Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
01-17-2005, 03:06 PM | #1 |
Laconic Loreman
|
Was it out of character?
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? |
01-17-2005, 03:54 PM | #2 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Last edited by Lalwendë; 01-18-2005 at 03:24 AM. Reason: another typo... |
|
01-17-2005, 04:58 PM | #3 | |
Haunted Halfling
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules
Posts: 841
|
Great Striders Apart
Quote:
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
__________________
“…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.” Last edited by Lyta_Underhill; 01-17-2005 at 05:00 PM. Reason: can't spell "Pelennor"-was that right? |
|
01-17-2005, 09:27 PM | #4 | |
Raffish Rapscallion
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-(
Posts: 2,835
|
rules of war?
Quote:
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. |
|
01-18-2005, 03:44 AM | #5 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
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!
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
01-18-2005, 04:47 AM | #6 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
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! |
01-18-2005, 07:25 AM | #7 | |
Brightness of a Blade
|
Quote:
Also Araogrn says: "I will not believe it." NOT "I do not believe it." If the last were the case, I would have said: "Alright, he knows it's not true, and he wants to put an end to false rumours." But as is the case, it's like Sauron's lies have found a fertile soil in his mind and now he's in denial of them although he believes them. To me it seems like MoS won, even though Aragorn killed him. He acted no better than his enemy would. We all seem to agree that he acts out a weakness that BookAragorn would never display. If you look at the circumstances in which MovieAragorn does this deed, you see it was immediately after looking into the Palantir and seeing that disturbing image of Arwen, curtesy of Red Eye Broadcasting. He thinks his loved one is dead and now he finds out he lost a friend and on top of everything, mankind is doomed. So he takes it out on the first evil thing that comes in his path, because all rules of decency and honourable behaviour mean nothing to him anymore. Hm. Just played Devil's Advocate. I'm not sure I believe myself. But thank you Boromir88 for this thread because I remembered a topic I wanted to start since I saw ROTK extended and have been putting it off, that should be of interest to this one. I'll go start it now.
__________________
And no one was ill, and everyone was pleased, except those who had to mow the grass. |
|
01-18-2005, 11:54 AM | #8 | |||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Quote:
I realize that arrogant can be rearranged to spell Aragorn T (T for Telcontar), but that's not a good enough reason for me. Quote:
Sauron is not a country that Gondor is having a land dispute with. Sauron is embodied evil and he's trying to take over the world. He rarely makes deals, and when he does he never keeps his end (see Gorlim in Beren's story). If Gondor was fighting Harad then Aragorn would be expected to keep his sword away from the messenger’s neck, but when you're dealing with Sauron- almost anything goes.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|||
01-18-2005, 12:53 PM | #9 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
It's a real shame because I was really enjoying this scene up until that moment. I loved the portrayal of the Mouth of Sauron - it has a very "alien" character to it.
Whether he was a messenger or simply sent to gloat, the fact remains that he was a non-combatant envoy and his decapitation was a breach of the "rules of engagement" on Aragorn's part. Sauron might have been the embodiment of evil, but, as Lyta said, when the good guys start playing by the rules of the bad guys, then they are no better than them. In Tolkien's world, the end does not justify the means. But this was not what spoilt the scene for me since, in many respects, this is not Tolkien's world, but a (Tolkien-inspired) Jackson's world. And this is Jackson's Aragorn, not Tolkien's Aragorn. When I watched the scene, I couldn't quite work out what it was that irritated me about the decapitation. Then obloquy put his finger on it on another thread. It destroys the entire character of the Mouth. He has been built up as this wonderful gloating character who lords it over Aragorn and co. Then Aragorn just goes and chops his head off. Easy as that! Tension dissipated. Audience applauds. Well, they shouldn't be applauding. The situation remains grim. The scene would have been so much more powerful (in my view) if, after saying his piece, the Mouth had simply turned round and ridden back to Mordor. Aragorn could then have done his "I will not believe it" bit and ridden back to give his inspiring speech. It should be "Hope against all odds", not "Silly old Mouth - I'll just chop off his head and that's that".
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
01-18-2005, 01:05 PM | #10 | ||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, in the real world it is difficult to define someone as the embodiment of evil, but in Middle Earth there was no doubt about Sauron, the Nazgul, and tMoS. They were sub-human.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
||
01-18-2005, 02:08 PM | #11 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Standing amidst the slaughter I have wreaked upon the orcs
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
|
|
01-18-2005, 03:19 PM | #12 | |
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
But Tolkien might not disagree with me as much as you think. In Telchar's thread, How do you kill Wyatt Earp?, Telchar shows that the way Sauron was defeated was definitely not proper. He likens it to challenging an enemy to a gunfight and when he shows up and you're about to start the duel your friend, who's been hiding in a building, shoots your opponent in the back with a rifle. Tolkien certainly didn't see a problem with defeating Sauron by those means.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|
01-18-2005, 04:40 PM | #13 | ||
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Standing amidst the slaughter I have wreaked upon the orcs
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-18-2005, 06:22 PM | #14 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Looking back at that Wyatt Earp thread (which I was reminded of too), I ought really to qualify my comment that, in Tolkien's world, the end does not justify the means. It depends what the "means" is. If it involves doing what (only) the evil characters would do, then I would say that it cannot justify the end. Hence the number of well-argued and (to my mind) reasonable responses to the question that Telchar posed. The strategy of distracting the Enemy (and exploiting his weakness in doing so) so as to allow Frodo and Sam a better chance of destroying the Ring is not such a means. It is a perfectly acceptable tactic in my view. The Wyatt Earp anaolgy is off in any event, since it involves shooting someone in the back, whereas Frodo and Sam went right up to Sauron's doorstep (behind enemy lines) and, in any event, had very little chance of success. And it is entirely different from killing a non-combatant in cold blood. Although, as I have said, we are discussing the film here, so perhaps the standard is different.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
01-18-2005, 11:57 PM | #15 | |||||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, if we were discussing who Aragorn's father was, my statement would indeed be absurd, since Tolkien has clearly stated who Aragorn's father was and Tolkien is the creator and ultimate authority when it comes to Middle Earth. But I was expressing a real life opinion on warfare and fighting evil. Tolkien did not create the world's rules of warfare and is not the ultimate authority on matters of diplomacy, evil, and parley practices. They are not under the jurisdiction of Middle Earth- they merely play a role in Middle Earth (in other words, it's okay to disagree with him). But if you still aren't satisfied, just look at what The Saucepan Man said... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|||||
01-19-2005, 12:39 AM | #16 | |
Haunted Halfling
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules
Posts: 841
|
Oft evil will doth evil mar
Quote:
This is not to say Frodo should stand up and wave and say "I've got your Ring, now stand down!" to Sauron, but that is in effect what he ends up doing when he puts on the Ring at Mount Doom and draws Sauron's attention to the fact that he is beaten. (Of course the analogy is not perfect and no one in his right mind would let Sauron just walk out of this one...) I hope I'm making sense! Cheers! Lyta
__________________
“…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.” |
|
01-19-2005, 01:05 AM | #17 | |||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What was MoS doing? He was insulting everyone, attempting to anger and sadden everyone, and trying to get them to slip up and mention Frodo's quest. If Gandalf had not silenced Merry and Pippin one of them might have said "Frodo! Oh no! That means Sauron has the Ring, now!" If MoS heard that, he'd immediately run back through the gate and tell the Nazgul and they'd tell Sauron and then it would be obvious to him what was happening and the Nazgul would be sent to Mt Doom and they'd get the Ring. Obviously, Aragorn couldn't let that happen. He also couldn't afford to sit there all day being insulted. He had to start the battle as quickly as possible to make sure Sauron was focusing on them. It seems to me that killing MoS immediately was the smart thing to do. It hastened the battle and ensured that no word of Frodo's errand was blabbed.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|||
01-19-2005, 01:25 AM | #18 | |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Quote:
Sauron is the aggressor, the supreme commander in a war that he started, that has already claimed thousands of lives, and which could potentially lead to the enslavement of the entire population of Middle-earth. There's a big difference between the ambush of an individual and a strategy aimed at destroying an aggressive enemy's ability to make war on you. Say Wyatt Earp rides out to your ranch (unprovoked, of course) with a posse of cut-throats and bushwhackers, sets your house on fire, kicks your dog, steals your wife, and tells you he's gonna raise your kids to be his horse-stall muckers just as soon as he kills you, and then you're starting to get into an analogy that isn't absurd. One thing that really bothers me about this scene is the way Aragorn rides right up to the Black Gate without drawing a single arrow shot. Seems even Mordor orcs have more respect for a parley than he does... |
|
01-19-2005, 01:54 AM | #19 | |||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Yes, Sauron was a particularly special case, which is why I said "If Gondor was fighting Harad then Aragorn would be expected to keep his sword away from the messenger’s neck, but when you're dealing with Sauron- almost anything goes." Quote:
Quote:
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. Last edited by the phantom; 01-19-2005 at 02:03 AM. |
|||
01-19-2005, 03:08 AM | #20 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
I am not a fan of the decapitation scene; though the movie has a different take on Aragorn's character and the parley situation, it feels wrong to me as well.
However, in reaction to the "Wyatt Earp" thoughts on fair fighting that have been expressed here, I would like to quote what Tolkien himself said on the topic. This is from The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son, 'Beorhtnoth's Death'; it describes the reaction of a nobleman to a battle situation which seemed to favor his side: Quote:
Again, I distinguish between the misinterpreted movie MoS decapitation and the general defeat of Sauron by a tricky strategy that enabled the success of the forces of good in Middle-earth. The latter is absolutely legitimate - and obviously, Tolkien agrees!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
01-19-2005, 07:34 AM | #21 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Phantom, I still take the view that the Wyatt Earp analogy is off, but that's not really the issue here.
If one considers the "diversion" strategy (as helpfully highlighted by Legorli in the film) against Aragorn's decapitation of the Mouth, it seems to me clear that the former is a legitimate wartime tactic while the latter is cold-blooded murder (however evil the murderee). To convert these incidents into modern day analogies, I am sure that we would all agree that it is perfectly acceptable for an outnumbered army to draw the attention of the enemy force while covert spies behind enemy lines attempts to destroy the enemy's headquarters. But I am not sure that many would agree that it is acceptable to summarily execute a non-combatant emissary of the enemy, and that is precisely what film Aragorn did. If the MoS had obtained information that could endanger Frodo's mission, then it might have been acceptable to take him out, although I would say only only if his capture was not possible or feasible. But the MoS had no such information. Letting him go would have made their situation no worse than it was already. And I am not sure that the fact that the enemy is inherently and totally evil should make any difference. If an Orc attempted to surrender to Aragorn on the field of battle, would you consider Aragorn justified in killing him nevertheless?
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
01-19-2005, 08:02 AM | #22 |
Laconic Loreman
|
I've enjoyed the conversation so far, and don't have much more to add besides a few things...
Estelyn, thanks for that bit on The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son. Maybe something to help out the convo (or only make it more confusing). When fighting opponents, it was also believed that you didn't have to follow the typical rules of war, if you were fighting an opponent that you believed to be "barbaric." They didn't have to break the rules of war, just taking them as barbaric, could justify breaking the rules. Clearest example is the British. When fighting the French they had to stick to the rules (or atleast supposedly stuck to the rules). Since France was in a way England's equal. However, when the English fought the Indians, they were allowed to break the rules, since the indians were considered inferior or barbarous. An example of what the English wouldn't be allowed to do to the French, but was allowed to the Indians would be the small pox incident. Where they gave Indians blankets from the Small pox clinics to the Indians intentionally spreading disease amongst them (often seen as the first intentional act of biochemical warfare). |
01-19-2005, 04:16 PM | #23 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Posts: 77
|
I believe that Movie-Aragorn's decision to kill the Mouth of Sauron was probably written from an entirely cinamatic stand point. Somewhere along the lines of, "Well, this guy is really annoying and ugly, so lets have Aragorn kill him." Many a non-book audience member would probably cheer.
As far as whether this is honorable or not, I don't think that anyone could ever come to any sort of agreement on this, because each person has their own sense of what they think is right or wrong. Personally, I don't think the film screenwriters even took this into consideration. I originally thought that they may have thrown it in to get some of the audience members to think, "Oh no, Frodo is dead!" But considering that this scene was put into the extended edition of ROtK, this is probably not right. Another thing that has not been brought up yet is how this killing of the MoS affects the next events in the movie. Although this is entirely from a cinimatic prospective, I must confess that I thought Aragorn's decapitating of the messenger took away from the power of his performance when the Black Gate opens, and he says, "For Frodo," and then runs into battle. In the EE, Aragorn has already killed something by the time he says this. I don't know why, but for me, this previous kill took something (perhaps honor) away from that line.
__________________
The world is a great book, of which they who never stir from home read only a page |
01-20-2005, 09:04 AM | #24 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
|
I think it actually makes it MORE poigniant.
Maybe I'm going against some of my posts above (and maybe not) but what we have here is Aragorn 'honouring' Frodo because he believes he is dead. Instead of in the cinematic version what they are doing for frodo is fighting for him to have a greater chance to complete the quest, they are now fighting, I believe, in rememberence of Frodo, even though he 'failed'. |
01-20-2005, 08:32 PM | #25 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Posts: 77
|
Though I still abide by my original opinion, I must admit that you have made a very good point, Essex. It has lead me to the conclusion that this scene, as it appears in both the cinamatic verson of the movie and the EE, could arguably be considered two seperate points of view. In the theater verson, Aragorn's line, "For Frodo," and his following actions are performed more out of optimism. He wants, as you say, to give Frodo more time to destroy the ring. Where as in the EE, since he may believe in his heart that Frodo is truly dead (though we never know for sure what he thinks) his actions are more pessemistic; his way of making a last stand in Frodo's name. As to which of these perspectives is "better," that is merely a matter of individual opinion.
This has also got me to thinking about the cinamatic version of ROtK as it compares to the EE in general. The original question of this thread concerned Aragorn's characteristic, or uncharacteristic, decapitating of the Mouth of Sauron. I think that the theatrical verson versus the extended version may actally show two different sides of Aragorn's character. Or at the very least, two different perceptions of Aragorn's character by the screenwriters.
__________________
The world is a great book, of which they who never stir from home read only a page |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|