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 ]