frodo relations better than those depicted by Tolkien.<P>What PJ did, what he <B> had </B> to do for a modern movie audience, was to remove Sam's roots and identity as a servant, the part of Sam that grew out of the WWI soldier batman that Tolkien took as his model for Sam. He did this by several different ways: making Frodo younger and more vulnerable, de-emphasing class, etc. <P>I can accept the difference in PJ's Sam/Frodo relations when I sit in the movie theater. After all, this is his personal interpretation. But I prefer the depiction in the book which I see as more layered and complex.<P>Does anyone else see this difference and/or think it's important (or not)? Or do you see other underlying differences in interpretation in the stories (not the obvious ones we've discussed before like Faramir)? <P>I think this also has ramifications as to who comes over as the "hero" in RotK---although truthfully there are no heroes in Tolkien in the way that one conventionally thinks about them. <P>BTW, sorry about such a long rant in moviews. This is more like a book post!<p>[ 4:20 PM January 01, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Finwe]

I think that the difference is very important. More than the vulnerability of Frodo, it was the difference in the relationship between Sam and Frodo that I noticed. In the Books, Sam seemed to idealize Frodo a lot more. He was very cognizant of the fact that he was the servant and Frodo was the master, and that was how it was going to be. In the movie, it seemed like they started out as best pals and drinking buddies. Part of the appeal that the books had for me was that realization that you didn't even need to be part of the "gentry" to be a hero. You could be a servant or a gardener, and still end up saving the world. In the movies, I don't get that feeling at all, because of the absence of that initial "master/servant" relationship.

[Lobelia]

Good point, Child. In the book, Frodo may *look* like a young hobbit just out of his tweens, but he thinks like a fifty-year-old - he has more life experience than the others. I don't think it was seventeen years in the film, though we weren't told. *Nobody* looked older, for a start. We saw Gandalf heading for the Minas Tirith Municipal Library or whatever, doing his research and then, presumably, galloping back. I very much doubt he left it for seventeen years. This is the way films work - if a sign came up saying "seventeen years later" the audience members who hadn't read the novel would ask, "Why?" It's presumably also the reason why film Frodo didn't mess around with selling off Bag End or waiting for his birthday, he just went.<P>You're right about the differfence it made to the relationships between the characters. I doubt, also, that a modern cinema audience could handle the master/servant relationship, although there was enough of it for the purposes of the film. Sam was unquestionably a peasant, from beginning to end, even if he did go to the pub with his employer. Come to that, in the extended version of FOTR, there was Frodo buying drinks for the local peasants in the pub ... would the hobbit equivalent of the squire do that? Well, maybe. :-)

[Gorwingel]

Well the whole going in depth into this would have been hard because the non-book audience didn't even find out that Sam was really a just a gardener until the second film.<P>I have to say that I like the book interpritation much better just because he is displayed as being much more intelligent. He knows some elvish, he has met the elves before. In the movie he is just like Sam, in awe. In the movie they didn't display the wisdom that he had gained during all those years of living with Bilbo.<P>But then I don't know if they really could have included the whole 17 year thing. Actually when I first read the book after I saw FOTR that was one thing that most surprised me. I was shocked that Frodo was 50 years old.<P>I think though that they still should have made Sam more like the real Sam. He should have been more of a servant. In the film he kind of was made to be more of Frodo's guardian. Which was really a reflection of the actual relationship between the actors. But I don't know, I was mainly just dissapointed about Frodo's portrayal.

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

Very interesting topic. I've given it some thought myself. It seems that in the movies, at any rate, PJ and Co. were very hesitant to show any signs of social classes among hobbits, or anyone else for that matter. As has been said by (I think) all three of you previous posters, the modern-day movie audience probably couldn't handle it. In the Green Dragon, for instance, when Frodo does buy drinks for the hobbits at his table (Sam, Ted Sandyman, the Gaffer, and was there one other?), they call him Mr. Frodo, but that's the end of it. And that's as far as it goes anywhere, for the most part. There's a lot of "Mr. Frodo-ing", but not much else. I don't particularly view this as a problem, but it's certainly very different from the book.<P>In the book, I would say that they still start out as friends, sort of, but not exactly in a modern sense. It's more like a friendship between members of different classes (now almost obsolete), in which the superior member feels affection towards the lesser one, and occupies a sort of "teacher" role, while the lesser member has a reverence for the more important one, and in some ways occupies a "student" role. The same is usually the case in friendships where there is a significant age gap. Frodo and Sam are thus doubly divided- by class and by age. This, I think, is significant in the book, because throughout their journey they eventually overcome these divisions, and their relationship becomes much more than a simple servant/master one, even though their servant/master relationship was a particularly friendly and unassuming one, in my opinion. They start with a simple and rather divided relationship, and end with a wonderful and complex one. I would say that, at the end of the story, they are best friends, in the purest sense. Neither of them forget their status, but that is much more disregarded than it was (in terms of the way they treat each other, not in Sam's willingness to serve Frodo).<P>It almost seems that, even in the book, Frodo is not really aware of the fact that he is Sam's social better. Merry and Pippin are much more aware of this, and at the start of the journey, they take advantage of the situation. For instance Pippin's ridiculous behaviour in "Three is Company", where he evidently thinks himself on top of the situation, and orders both Sam and Frodo about (which isn't strictly correct in either case, since Sam is <BR><I>Frodo's</I> servant, not Pippin's, though I might be wrong. That part kind of galls me, though).<P>I think you're right, Child, in saying that Sam has even further to grow in the book than in the movies. In the book he goes from being Frodo's servant to being his best friend and heir. In the movies, he goes from being Frodo's "best pal and drinking buddy" (to borrow Finwe's phrase)- to being his best pal and drinking buddy who's seen a lot more with Frodo, and knows him better. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Interestingly, some people who read LotR today have great trouble with the character of Sam for precisely this reason: that he looks and act like a servant, at least initially, and is too reverential towards Frodo. If you check out the threads on the Downs about "least liked" characters, Sam's name surfaces a surprising number of times. At least it is surprising to me! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It surprises me, too. People can't really seem to accept these kind of relationships anymore. They seem to be convinced that there's something wrong, because Sam and Frodo do not treat one another as equals. I've spoken with people who have difficulty accepting the fact that they are anything but best friends (although calling your best friend "Mr. Frodo" and "sir" is not common practice). I think, though, that their relationship is richer and truer because of what it is in the book.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think this also has ramifications as to who comes over as the "hero" in RotK---although truthfully there are no heroes in Tolkien in the way that one conventionally thinks about them. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I would still say that Sam is the hero of ROTK, even in the movie, but not quite as much as in the book. Tolkien named Sam as the chief hero in <I>Letters</I>, and for good reason- he is a perfect example of the theme of "the ennoblement of the humble", in the book at least.<P>I don't really mind the changes, but they definately are changes, although perhaps not as overt as Faramir and such.<P>(<B>Long</B> post. This really is looking like a Books topic).

[Lord of Angmar]

I myself had little negative to say about the alterations to the general structure of interaction between Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, although I do agree that it made Frodo seem less wise, Elvish and "distant." If it were suggested that Sam were the servant of Frodo and that, as he was in the book, he was bound by Gandalf to go on the mission with Frodo, it might detract from their friendship, since, as you said, Child of the 7th Age, the movie would have had much less time to work with in developing the esquire-to-best friend relationship. I cannot see any major inadequacies with the movie's portrayal, as it left Sam with all of the same excellent virtues - loyalty, bravery, self-sacrafice, simplicity and resolve - while removing any servant-virtues that may have seemed on the politically incorrect end of the spectrum to modern moviegoers.<P>The setup of Sam and Frodo's friendship at the beginning of <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I> movie did not particularly hurt anything either, as it made Gandalf's choosing Frodo's good friend Sam to accompany Mr. Frodo more believable than Gandalf simply choosing Frodo's gardener, who had prior to that scene been barely (if at all, I cannot remember and I do not have the books with me) introduced in the books. The flip side of this is that Merry and Pippin were not introduced in the movies as particularly close friends of Frodo (whereas they are in the books), which, combined with their abrupt entrance into the movie's plot, made their particular roles in the Quest seem a bit less understandable.<p>[ 2:41 PM January 02, 2004: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Kalimac]

I preferred the book relationship, but can see why PJ & Co. did things the way they did. As Lord of Angmar pointed out, setting up Sam and Frodo as friends before the eavesdropping incident makes Sam's subsequent choosing more believable. In the books, Sam has been working at Bag End for years and years and doubtless he and Frodo knew each well in a master/servant way, but those scenes aren't shown, just implied. In a movie, it's a little harder to do that, so I thought that was a good move. <P>As for the nature of their relationship, the officer-and-the-batman relationship - I hate to see that being changed simply because it isn't the sort of thing which really exists in this society anymore. However, I can understand why they did it. To take an example of another relationship type which is pretty much moribund, consider courtly love, and imagine making a movie set in the Middle Ages where one of the subplots is how a man falls in love with a woman in the classic courtly love manner - she's above his station, perhaps already married, he never dreams of touching her and wouldn't want to if he could, but she has his heart. The man is a heroic figure, but a modern audience (including me) would be unable to see him the way he would have appeared, and been, *at that time.* There would always be the background noise - or foreground, in some cases - of "That's pathetic/repressed/just weird/unnatural," etc. We would be seeing the hero as having what we now think of as an abnormal and undesirable condition (probably repression - thanks, Dr. Freud). But the thing is, he didn't actually have one; our mentalities have just shifted so much that what once was white now appears rather off-white. <P>So what does the moviemaker do, if he wants to convey the real feeling of love for the lady which the hero had, and convey the fact that it was not unnatural or abnormal in the least? He can't make us think like medieval ballad-makers, but he can change the hero around slightly and give him a modern twist. He wouldn't change the plot - the hero and the lady would still be quite firmly separated - but he might have the hero dream of kissing her, and being unable to because of his respect for her state, or something similar. <P>Similarly with Sam and Frodo: if the relationship was preserved unaltered from the books, a modern audience couldn't help reading something into it that would never have entered the characters' heads originally because they had no concept of it; repression, stereotypes of the working class, and of course the ever-present sexualization of the whole thing. The master/servant aspects of the relationship would loom a lot larger for a modern audience than they ever would have in real life; they'd be blown out of proportion, and they'd look strange. So to keep the focus on the really important aspect of their relationship, this particularly distracting aspect would have to be toned down a lot.<P>I'm not saying that sort of approach is necessarily good, it's more a lesser-of-two-evils way of looking at things. I don't like sacrificing historical accuracy in the slightest. But I also don't like the idea that a relationship aspect which would have been probably-unnoticed and definitely *normal* at the time would acquire an unpleasant importance and possibly a nasty significance. Jackson altered Frodo and Sam's relationship a good bit, but can you imagine how much more skewed the perceptions of non-book-reading people would have been had it not been changed somewhat? Sam would probably come across as a toady, at best, and as for Frodo - well, let's not think about that.<P>Sorry to ramble on so long, I hope this made sense. (BTW I'm by no means a medieval history expert, so if someone wants to correct my courtly love example, I'd be happy to see it).

[Rosenberg]

I think Peter Jackson might have been a bit nearsighted when creating his overall interpretation of Sam and Frodo's relationship. I'm agreeing with Tolkien and anyone around who says that Sam is the real hero of LoTR, but Frodo's essential to that because, well, Sam wouldn't have gone off on the quest if not for him. And, as is clear in the books, Frodo would have failed miserably without him.<BR>The problem with the movies is that Frodo's debt to Sam seems to be even greater, and yet it's almost as if PJ is trying to underscore the very thing he's calling our attention to. I mean, not only do we get all the shots of Frodo flipping out because of the Ring, but Sam saves Frodo time and time again. He's the one who knows Gollum is trying to kill them (and Frodo trusts the little jerk completely and--unlike in the books--abandons Sam for virtually no reason); Sam's the one who defeats Shelob whereas Frodo, given the exact same implements, was beaten almost instantly; Sam killed four orcs single-handedly; he carried Frodo's sorry *** up Mt. Doom; and then, when Frodo is finally in the position to do the only thing he has to, he can't even do that!<BR>With all this going against Frodo, I'm surprised PJ thought he could redeem the little guy by making him push Gollum into the lava rather than him bumbling backwards as in the books.<BR>Seriously, this movie ought to be called "Sam: How he Kicked *** and Did Everything."<BR>Not that I didn't love it all, of course. I just thought that was interesting.

[Carorëiel]

When I first saw FotR, I was bothered by the absence of the 17 year interval not because of the resulting change in how Frodo relates to the other hobbits, but in how it seems to make LotR a coming of age story for Frodo. It's not. In the book, Frodo has already come of age by the time he starts out on his journey. He makes a spiritual/character journey, but it is not "coming of age." There is a coming of age element in the book, but it revolves around Merry and Pippin, not Frodo. <P>I also wonder if part of the problem some people reading the book have isn't at least partly cultural. I think the British have a more finely attuned sense of class than do the Americans. Perhaps a British person would have an easier time understanding the relationship between Frodo and Sam as Tolkien wrote it? I'm assuming, of course, that people who have expressed unease at the Sam-as-servant role of the books are not British. I could be completely wrong there. <P>So, steaming ahead with likely invalid assumptions for the sake of the post, is it possible that Jackson changed the realationship between Frodo and Sam partly so the less class-conscience Americans in his audience would have a way to relate to them?<p>[ 8:45 AM January 03, 2004: Message edited by: Carorëiel ]