Charisma?

[Nogrod]

I just saw Oliver Stone's movie about Alexander the Great the second time as it was shown on television here in Finland today. The thing that striked me (again) was the lack of charisma with Colin Farrell. A second of Anthony Hopkins had more presence than an hour with Farrell...

But this has been an active topic with PJ movies as well. We have praised certain actors for their charisma and blamed others for lacking it. I myself realise me praising the Ians (McKellen and Holm) and scorning Viggo and Elijah Wood... That's an old story.

But why do we care for charisma indeed? Shouldn't ordinary hobbits just be so uncharismatic as Elijah Wood is? I mean he's supposed to be an ordinary guy! (well, a too pretty one to my taste for an ordinary guy from any neighbourhood, but surely nicely calculated for some screen audiences)

Hitler was a charismatic guy and so was Stalin. Napoleon seems to have been one and Pol-Pot also... But why do we need charismatic people in the movies? If people try to act ordinary persons, why should they be charismatic (or extremely good-looking)?

Whom of the LotR you think should be plain ordinaries except the Hobbits?

[MatthewM]

Well, I don't think any of Tolkien's main characters are "ordinary". They all have their own personalities and parts which they all play. I would say all the oridinary people are still back in Bree, or Archet, and parts like such...that's why there aren't any main characters from there...because they are the ordinary of Middle-earth (amongst other places).

[Volo]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Well, I don't think any of Tolkien's main characters are "ordinary".

Who is?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Well, I don't think any of Tolkien's main characters are "ordinary". They all have their own personalities and parts which they all play. I would say all the oridinary people are still back in Bree, or Archet, and parts like such...that's why there aren't any main characters from there...because they are the ordinary of Middle-earth (amongst other places).

There are many refferences in the books, Gandalf and Elrond in particular, and in the letters (LotR as a study of the "sanctification of the humble"; the weak and the unknown which "turn the wheels of the world") which point to humble, ordinary individuals making a difference.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ah, but I do not think the hobbits in the fellowship were so "ordinary". I think they are the very opposite of ordinary. Look at this in regard to a discussion of hobbits and how those who were "chosen" were not ordinary at all:

Bilbo was speciially selected by the authority an insight of Gandalf as abnormal : he had a good share of hobbit virtues: shrewd sense, generosity, patience, and fortitude, and also a strong 'spark' yet unkindled. The story and its sequel are not about 'types' or the cure of bourgeois smugness by sider experience, but about the achievements of specially graced and gifted individuals. I would say, if saying such things did not spoil what it tries to make explicit, 'by ordained individuals inspired and guided by an Emissary to ends beyond their individual education and enlargement".

The italics belong to the author.

The problem comes when you introduce the word "charisma". Is this what Tolkien is talking about? I guess it depends on what our definition of charisma is.

Dictionary.com lists several variations:

1. Theology. a divinely conferred gift or power.
2. a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.
3. the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like.

Interesting, I never thought of Bilbo as "charismatic". (I'm not talking about the actor here.) Yet, if we take Tolkien at his word, what he says in the quote above does seem to come close to meaning number one in dictionary.com (not so sure about 2 or 3).

Still, I don't think Bilbo's neighbors thought of him as being charismatic. Rather they saw him as a non conformist. That certainly seems to be the case from Gandalf's dialogue in Unfinished Tales. Perhaps it is only someone like Gandalf who can look at a hobbit like Bilbo and see the potential for charisma (as defined in #1 above). Perhaps others who are "ordinary", at least those hobbits who were not close to Bilbo, could only see strangeness and think him an "odd" fellow.

Nogord - Regarding your comments on the actors, I do think the two Ians were more commanding on the screen (just as Boromir was), but that's simply a matter of lucky casting. If someone else had played Frodo, perhaps his character would also have had more of this dynamism. The kind of charisma you are talking about here may be more attunded to the luck of casting rather than any true representation of the characters in the book.

[Raynor]

Ah, but I do not think the hobbits in the fellowship were so "ordinary". I think they are the very opposite of ordinary. Look at this in regard to a discussion of hobbits and how those who were "chosen" were not ordinary at all:

A minor comment: Bilbo was not part of the fellowship; and even of him a good deal of his abilities that got him selected are general to hobbits. Although the spark element is to be noticed, Tolkien also wrote to Milton Waldman that The Hobbit is "a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting", emphasis added.

[Lalwendë]

Nogrod, the thing is, an actor just has to have charisma or the part doesn't come across well on screen and it's incredibly boring to watch, or painful if you're really unlucky. An actor with no charisma can ruin a film and destroy a story.

If you're saying that Hobbits should have been played by actors with no screen presence then nobody would have liked them as characters as even the simplest of audiences can easily detect poor acting.

The problem with some of the actors chosen for LotR was that they were chosen for looks not acting ability and this doesn't always work depending on the role. Orlando Bloom got away with it in style as he could ham it up as Legolas (and continues to ham it up in his best roles) whereas Elijah Wood failed as the subtlety of Frodo couldn't be carried off on simply staring round-eyed at things and letting a bit of spittle run out of his mouth. Likewise Liv Tyler is more wooden than a forest of Ents but got away with it by whispering whimsically in subtitles.

If you look at a Ken Loach film, he often uses total unknowns and amateurs who have never acted before, as he believs they bring across the gritty reality he's hoping to portray much more effectively - but none of them lack charisma or screen presence or we'd just switch off.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Raynor -

The language of the quote suggests Tolkien is not only referring to Bilbo but also to the hobbit characters in the Lord of the Rings. See the words in italics:

The story and its sequel are not about 'types' or the cure of bourgeois smugness by wider experience, but about the achievements of specially graced and gifted individuals.

Note too that we are talking about “individuals” in the plural—not just a single hobbit like Bilbo.

You are definitely right that Tolkien does make frequent references to the fact that the "wheels of the world" are turned not by great lords and governors but by the seemingly small and weak. (When Tolkien speaks of the weak, he is referring as much to a character like Beren, who was not part of the counsels of the high and wise, as he is to any hobbit.) Humble, ordinary individuals did make a difference. Still, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. In many instances, Tolkien was curiously ambivalent about the attributes of so-called "representative" or ordinary hobbits, and clearly maintained that those who were connected with the Ring had been chosen for their special gifts. I hesitate to dig into this in the movies forum. It’s really an issue relating to the book and gets into questions about the nature of hobbits, especially as they are used by Tolkien to show the attributes of “ordinary men.” (footnote to the Waldman letter) If I get my act together, I may put up a thread in Books later this week.

[Raynor]

Then again, the quote implies, to me, that the gifts and grace come from "outside" : "'by ordained individuals inspired and guided by an Emissary to ends beyond their individual education and enlargement'.
There are many features of their race which are critical to the achievement of the quest:

Originally Posted by Letter #109

I think that there is no horror conceivable that such creatures cannot surmount, by grace (here appearing in mythological forms) combined with a refusal of their nature and reason at the last pinch to compromise or submit.

Originally Posted by Letter #131

They are entirely without non-human powers ...and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) partly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man – though not with either the smallness or the savageness of Swift, and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men 'at a pinch'.

There is also a quote (in the letters I believe) where it is said that Frodo received just enough grace to bring the quest to the end. All in all, I would say we have the good and normal side of humans rising to face great challenges.

[Formendacil]

I don't know about charisma... but it would probably be off the mark to call any of the Fellowship Hobbits ordinary-- except maybe Sam, who interestingly is referred to by Tolkien as Bilbo's "successor", in terms of ordinary-ness.

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien

Sam is the most closely drawn character, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting, because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation. The book will prob. end up with Sam. Frodo will naturally become too ennobled and rarefied by the achievement of the great Quest, and will pass West with all the great figures; but S. will settle down to the Shire and gardens and inns.

--Letters, #93

Frodo, Pippin, and Merry are all aristocrats. Not particularly overbearing ones, I'll grant, but they come from the Shire's upper-most crust. Frodo is a middle-aged bachelor in a society that prizes marriage, and considered to be "cracking", if we take the ordinary Hobbits of the Green Dragon at their word.

From the very beginning, Merry and Pippin are cast as not QUITE normal for Hobbits. It's all that Tookish blood and Brandybuck breeding showing through. And if we look at them from the END of the book, they are certainly charismatic leaders then. Whether or not this is their nature, amplified by their adventures, or completely a talent learned on the adventures is open to debate. I would say that there must have been some sort of a native talent to begin with, since we do not see a similar effect on Sam (who admittedly had a different sort of adventure), or on Bilbo (who I would say had a very similar sort of adventure, and who was of a similar character, probably, at their age-- though the effects of the Ring could play a part here in thwarting a similar growth).

Which is all simply to argue that I'm not really sure I'd say any of the Hobbits other than Sam can truly be called ordinary.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There are many refferences in the books, Gandalf and Elrond in particular, and in the letters (LotR as a study of the "sanctification of the humble"; the weak and the unknown which "turn the wheels of the world") which point to humble, ordinary individuals making a difference.

I am aware of this, but there is no doubt that the characters we read about in The Lord of the Rings are all characters of great strength (be it body or mind), each with internal workings of their own. "Ordinary" perhaps when looking at the desposition of a particular character (say, Sam) in respect to their whole race, but indiviually, these characters (The Fellowship, for example) set themselves apart from the "common folk" when they become the Nine Walkers.

I don't know if that's understandable, but it makes sense to me and right now is the best way I can describe it.

[Raynor]

these characters (The Fellowship, for example) set themselves apart from the "common folk" when they become the Nine Walkers.

Yes, that is relevant from Child's first quote. These two positions are perfectly compatible; they were simple, ordinary people, which were elevated to a higher status in order to achieve their quest; they weren't left to their own devices (or abilities) to achieve this, since the outcome was too important. I don't deny various levels of "sparks" in each and everyone one of them, and also their "normality" doesn't diminish their uniqueness; the fact remains that they are exponants of the common people in uncommon situations.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

they were simple, ordinary people, which were elevated to a higher status in order to achieve their quest

Or rather, they were elevated to a higher status by achieving their quest. If they were given some kind of Power Up this would both make them instantly anything but ordinary and diminish their astonishing achievement. They serve to show us that we can all do it (whatever 'it' might be) if we try hard enough. And then going on from what Formendacil says, the Hobbits are also not 'ordinary' in the sense that they are not stereotypical Hobbits (in fact are any of the Nine 'stereotypical'?); all of them are a bit 'queer' apart from Sam, and he becomes that way simply by taking part in this adventure and doing what a stereotypical Hobbit would not do.

All of which points to needing actors with a little charisma to play the roles - actors who could show the strain of trying to do their very best without Power Ups and actors who were not stereotypical. Which I'm afraid some of them were...just vapid pretty boys and pretty girls.

[Volo]

Is Sam really that "normal"? His devotion and caring for Frodo are features you don't too often see.

[Thinlómien]

Does non-ordinary mean charismatic? And vice versa, does ordinary mean un-charismatic?


Does being aristocratic make one un-ordinary?

~*~

I think there should have been something special (in terms of screen presence) in at least all the wizards (obviously), Aragorn (again, obviously, the last heir of the true Númenórean kings), the High Elven lords and ladies (again, obviously) and Frodo (his striking elvishness).

As to charismatic actors, I think also Boromir, Théoden, Faramir, Éowyn, Denethor and the likes should have had one. (Well Sean Bean didn't lack charisma, nor did Bernard Hill either.) The characters mentioned above were all great leaders (well maybe Éowyn not that much) and clearly great and inspiring personalities.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Does non-ordinary mean charismatic? And vice versa, does ordinary mean un-charismatic? Does being aristocratic make one un-ordinary?

The whole "ordinary" discussion has thrown me off track a little, too...

The original question of the thread, in my mind, is not whether any of the characters themselves were ordinary in the books, but whether they should have been casted by very "ordinary" actors, or played in an "ordinary" manner. There I actually agree with MatthewM, as most of the inhabitants of Bree were portrayed very down-to-earth and ordinary: you could expect to find any one of them down at the local pub in street clothes.
Well, maybe not PJ's carrot-munching character. He was a little sketchy.

But anyway, I'll also have to agree with Lalwendë a while back. Some of the actors were obviously just chosen for their star status and/or looks, most notably Elijah Wood. That's not to say that Elijah's never shown charisma in another movie (North, for example), but I stand by the opinion that he was poorly casted as Frodo: none of that charisma came through whatsoever.
In the movies, I think Elijah Wood's Frodo ended up coming out as a very, very ordinary Hobbit who had to do something he really wasn't fit to do. Sure, he showed some pluck at the Council of Elrond, and he helped Gandalf solve the riddle at Moria's Gates (*cough*Merry*cough*), but mostly he falls down and whinges a lot, then is empowered to make a series of stupid decisions based on his position as the Ringbearer. And in the end, one of his bad decisions (Gollum) helps him finish the Quest of the Ring because he's too weak to do it himself.
And in all honesty, I think Sean Astin's Sam came across as much more special and charismatic (and brave) than Frodo.

Whew, I'm done. I still love you, Elijah!

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Just to butt in and clarify a few things. Or ask for clarification, actually.

First, are we talking about charisma in the movies or the books? Or both? The discussion seems divided at this point, so I'm not really sure.

Second, is charisma intended to be synonymous with acting ability? (I ask this question on the assumption that we're talking about charisma in the films.) If so, then I'll defend the likes of Wood, Mortensen, and Tyler to the last, while affirming the talents of McKellen and Holm. But I'm not sure that being a charismatic actor is exactly the same thing as being a good actor.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Raynor

the fact remains that they are exponants of the common people in uncommon situations.

By all means this is opinion, not fact. I think you are trying to give them too much of an ordinary make up. Take a look at some of The Fellowship- Boromir was son and heir to the Steward of Gondor, Gondor's most renown warrior. People in Gondor looked up to him. He was not considered "ordinary" by his folk, I'm sure. Aragorn can claim kingship to Gondor and he is known amongst the very wise of Middle-earth. The only true argument you could give would be for the Hobbits, but really, only Sam applies at first. As Formendacil said, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo were well off and for the most part, well known in their respective provinces.

[Raynor]

By all means this is opinion, not fact.

By all means? Tolkien reffers repeatedely to this aspect of his work. I will try to give later the exact quotes I reffered to and their location. No more trust these days

Take a look at some of The Fellowship- Boromir was son and heir to the Steward of Gondor, Gondor's most renown warrior. People in Gondor looked up to him. He was not considered "ordinary" by his folk, I'm sure. Aragorn can claim kingship to Gondor and he is known amongst the very wise of Middle-earth.

I was reffering strictly to hobbits. Sorry if I wasn't clear in that respect.

The only true argument you could give would be for the Hobbits, but really, only Sam applies at first.

However, Tolkien reffers to him as the main hero. I don't have the books nearby, but it is his "hobbitry" that helps him face the temptation of the ring, or even the challenge of saving Frodo.

As Formendacil said, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo were well off and for the most part, well known in their respective provinces.

I am not aware that being well off is somehow related to being simple. Many extraordinary gifted persons, in whatever area you want, appear among the poor. The reverse is true, many "well off" persons are as simple as you can get, in whatever perspective you want. The conclusion would be that being well off is not a criterion for judging "normality", or commonness, and the likes.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I was reffering strictly to hobbits. Sorry if I wasn't clear in that respect.

Gotcha. No problem.

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, Tolkien reffers to him as the main hero. I don't have the books nearby, but it is his "hobbitry" that helps him face the temptation of the ring, or even the challenge of saving Frodo.

This is true, I believe you're talking about the quote from the Letters.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not aware that being well off is somehow related to being simple. Many extraordinary gifted persons, in whatever area you want, appear among the poor. The reverse is true, many "well off" persons are as simple as you can get, in whatever perspective you want. The conclusion would be that being well off is not a criterion for judging "normality", or commonness, and the likes.

By all means, I'm not disagreeing with you on this, for the above is true. My argument was more about the other members, in which you didn't mean to speak of in the first place.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Fellow obsessors, I created a new thread in the Books where we can take on the idea of charisma in the novels, because I agree with Elladan and Elrohir... it feels like the original thread was about acting ability.
Yet I love the character charisma ranting! So here's the thread.
http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/sho...939#post511939
Feel free to ignore my post when you get there. I had to put some text in it.

[Mithalwen]

Charisma is also seemingly subjective. I find Ian McKellen so mannered and hammy I could boil him for Christmas but Viggo Mortensen just became Aragorn (and I haven't found him anything like as impressive in other roles).....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

. . .I find Ian McKellen so mannered and hammy I could boil him for Christmas but Viggo Mortensen just became Aragorn (and I haven't found him anything like as impressive in other roles).....

I take it you read Book Aragorn as indecisive, unsure, ratty, possibly a prince if not king of ham...let--but without the philosophising of course? You must be a horse lover then.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I take it you read Book Aragorn as indecisive, unsure, ratty, possibly a prince if not king of ham...let--but without the philosophising of course? You must be a horse lover then.

I don't blame him for the script .... but I think screen Aragorn is more sympathetic in some aspects. Book Aragorn is liable to be pompous, priggish, and generally a bit of a stuffed shirt ... I did open a poll elsewhere after TTT came out which showed that 97% believed that the the horse was a better kisser than Arwen but I don't think that is what you mean.....

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't blame him for the script .... but I think screen Aragorn is more sympathetic in some aspects. Book Aragorn is liable to be pompous, priggish, and generally a bit of a stuffed shirt ... I did open a poll elsewhere after TTT came out which showed that 97% believed that the the horse was a better kisser than Arwen but I don't think that is what you mean.....

I agree, I like the movie Aragorn, just as much as book Aragorn.

[Knight of Gondor]

I agree about a lack of charisma. If I may venture close to the borders of political opinion, I think it could be attributed to politically correct attitudes about someone who excels. There tends to be an attitude of leveling the playing field, whether it be in the world of business, or in schools. To quote from the Pixar film The Incredibles, "They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity but if someone is genuinely exceptional...!"

The exceptional characters of Lord of the Rings and other role models should be what we aspire to. I personally aspire to the characteristics of favorite Tolkien-created characters.

But watching battle speeches of Theoden and Aragorn; that is charisma. I adore the battle speech of Theoden. Goosebumps every time I replay it in my mind.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

But watching battle speeches of Theoden and Aragorn; that is charisma. I adore the battle speech of Theoden. Goosebumps every time I replay it in my mind.

Yeah...how about Eomer's rally "RIDERS OF ROHAN, OATHS YOU HAVE TAKEN!!..." before the ride to Gondor? True charisma there.

[Knight of Gondor]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Yeah...how about Eomer's rally "RIDERS OF ROHAN, OATHS YOU HAVE TAKEN!!..." before the ride to Gondor? True charisma there.

It was pretty good, but pales compared to the others. I felt sorry for the actor/character, since his heroism from the book wasn't shown, and so that little pick-me-up was all he had to offer, while Aragorn and Theoden each got a great speech.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

It was pretty good, but pales compared to the others. I felt sorry for the actor/character, since his heroism from the book wasn't shown, and so that little pick-me-up was all he had to offer, while Aragorn and Theoden each got a great speech.

I thought Eomer was represented well in the film. I thought his character came through from the book...although I know what you mean, he wasn't given the same amount of light and insight as he was in the books. His relationship with Aragorn was barely visible at all, where it stood vital in the book. I still think that scene Eomer gets is great, and gives me chills everytime.

[Knight of Gondor]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

I thought Eomer was represented well in the film. I thought his character came through from the book...although I know what you mean, he wasn't given the same amount of light and insight as he was in the books. His relationship with Aragorn was barely visible at all, where it stood vital in the book. I still think that scene Eomer gets is great, and gives me chills everytime.

I think in some ways, they decreased Eomer's role in the film just enough so that they didn't have the chance to screw up any crucial moments. But in my opinion, his best scene was when he discovered Eowyn on the field.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

I think in some ways, they decreased Eomer's role in the film just enough so that they didn't have the chance to screw up any crucial moments. But in my opinion, his best scene was when he discovered Eowyn on the field.

Yeah, that was a very emotional scene.