Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Yes, but. That being the case one should not use books as raw material for film.

Sounds like your dispute is with JRRTolkien and not Peter Jackson since JRRT authorized and licensed his books for just that purpose.

Or another way to look at it that an orange is an orange with all the properties of an orange. However an orange can be turned into juice. It is now something else. An orange is an orange while orange juice is orange juice. Does that mean that an orange should never be turned into orange juice?

One should not drink orange juice and complain that it does not have the texture or consistency or an orange because it is something else with its own texture and consistency.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

One should not drink orange juice and complain that it does not have the texture or consistency or an orange because it is something else with its own texture and consistency.

One can criticise the quality of the orange juice, particularly if it was made from the highest quality fruit, but tastes like its been through a dead cat.

[Sauron the White]

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable.

I've yet to come across a 'professional movie critic' who wasn't in the job purely because they weren't capable of making a useful contribution to society.

I'm sure 'Professional movie critics' would have been first on the 'B' Ark:

Golgafrincham is a red semi-desert planet that is home of the Great Circling Poets of Arium and a species of particularly inspiring lichen. Its people decided it was time to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population, and so concocted a story that their planet would shortly be destroyed in a great catastrophe. (It was apparently under threat from a "mutant star goat"). The useless third of the population (consisting of hairdressers, tired TV producers*, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and the like) were packed into the B-Ark, one of three giant Ark spaceships, and told that everyone else would follow shortly in the other two. The other two thirds of the population, of course, did not follow and "led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone".(Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy -from Wikipedia)

[Sauron the White]

Allow me to add school administrators to that list of the useless. I taught in high school for 33 years and never could figure out just what they did to make more money than a teacher when they never taught a single child to read, write, count or think. Education is a very funny profession. The further you get away from children, the bigger your office, paycheck and title. I used to say that a good administrator was worth their weight in gold. And remember - gold is a rare commodity.

Have to make my post topical .... I would not put JRRT on that list of the useless. And I notice that in his professional academic career he was a hands on teacher and not an administrator. Bravo!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In fact he was both- Oxford in his day being run by faculty committees and college boards, all of which comprised dons. The full-time 'administrator' was yet unknown there. Tolkien spent a great deal of time on such administrative tasks, heavier than most because he was a chaired Professor ( a very lofty title in Oxbridge).

At the University of Virginia, the arrangement was similar until 1904 when the post of President was created- and even then he was expected to carry a full teaching load.

[Kath]

In need of something to entertain me for an hour or so I've wandered through this thread and picked up on some things. It's a little random, but it's kept me busy.

Originally Posted by Annatar

You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

But then, none of the characters mean anything to those that haven't read the books. Frodo means nothing to them, neither does Gandalf, not even Sauron. They are included and given backstory and so they do start to mean something. There is nothing to say that the same wouldn't be true if Bombadil or Imrahil had been included in the films.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Aragorn falling off the cliff is required for Theoden to learn the size of Saruman' army.

Why? There are any number of ways he could have learnt about the size. As a king going into battle he would surely have sent scouts out. There was no need to have Aragorn go leaping off into his own side story when the same shot of the advancing army could have been used in a different way. It didn't further his character development, and the time could have been used to further someone elses.

I agree with Folwren on the idea that though a film can't be based word for word on a book and still be seen and enjoyed by millions, a mildly condensed version such as she described would work. PJ's visuals were stunning and quite remove the need for any verbal expansion on them, and that cuts down a fair slice of the books. However:

Originally Posted by Folwren

Two definite things in the LotR that would have to be shortened or cut altogether is (unfortunately) Tom Bombadil and much of the Council of Elrond.

Why? If the prologue was left as it was done in the film then a good section of the Council of Elrond has already been done and it wouldn't be a strain on the films to do the rest of it. You wouldn't need Bilbo's story, indeed in the book that's cut out, because it's already been explained as much as it needs to be for the film and the same goes for the information about Gollum and other things, so that really you'd be left with pretty much the same scene as we already have. As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? It could be done. Have the hobbits being trapped by Old Man Willow, have Tom save them, have the conversation where he reveals the ring has no power over him, have the hobbits go off and get trapped by the Wights and have them be saved by him. It needn't be an overlong section and if he gets them to Bree as in the books it would still be continuing the plot, plus you'd have the sword Merry is able to stab the Witch King with in there too, another important plot device. It wouldn't bore the viewers as with the Wights in there would be action, and it would reinforce the idea that the hobbits are in danger even before they've left the Shire.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

Now this I disagree with. Boromir accepts what Elrond told him, even if he has his own private misgivings, and from the moment he joins the Company he plays by the rules. Think of when they became trapped on Caradhras and he and Aragorn force a path through the snow, carrying the hobbits on their backs. He cares about the people he is with. He is certainly not ignorant. His mind may be weaker than his body, and that is why the Ring has more influence over him than the others, but it isn't missing. He is strong-willed and holds on to his opinions, that doesn't make him ignorant, just stubborn. I find it very easy to find sympathy for him when he dies. He made a mistake with Frodo, one which he was aware of immediately afterward and went and told Aragorn what had happened, and he atones for it by protecting Merry and Pippin with his last breaths. The film made him honourable, in the books he was human.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion.

Drama and emotion don't need to include battle scenes, and can be put across to an audience very effectively via talking. Think of something like Donnie Darko, which is all about very complex ideas that are almost entirely explained by talking.

Originally Posted by davem

Possibly Arwen has been drawn into the main story for the movies in an attempt to provide the female members of the audience with a character they can root for.

Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough. I think you're right when you say she is more effective as the mysterious figure in the background whom Aragorn loves so much he will turn down anyone else.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor.

Da Vinci Code anyone? They may have changed it but in essence it is still a film about an exploration of Christianity. Same goes for The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Even Indiana Jones fits the theme. All these films combine discussions of morality with action and draw in huge audiences.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.

Whereas having Aragorn lop limbs off an Uruk-hai who then impales himself and forces our hero to have to chop his head off isn't gruesome in the slightest.

Finally:

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.

[Folwren]

Hear, Hear!

(Really...I have nothing else to say...)

Edit: No, I have something to say, come to think of it.

It just occured to me - those movie were famous before they came out. We who loved the books before the movies were even made were the ones who gave it so many veiwings and who gave it so much money. Some people were gathering information and pictures before it even arrived.

You realize that, don't you? It was no greatness of the films that made it famous to begin with. It was our own enthusiasm - not for the movies (we hadn't seen them yet), but for Tolkien's books.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren may have nothing else to say but allow me to say a few things.

from Kath

As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? It could be done.

Perhaps you can speak for "people" who have opinions you do not agree with, I on the other hand, can only speak for myself. Here is why I was overjoyed to see him cut out of the film and it has nothing to do with the reason you gave.

1- The way he is described by JRRT, he simply looks goofy, stupid, dumb, foolish, silly, cartoonish, childish, and just plain funny looking. I cut back on the adjectives because I do not want to come off as mean spirited. Of all the characters JRRT created TB is the absolute worst visually. Films are foremost a visaul medium. What good would it have been to hire people like John Howe and Alan Lee and a host of other artists, illustrators, designers, model makers, and other creative visual talents only to have the absurd figure of TB appear on the same screen? It would be like serving a fabulous six course dinner in a five star restaurant only to have one of the dishes smell of vomit.

Are we clear on my feelings about that? It has not a darn thing to do with my not understanding TB.

2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

Others here, defending TB, have said he is a colorful character who adds to the rich tapestry of Middle-earth and shows the wide variety of beings that inhabited it. Any being would fill that role. It does not have to be something which is so visually hideous or so meaningless to the story or plot or its advance or its resolution.

3- If Bombadil would have been hard on the eyes he would have been equally grating on the ears spouting doggerel such as:

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

I can hear every comedian on late night TV doing a bit about dongs and dillos from the LOTR films. That would have had the audience either in embarassed titters or outright stitches.

So much for Bombadil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

the reply from Kath

Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

For every film ever made to which tickets are sold to there are some people who do not like the film. That is true of LOTR also. However, that could well explain inflated box office for the first one, but only a complete idiot would come back again and again and eat a similar meal at a restaurant which made him sick the first time.

Besides, box office returns were higher for TTT and then higher again for ROTK. It is in fact the second highest grossing film of all time.

The figures you use of half an audience reading the books and seeing the movies is way way off.
Tolkiens publishers estimated that - before the films came out - there were between 40 and 50 million copies of his book sold over the previous nearly fifty years. Do you know how many tickets were sold to the movies? They did just over 3 billion US dollars in box office. Figuring an average of $7 per ticket, that comes out to an astounding figure approaching 430 million tickets sold. And I would guess that in some of the worlds poorer nations that per ticket price was significantly lower. There is no way that half of those people read the books.

Even if we assume that the same person bought three tickets - one for each film - we still get a figure of some 143 million people. That is at least four fold times the people who bought and read the books.

Yes, before anyone says it, people also read copies in libraries and borrow their friends copies so some copies are read twice or more. And some copies are never even read once cover to cover. Some who do read it do not like it and would be candidates for the films regardless. And some of those were long dead by time the films came out. So it all balances out.

Even if we say, that 10% of those who saw FOTR were hardcore Tolkien purists who love the books and hated the films, that still leaves many many many times more people who bought tickets and did not share their feelings against the films.

Do you know what the most effective advertising for a film is? Word of mouth. Obviously, it must have been pretty positive to sustain all that business, not once, not twice but three times.

Look what happened to the MATRIX trilogy. The revenues went down with each film as word of mouth was worse each time. The opposite was true with the RINGS films.

Regarding the point raised by many, inclding myself, that the expansion of Arwen helped the film especially with a female audience...

Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough.

There were at least 22 major characters in LOTR films. Eowyn is one female. That would be one out of 22. So that "is enough" for you? Sounds like the absolute worst type of tokenism. Half of the people in this world are female. Over half of the people who bought tickets were female. Is it too much to ask for 2 females out of the 22? All Jackson did was to take what JRRT already wrote in the appendices and include it in the story. JRRT gave him that right according to the terms of sale of the film rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
I

noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

reply from Kath

Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

The point was a simple one. Davem - and others - accuse Jackson of including too much violence and action at the point of sacrificing other parts of the story. My inclusion of the above information was to show that indeed Jackson saw fit to cut some of violent action that JRRT wrote in the books. In this case you are partially correct - it would have been too close to another scene of violence - also written by JRRT in the books.

By the films end I do not think anyone was not unaware of the superior archery talents of Legolas. Jackson included several examples of that.

from myself

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

reply from Kath

The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.

A book and a film are two different things. That is a simple fact of reality. An orange may be the foundation for orange juice but a glass of juice and an orange off the tree are two different things.

Why does this point seem to aggravate Tolkien purists so much? Cannot you accept reality? Or would the concession of admitting they are two individual things then take away so many thousands of objections that you constantly and continually voice against the films?

I saw the LOTR play in Toronto. I did not like it in the least. Everything I did not like about was based on its existence as a play. Not because it did not follow the book enough or it failed to capture what the films had captured. it simply failed as a play ..............

in my humble opinion.

I would be wrong to castigate the LOTR play because of what it was not. Namely the books or the films.

But people here see absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the films and the man who made them because they are not something else.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

But the Ring is not 'the be all & end all of everything. The TB episode is designed to show exactly that. Tom is beyond the Ring's power, & its his very nature, free from all desire, that puts him beyond it. 'He is' says Goldberry, meaning he is complete in himself, desires nothing, needs nothing to make him 'more' than he is. His songs are 'silly' because he is joy incarnate. Nothing can touch him. He laughs at Old Man Willow, at Barrow Wights, at the Ring itself. In many ways he is the most purely 'spiritual' character in the book. He is 'irritating' only to those who take life, & more importantly, themselves, too seriously. His power is joy & laughter. He laughs at everything & thus nothing can touch him, or gain power over him. He is necessary for that very reason. His appearance is like the appearance of the Star (Earendel) in Mordor:

Frodo sighed and was asleep almost before the words were spoken. Sam struggled with his own weariness, and he took Frodo's hand; and there he sat silent till deep night fell. Then at last, to keep himself awake, he crawled from the hiding-place and looked out. The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of voice or of foot. Far above the Ephel Duath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloudwrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master's, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo's side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep.

The Star & Tom area expressions/manifestations of the same thing - transcendent joy untouched, & untouchable, by evil. There is hope that the Quest will succeed, & more than hope - Tom & the Star confirm to the Hobbits (& to the reader) that the Ring is not overwhelmingly powerful, that to some things it is nothing at all. This is essential to Tolkien's philosophy, & the underlying philosophy of the book.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by STW

But people here see absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the films and the man who made them because they are not something else.

You seem to have nothing wrong with castigating parts of the original LotR and the man who wrote them! (See your above post about Bombadil.)

I don't believe Bombadil was the worst visually. He certainly wouldn't have been Jackson's most ridiculous or worst visual character. Nothing could be worse than his atrociously butchered Mouth of Sauron.
But if you consider, the part that Jackson cut out was not only Bombadil, who may be somewhat ridiculous in appearance, but also Goldberry who, if we say Bombadil was the worst "visual" character, is probably one of the best characters, visually speaking. I personally think Eowyn was the prettiest woman on the set, but Goldberry, if correctly done, would have been more beautiful than her.

As for Bombadil himself - his costume was the sort that any costume designer would have loved to have made! Anyway, I would have loved to have made it.

(Fond memory here...My brother once drew a picture of Bombadil and put color to it...it was a very lighthearted, rather beautiful drawing. It was before I knew the books myself. I had never heard of Bombadil in my life. The picture depicted him smiling like the sun, one leg lifted in a merry leap, one hand holding a stick, and the other balancing his lilly leaves. In the corner of the picture, wide eyed and open mouthed, crouched Frodo and Sam, staring in wonder.)

Back on topic. Bombadil is childish. But he's not stupid or dumb. There's nothing wrong with being childish. Hobbits themselves are suppoesd to be childish. That was one huge mistake Jackons made - he made Frodo and Sam not childish enough.

As for his songs. (Another grin at a fond memory.) My brother (same one who drew the picture) once got two CDs from a friend for a birthday present. They were a collection of many of Tolkiens poems put to music. It was a wonderful collection. And track 3 of the first CD had all of Bombadil's song in it. My sister and I still sing them. Don't tell me it's not possible. Don't tell me it's not enchanting.

"Hop along my, merry friends, up the Withy-Windle
Tom's goin' on ahead, candles for to kindle!
Down west sinks the sun, soon you will be groping.
When the night shadows fall, then the door will open!
Out of the window pane, light will twinkle yellow.
Fear no alder black, heed no hoary willow!
Fear neither root nor bow, Tom goes on before you.
Hey now! Merry dol! We'll be waiting for you!"

And I wrote that out of memory just now, and I haven't heard the song for over three years.

Oh, yes. The songs are quite possible to do convincingly enough to make people love them for years and years.

As for his power over the Ring...deepens his character. Makes the reader more intriqued. Heck, it's a darn sight better than Faramir being twisted and perverted enough to take it and Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath with the intention of taking them all the way to Minas Tirith! The Ring was NOT as powerful and luring as Jackson made it to be!

I found my tongue, in case you didn't notice.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren. I am in total agreement with you regarding the visual image of Goldberry. She comes across in the book as wonderous and beautiful and I am sure that she would have been the same on the screen. You are 100% correct on that. Unfortunately she is paired with Bombadil who is a visual train wreck. Reminds me of a couple or two I have known over the years but thats another story.

You seem to have nothing wrong with castigating parts of the original LotR and the man who wrote them! (See your above post about Bombadil.)

Yes. That is correct. And I feel no pain or guilt in doing so. I am criticizing Bombadil for what he is - not what he is not. It would be foolish for me to say "gee folks, Superman also wore primary colors but was soooo much cooooler than that geek Bombadil." That would be unfair. Ripping Tolkiens character of Bombadil because he is not Superman would be unfair. Just like ripping into the movies because they are not the books or do not have the qualities of a book is also unfair. That was... that is ... the point.

I think that JRRTolkien was a tremendous writer. Maybe my favorite. The only other book I return to as much as LOTR is GRAPES OF WRATH and for very different reasons. In fact, there have been times over the past four decades when i got this foolish idea into my head that I could write a great work of fiction. I usually only got as far as outlines and summaries. Once I even typed out nearly 100 pages and several chapters. Then, to see how well I was doing, I took out LOTR and read a bit, then GRAPES OF WRATH, then burned my writings with the rest of the garbage. So my opinion of JRRT is extremely high.

I do reserve the right to say that JRRT was not perfect. He was a human being just like you and I are. And as such they have impercections, faults and weaknesses. The work of humans is not the work of gods. Or God.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it,

Oh, no. No no no no no. This is Jackson's fundamental misperception, and it colors and distorts much of the films, most notably the vandalism of Faramir. I'm sorry to see you (apparently) share it, and suggest you read Shippey.

[Sauron the White]

Forget Shippey. I will read Tolkien. Does not Gandalf himself reject having the ring for fear of how he would eventually use it?
The Shadow of the Past
Frodo: You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the ring?
Gandalf: No! cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a powerstill greater and more deadly.

Does not Galadriel also reject the ring for fear of how she would eventually use it?

The Mirror of Galadriel
Frodo: I will give you the one ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.
Galadriel then gives the whole "set up a Queen .... love me and despair .... I pass the test... " speech.
The only one in the entire book who seems immune to the powers of the ring is Bombadil. And what does Tolkien do with this amazing incongruity? Nothing.

Maybe davem is right about the spirituality and pureness of Bombadil. I do not see how that makes him necessary. For me, he adds nothing to the basic story and his appearance and doggerel only make him a bad joke.

I ask again, try to imagine him in the first film spouting the lines

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

I can hear every comedian on late night TV or cable or in comedy clubs talking about the dongs in the Lord of the Ring movies. And how long before the work dillo becomes something slightly varied and the object of more snickering and derision. And once the comedians were done every crude boy on the playground would repeat it. Any kid who liked the films would be pelted with jokes about them liking dongs and the like.

Bombadil would have been a disaster.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I ask again, try to imagine him in the first film spouting the lines

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

The 'ring a dong dillo'/ 'fa la la' stuff is common in folksongs (or in Shakespeare's songs - 'Hey nonny, nonny', etc) There are various explanations - old songs where certain words have been lost or half forgotten over the years so that a kind of 'chinese whispers' effect has taken place, nonsense words inserted to fill in the gaps & complete the metre (you know what I mean - its early), or imitations of musical instruments (as in the Carol 'Ding Dong Merrily On High) - in this context:

Then the voices of the Ainur, like unto harps and lutes, and pipes and
trumpets, and viols and organs, and like unto countless choirs singing with
words, began to fashion the theme of Ilúvatar to a great music; and a
sound arose of endless interchanging melodies woven in harmony that passed
beyond hearing into the depths and into the heights, and the places of the
dwelling of Ilúvatar were filled to overflowing, and the music and
the echo of the music went out into the Void, and it was not void.

I have to say that if we are to sacrifice everything in art or literature that a comedian or schoolchild may be able to turn into a joke we won't have much left...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Forget Shippey. I will read Tolkien.

Then you're being wilfully closed-minded, unprepared to consider that anyone besides yourself might garner a valid interpretation of Tolkien; one from which you might actually deepen your own understanding. Isn't that what we're doing here?

Does not Gandalf himself reject having the ring for fear of how he would eventually use it?
The Shadow of the Past
Frodo: You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the ring?
Gandalf: No! cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a powerstill greater and more deadly.
Does not Galadriel also reject the ring for fear of how she would eventually use it?
The Mirror of Galadriel
Frodo: I will give you the one ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.
Galadriel then gives the whole "set up a Queen .... love me and despair .... I pass the test... " speech.

What you posted was "it can control everyone who comes in contact with it." Not merely its potential effects on two of the Wise (and powerful), but everyone. It does *not* control everyone- certainly not Faramir, and it was PJ's misunderstanding of the Ring's nature which led to the creation of Filmamir. The Ring seduces those who are prone to temptation. Shippey draws an analogy to heroin; one could also use lust. Different married men will respond differently to a full-on seduction attempt by some luscious babe, depending on the strength of their commitment to fidelity. Faramir is one of those who would say, "I appreciate the compliment, but please put your clothes back on."

[davem]

StW

Have to agree with Mr Hicklin here. When you state:

Galadriel then gives the whole "set up a Queen .... love me and despair .... I pass the test... " speech.

The whole quote is:

And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!' She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light Faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad. 'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'

She has the freedom to reject the Ring & remain herself. If she takes the Ring & uses it she will be corrupted by it, because in order to use it one has to 'claim' it, effectively become one with it. However, she can reject it completely (with a laugh, take note!). Faramir too can reject it freely.

There are two reasons that the Ring must be destroyed - & that it will inevitably & automatically corrupt everybody is not one of them. The first, main, reason is that If Sauron gets hold of it the only chance of defeating him will be gone forever; the second is that even if Sauron were to be defeated without destroying it, while it exists there is a chance that it may fall into the hands of one powerful enough to use it who will give in & claim it. That doesn't come from Shippey, btw, but from a reading of the text itself.

[Sauron the White]

Did Faramir physically have the ring on his person at any time? I was under the impression he did NOT. In The chapter - The Window On The West - I do not remember him coming in contact with it or possessing it. The Ring never had the chance to exert its influence or power over Faramir. Or am I incorrect in those facts?


Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? As far as I know. Mr. Shippey, for all his intelligence and insight, is still a person who has only read Tolkiens works. Is that correct? He did not help write them or formulate them, only giving his opinion about the situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Did Faramir physically have the ring on his person at any time? I was under the impression he did NOT. In The chapter - The Window On The West - I do not remember him coming in contact with it or possessing it. The Ring never had the chance to exert its influence or power over Faramir. Or am I incorrect in those facts?

Sam had it on him & wasn't possessed, or corrupted, by it.

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? .

Well, I just pointed out that my last post about the nature of the Ring did not come from Shippey, but from the text itself. Shippey is generally accepted by those in the know to be one of the greatest & most insightful experts on Tolkien's work. Before dismissing him I'd suggest you read his books.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Sam had it on him & wasn't possessed, or corrupted, by it.

The movies are not the books.
The books are not the movies.


PJ can increase the corruptive power of the ring, and it doesn't affect the books, because the movies are not the books.

If you don't like the movies, you can always read the books instead.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Annatar

The movies are not the books.
The books are not the movies.

This is the kind of challenging intellectual debate that I keep coming back for.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? As far as I know. Mr. Shippey, for all his intelligence and insight, is still a person who has only read Tolkiens works. Is that correct? He did not help write them or formulate them, only giving his opinion about the situation.

To which rather arrogant assertion I can only reply with part of the Oath of the Jefferson Society: "...holding it to be true that opinions arising from solitary Observation and Reflexion are seldom in the first Instance, correct."

It happens that Shippey, one of the last old-school philologists, and who in fact held Tolkien's old Chair at Leeds, might know a few things relevant to textual exegesis (especially linguistic) that you (or I) may not. Christopher Tolkien has read Shippey and considered his observations- perhaps you think your understanding is superior to CT's?

I find it rather interesting that you hold the work of Tolkien scholars to be useless, on the principle that they are just people with opinions, in no way superior to, or even capable of informing, your own; but you expect us to accept as Authorities the "professional fim critics" who loved the movies.

*****

On to Faramir- at least to PJ, simply being in the same room with the Ring is enough to trip Faramir over the edge; and indeed Filmamir does "touch" it with his sword. In the book of course he never sees it.

But touching it is not a factor. Boromir never did; nor did Saruman, nor Denethor. Sam by contrast actually wore it, yet was able to hand it over. It's all about the desire.

But PJ explicitly never understood any of this: by *his own admission* the entire Osgiliation arose from this false idea that any person (or at least Man) who came near the thing would be powerless not to try and grab it. This notion is already present in the Prologue, which claims, incorrectly, that Men "above all desire Power." A little knowledge is dangerous. PJ just didn't get it, but thought he did: he reminds me of the sort of rube who thinks he can fix his own car, and winds up leaving crucial parts on the driveway, and forcing others to 'fit' with a hammer.

PJ should have read Shippey.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

This is the kind of challenging intellectual debate that I keep coming back for.

Myself, on the other hand, have been coming back fully expecting to see one of the brighter Downs wits who so favour parody to provide us with Professor Higgins' rendition of Why can't the movie be more like the book?.

I'd try my hand at it myself except blast it all PJ provided so much evidence himself to satisfy the refrain.

Originally Posted by WCH

PJ should have read Shippey.

What's even more frightening than the possibility that he didn't is that he did, but didn't understand him. Or Fleiger's Splintered Light.

Originally Posted by StW

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me . . . .

I could swear that this sentence is the start of that Professor Higgin's parody I was thinking of. Beginning rings so true to it . . .

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Annatar:

But the movies are not as good as they could have been had they not tossed out a lot of what makes the books good. Your 'adaptation = carte blanche to rewrite' bromide is nonsense. You're trying to avoid comparison of the movies to the books (to the disadvantage of the former) by pretending they can't validly be compared. Tosh. The story is the same story, the characters the same characters. A different medium of storytelling, while requiring adaptation, cutting and compression, is nonetheless obligated not to distort what it does preserve of the original.

Your slogan also conveniently ducks the fact which is glaringly obvious from PJ's interviews: he didn't comprehend his source material, the sine qua non of a quality adaptation. "Tolkien's book was long and boring- I think I did better."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What's even more frightening than the possibility that he didn't is that he did, but didn't understand him. Or Fleiger's Splintered Light.

What's yet more frighteneing still is that Phillippa Boyens had indeed read Tolkien's Letters, yet proceeded to commit so many blunders: some, in fact, being the same ones T castigated Zimmerman for in the famous No. 210.

[Sauron the White]

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

Who knew more about the powers of the Ring than either or those two in the book?

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

WCH - I am not dismissing anyones opinion out of hand. What I am saying is that the primary source- the actual text of LOTR is the first place to start and get the most authoritative information. Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What the text itself says is that Faramir did not attempt to take the Ring. "Not if this thing were lying by theside of the road."

You got a problem wid dat?

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry... here are the lyrics to the Prof. Higgins tune from MY FAIR LADY.

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
==================================

While I certainly am no expert on this topic, when I saw the film and heard the song I thought the point was to show how foolish it was of Higgins to expect such a thing. Higgins was silly to expect a woman to be more like a man because they are two very different things.

If that is true, doesn't this song work against the element here who wants the films to be more like the books? They also refuse to recognize that the two are very different things.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure it is possible that the same source material can elicit two opposite responses but I do not understand how such a song could be fodder for the purist point of view. Just the opposite actually.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

The Ring corrupts if you take it & claim it as your own. It doesn't corrupt otherwise. Every individual has the absolute freedom to reject the Ring.

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

Longer than Faramir. In fact, longer than anyone but Sauron, Isildur, Smeagol, Bilbo & Frodo. If the Ring is instantly corrupting, whether the bearer accepts it or not, Sam should have been corrupted by it.

Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

Well, as I've already stated twice, I've used the text to confirm my argument, rather than Shippey.

[Sauron the White]

Davem, thank you for your answers.
I have some follow up questions about the Ring.

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Sam (in the book) rejected the Ring, & only 'withheld' it from Frodo in the Tower out of pity & a desire to share the burden, not out of a desire to own it himself.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

One is always free to reject the Ring. If one bears the Ring as long as Frodo, on such a long, traumatic road which ends at the Sammath Naur, one would be so weakened & vulnerable that one would almost certainly give in to it. But one is never overwhelmed against one's will & must always surrender willingly. Finally Frodo said 'Yes' to the Ring - although by that point it was all but impossible not to due to the extreme torment he had suffered. Anyone will give in to torture eventually, so Frodo is not to be blamed, but he did give in. A 'Yes' is always required.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... thank you for that explaination. Another follow-up question please.

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

This whole Faramir thing to me seems a bit of a misrepresentation. It seems that all who actually posessed the Ring for enough time for it to work its evil. Faramir was exposed to the Ring briefly and while it was owned and worn by someone else. I think it was very noble of Faramir to act as he did.... but, I would not go as far as to say he rejected the ring. He never had it to reject. Of course, the same could be said of Gandalf and Galadriel but they did so with a great deal more information and expertise at their disposal. Faramirs act was the slightest bit naive. Somewhat like an seventh grade student signing a pledge to abstain from sex. Yes, its nice and all , but ........

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him.* Jackson singularly failed to appreciate this point, and invented the whole Osgiliation based on the notion that any Man (besides Aragorn) would be on it like a duck on a June bug, no matter what his previous character or moral stature.

Boromir did desire it- from the moment he saw it at the Council he coveted the Ring, or the strength he believed it would bring him (Sam says as much to his brother). Combined with spending many weeks in its vicinity,** the desire would eventually overthrow his will, even to the point of oathbreaking and betrayal.

Denethor shared this weakness, which is why Gandalf tells him that "Nonetheless I do not trust you. Had I done so, I could have sent this thing hither to your keeping and spared myself and others much anguish. And now hearing you speak, I trust you less, no more than Boromir." It is specifically Denethor he doesn't trust: not any Man or any Steward, but this particular one.

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

** I do think that the Ring can work without physical contact: but it has to have something to work on in the first place. It would have burned Denethor's mind away, we are told, even were it buried beneath Mindolluin: but that's because Denethor wanted it so. The Ring can only seduce the lustful.

[Sauron the White]

It sounds like you have nothing to worry about if you are pure of heart and harbor no negativity of any kind.

But who does that? There is nobody 100% pure of heart without a negative or selfish thought at some point. Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances. Except Tom Bombadil. Remember him? He was the being that the Ring had no power over but then JRRT does nothing with that incongruity. I think that is how we got to talking about all this in the first place.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yep- even Frodo, even Sam, even anyone, eventually.

Yes, sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the Dark Power will devour him.

Nobody is completely free of baser impulses. "This is a fallen world," Tolkien would say.

Bombadil is an enigma. He's meant to be. Nobody really knows what Tom is. The closest we have to an explanation of his freedom from the Ring's power is found in Letter No. 144: "If you have...renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself...then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless."

[Folwren]

Look...STW...Bombadil was not an inconsistancy, he was an exception. He was perfect. He had no self love, no personal selfishness. He was your perfect being. Is there a problem with that?

Originally Posted by STW

Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances.

Yes, given time. However, according to Tolkien, Faramir's was such a character that could have resisted taking the Ring, had he found it by the road side. Just as there are some good kids out there in the 7th grade who would abstain from incorrect behavior (of any sort) around the other gender....something which you seem to claim to be impossible.

Disgusted,
Folwren

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

Well, you have an increase in the power of the Ring as the Hobbits approach Orodruin, but you also have a decrease in Frodo's will & inner strength. Whether Sam would have succumbed to the influence of the Ring is a bit more difficult. If it was to save Frodo he might have used it, or to save the Shire possibly, but he has already rejected its temptation in the Pass. The Ring can only tempt one by offering what one really desires, so if one does not desire what it offers one is not going to be tempted by it.I'm not sure its a question of being 'pure of heart' though. Faramir does have desires - to see Gondor restored to what it was in past days & a King on the throne again - but what he realises is that the Ring cannot bring that about. Faramir is a Numenorean at heart & would never put any trust in Sauron or his works. Faramir would not succumb & claim the Ring, because he does not want Gondor to go the way of Numenor.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren ..... I do enjoy discussing these issues with you but I do not really know what I did to both anger and disgust you. My comment about the abstinence pledge was NOT to say anything negative about them. I was comparing it to Faramir not wanting the Ring. He really has very little knowledge about the Ring, has never had it, has never used it and is rather naive about it. Thus, it was easier for him not to pursue it. I compared this to a seventh grader taking a pledge of sexual abstinence in that the child has not yet participated in this activity (hopefully), has limited information and does not know what he/she would be missing except from misinformation. Thats all.

You say Bombadil was a perfect being. You may be right. I don't know. I find that concept a difficult one for me to comprehend - the idea of a perfect being living with the rest of the flawed beings. Heaven, maybe.

My problem with Bombadil is that he does nothing to advance the story or resolve it despite the amazing incongruity that he seems alone in being completely beyond the power of the Ring. What does Tolkien do with this amazing creature and the dilemma of the Ring? Nothing? It seems pointless to even introduce him into this tale. Save him for something else or keep him to his own little book.

WCH - so after todays exchange, it seems by earlier statement is not so incorrect after all. You and davem took exception to it

Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

If I had added the qualifying word EVENTUALLY after the statement "how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it..." it seems that would be correct.

Davem... do you then agree with the last postings of both Folwren and William Cloud Hickli that eventually, given the right conditions, everyone would succumb to the Ring?

And to all.... I have so enjoyed our exchanges today. Very civilized.

[Folwren]

Well...I took your comment abount abstinence a little differently, is all. The subject of... well, yeah... is extremely taboo about my house and so I did, unfortunately, wish to reply in a rather heated manner. I was disgusted that you would compare the Ring to that which you mentioned (lol... the quote 'He that we do not name' comes unbidden to my mind), for I do not believe it is an accurate comparison at all. And here is not the proper place to discuss it.

Edit: Whoops, I forgot Bombadil.

I don't know if what I said about him being perfect is right, either. I believe that is the case with his character...but one can not be absolutely certain with Bombadil.
And it is a difficult concept to comprehend. However, there are two things to consider - one, he did not live with other flawed beings. He was actually set apart. Yes, it was possible to reach him, but he did not live among others. Two, there has been a perfect being on this Earth (our earth) before, and He was not set physically apart as Bombadil. He walked among us.

And although I do not agree with you about him doing nothing to further the story, I will not go into great deal to disagree with you. All I will say is something that I believe davem has said before - All the adventures that took place with or near Bombadil (in the three chapters of The Old Forest, In the House of Tom Bombadil, and Fog on the Barrow Downs) were a huge part of the development of Frodo and even a bit of the other three hobbits. Not to mention their enchanted swords with which Merry ended up hurting the Witch King with.

-- Folwren

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But a character doesn't have to "advance the story." There's more to fiction than mere plot! Bombadil is a comment, if you like: a conception of a truly free, especially care-free, being. It's one with this that Bombadil appears rather ridiculous, even goofy- because he just doesn't care. He's all id, no ego.

He also serves to point out that in the real world, even the imagined 'real' world, there are always Exceptions: anomalies, bits that don't fit, things that can't be shoved into pigeonholes.

But if we're looking for Bombadil's *function* in the narrative- he is there to develop Frodo's (and thus the reader's) growing awareness of Middle-earth, its strangeness and its vast weight of history. Gandalf began this process, but Bombadil reinforces and widens it: especially since he uses no names or dates or specific events, just a great sweep of Time. Tolkien after all reveals his canvas gradually; he does *not* drop the reader into a slam-bang prologue full of epic sound and fury. That can wait.


On the corruption of the Ring: not exactly. The Ring will eventually overcome anyone who *possesses* it long enough. Some especially vulnerable individuals can be corrupted simply by wanting to possess it. But those who are merely in its vicinity, and aren't tempted to claim it, are in no particular danger: neither Frodo's companions (save Boromir), nor Faramir. Gandalf feared to take it, to possess it, even to touch it: but he obviously suffered no ill-effects from merely travelling with Frodo!

And so, again, the Osgiliation was entirely unnecessary. PJ & Co would have done better, IMO, to concentrate on the differences between the two brothers' personalities, rather than their relationship with their father (which is another whole area of complaint, however). If the audience were shown that Faramir is quite a different individual from Boromir, then his resistance makes perfect sense (and Denethor's treatment of him subsequently both more understandable and more painful).