Was it out of character?

[Boromir88]

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?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Next onto the "rules of war." I love this term, it's sort of an oxymoron, rules...in war? what?

I would agree that there generally are rules in war, but it being war, they are frequently broken, whether by use of cruelty or development of new weaponry or military tactics. We currently have the Geneva Convention but we only have to watch the news to see it being broken by forces of all nations to varying degrees. And the development of rocketry during WWII led to some devastating new tactics.

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?

[Lyta_Underhill]

It's to discuss was Aragorn's act out of his character, and did he break the rules of war (killing a messenger)?

Totally gratuitous, in my opinion. After all, it doesn't really matter whether or not Sauron broke the rules before Aragorn (head catapulting and all...); if Aragorn uses the tactics of the enemy, he becomes no better than the enemy. As he stands at the Black Gate, ready to fight what could be his last battle on Middle Earth, it would disconcert me a little to know that he would stoop to the tactics of the evil guys. It makes me wonder what he would do at the last extremity and allows some doubt to enter in about the purity of his purpose. But then again, I'm an idealist. On the other hand, it broke the tension of the scene and moved things along in a definite way by movie-logic.

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

[The Only Real Estel]

So, that would definitely make it appear that Aragorn broke the laws he was bound to, and murdered a messenger

Although the Mouth of Sauron is certainly a messenger in the books, a great point was brought up in another thread. Essex offered the fact that, in the movies, MoS never offered any parly or any real message (aside from the opening pleasantries). Since he appeared to be there more to mock than to parly, Aragorn wasn't necessarily bound by the same laws that he was in the books.

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

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.

That's one of the frequently expressed opinions on the 'Downs that I find fascinating, that Aragorn is pompous. I never found him to be so, but after hearing this opinion, I can see how some might find him to be pompous, especially when compared to characters such as Faramir. What I was thinking was that for some reason maybe the scriptwriting team (or even Viggo Mortensen) also found book Aragorn a little pompous and wanted to add some 'temper' to him.

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!

[Essex]

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!

[Evisse the Blue]

Originally Posted by Essex

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!

Well, the men in the army had no earhtly idea about the magnitude of Frodo's mission, (they didn't know about the Ring) so the notion that one of their own had been caught and tortured would only have added fuel to the fire, putting them in a fey battle mood, instead of making them lose hope.

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.

[the phantom]

was Aragorn's act out of his character

Probably not for movie-Aragorn. When I saw it I was a bit surprised, but only because I didn't expect the action itself (in other words, I wasn't surprised that it was Aragorn that did it, I was just surprised that tMoS got decapitated in the first place).

After all there are those who think him pompous in the book, aren't there?

What? That's never even occurred to me. Where does that opinion come from? Aragorn never struck me as arrogant in the books.

I realize that arrogant can be rearranged to spell Aragorn T (T for Telcontar), but that's not a good enough reason for me.

and did he break the rules of war (killing a messenger)?

Typical rules don't apply to Sauron and his forces.

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 Saucepan Man]

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".

[the phantom]

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".

Yes, I totally agree with that.

when the good guys start playing by the rules of the bad guys, then they are no better than them

I've always disliked this notion. I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with someone who is without a doubt evil and horrible and has acted so in the past and will continue to act so- they have forfeited all rights to be treated like a human being.

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.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I've always disliked this notion. I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with someone who is without a doubt evil and horrible and has acted so in the past and will continue to act so- they have forfeited all rights to be treated like a human being.

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.

Tolkien would disagree with you.

[the phantom]

Tolkien would disagree with you.

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

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.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

I'm not quite sure what profit you hope to gain by making statements that are fundamentally absurd.

Originally Posted by the phantom

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.

How about challenging to a gunfight a guy who's ten feet tall and can only be killed with a shot from a rifle from a window in a certain part of his back?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

But, when you are discussing Tolkien's works, you ought really accept the context within which they are set. Of course, we are discussing the film here, so it is a different context.

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.

[the phantom]

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

I'm not quite sure what profit you hope to gain by making statements that are fundamentally absurd.

Hmm... I don't understand the reasoning behind that retort.

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...

Of course, we are discussing the film here, so it is a different context... as I have said, we are discussing the film here, so perhaps the standard is different

Bingo! The Aragorn we are discussing isn't even Tolkien's Aragorn.

How about challenging to a gunfight a guy who's ten feet tall and can only be killed with a shot from a rifle from a window in a certain part of his back?

Well, yes, that's the situation with Sauron. But if, like some have said, you must always play honorably and never stoop to your opponent's level, then shooting the guy in the back is still wrong no matter what the situation, so the proper thing to do would be fight fair and lose (which is pretty silly if you ask me).

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

I don't agree with that. Interpret your opponent's "front" and "back" as meaning "where he's looking and where his attention is focused" and "where he's not looking and where his attention is not focused". The analogy is perfectly acceptable.

[Lyta_Underhill]

But if, like some have said, you must always play honorably and never stoop to your opponent's level, then shooting the guy in the back is still wrong no matter what the situation, so the proper thing to do would be fight fair and lose (which is pretty silly if you ask me).

With references to the "Wyatt Earp" thread and this one... What if the guy behind "Wyatt Earp" simply nodded while the man in front direct Earp's attention to the fact that he is surrounded and had better leave town before he "gets it." Then our hypothetical bad guy might either a) be smart and leave or b) show his arrogance and attempt to kill the one in front and thus become a legitimate target for the one in back (provocation to typical behavior). I think this method of dealing with Sauron is more like unto the strategy of both book and movie Aragorn, as he is using the innate evil tendency of his great opponent Sauron to drive the conflict, drawing him into the behavior he already knows to be native to the Dark Lord. If he "shoots Wyatt Earp in the back" or in our case "cuts off the head of the messenger," he, in a sense, becomes like the Dark Lord, using his own tactics and thus becomes a bit frightening and suspect.

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

[the phantom]

attempt to kill the one in front and thus become a legitimate target for the one in back

Ah, but if he is a killer and has already killed in the past why is it necessary for him to attempt yet another killing before he is considered a "legitimate target"? Is he not fair game already? Why let him kill another good person when it is not necessary?

This is not to say Frodo should stand up and wave and say "I've got your Ring, now stand down!" to Sauron

Ha ha!

he, in a sense, becomes like the Dark Lord

I don't think that's what happened.

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.

[Mister Underhill]

The analogy is perfectly acceptable.

The analogy isn't even close to being apt. Sauron isn't just some dude that The Aragorn Gang is trying to bushwhack for bragging rights, or a bounty, or because of some personal grudge.

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...

[the phantom]

Sauron isn't just some dude that The Aragorn Gang is trying to bushwhack for bragging rights, or a bounty, or because of some personal grudge.

And when did I say that Wyatt Earp was just some dude concerned with bragging rights? In order to compare the two situations, you assume that Wyatt Earp is a very bad (as in Sauron-bad) guy.

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."

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.

I was basically assuming that Earp was the type of guy you've just described. Were other people not assuming that? After all, I'm trying to compare him to Sauron.

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.

That's fine, but in this case wasn't Aragorn's ambush of MoS in the interest of "destroying an aggressive enemy's ability to make war"? As I explained in my last post, that act possibly kept Sauron from getting his Ring (which would obviously spell doom for Middle Earth).

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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:

The Northmen and the English were thus separated by an arm of the river; filled by the incoming tide, it could only be crossed by a 'bridge' or causeway, difficult to force in the face of a determined defence. The defence was resolute. But the vikings knew, or so it would seem, what manner of man they had to deal with: they asked for leave to cross the ford, so that a fair fight could be joined. Beorhtnoth accepted the challenge and allowed them to cross. This act of pride and misplaced chivalry (bolding mine) proved fatal. Beorthnoth was slain and the English routed; but the duke's household... fought on, untill they all fell dead beside their lord.

Where is the nobility of attempting to accomplish a task by a method guaranteed to fail? Should Frodo have marched into the Black Gate and dropped his gauntlet at Sauron's feet? (...add more possible examples of similarly misguided chivalrous behaviour here...) Would that not indeed have been a sign of pride, overestimating one's own ability, strength, and importance?

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!

[The Saucepan Man]

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?

[Boromir88]

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).

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

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.

[Essex]

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'.

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

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.