Two Frodos

[Child of the 7th Age]

While reading the Fellowship, I suddenly realized that I have two distinct images of Frodo in my head: the movie Frodo whom I've only known a few months, and the book Frodo whom I've known many years.

Most disconcerting! These two overlap, but are not identical. While I am writing this with a slight grin on my face, I am trying to focus on the genuine dilemma which has been created by the wonderful movie and PJ's compelling vision. Moreover, I'm not only referring to the differing physical attributes of the characters, but to nuances in behavior and attitudes.

Will I ever be able to come out again with a single unified image in my head? Does it even matter?

Does anyone have a similar problem in regards to Frodo or another character? Alternately, the problem may be a location (e.g., Lorien, Rivendell, the Shire) or the depiction of a particular race (e.g., hobbits, Elves).

What about people who saw the movie before they read the book? Do you find you automatically visualize the movie character or location in your mind as you read, or have you been able to separate the two?

Now, on to Frodo. While Michael Martinez said that the literary Frodo and the movie Frodo were pretty much the same, my mind sees differently. I am aware that some differences are the necessary result of adapting a story to a medium which has very different demands, both artistically and commercially. (I will be curious to see if my image changes further with the release of TTT and RotK.)

In oversimplified terms, here are my two Frodos:

Frodo #1 -- (a.k.a. Elijah Wood)
This character has huge eyes which beautifully express the innocence and caring in his soul. He is in his late teens, and could melt the heart of any woman who is not a block of ice. He brings out every maternal instinct which I possess.

From the instant he learns the Ring's history, this Frodo is attacked by fear. He is very quickly aware of he significance of the Ring. Terror shines through his face and eyes. From the beginning of his journey, he bears great suffering, but sometimes appears passive in dangerous situations.

After he leaves the Shire, he rarely laughs or sings. He does show love and loyalty to Bilbo, his friends and to Gandalf. He is clearly struggling, day and night, to resist the dominance of the Ring.

With the exception of Rivendell and Lorien, the pace of this Frodo's life is extremely rapid. He shifts from one scene of action to another: hiding, chasing, fighing, confronted with compelling visions of evil.

Frodo # 2 (a.k.a. my long-time friend from the book)
This Frodo looks a bit older. (Just take the movie Bilbo initially "frozen" by the Ring at 50 and subtract 17 years to get my Frodo similarly "frozen" at 33)

This Frodo is not drop-dead gorgeous. I guess he looks a lot more like Alan Lee's drawings. See also Gandalf's comments:

"A stout little fellow with red cheeks....taller than some and fairer than most, and he has a cleft on his chin: perky chap with a bright eye." p.163

This Frodo can still laugh in the early stages of the journey, such as when Farmer Maggot presents him with a bowl of mushrooms or he acts quite silly in the Prancing Pony. He is able to sing and takes time to appreciate the "endless vistas" of history and myth which surround him. Like the other Frodo, he is loyal to Bilbo, to friends and to Gandalf, although there's a much greater element of master/ servant in his relationship with Sam.

This Frodo learns and takes things a bit more slowly. He has more rest stops along the way. Only gradually does he come to realize the terror of the Ring. He sees images of evil, but he is also capable of experiencing wonderful visions of the Sea and distant green lands or of sensing the ancient dreamland of Lorien. He is clearly identified as an Elf-friend.

The suffering is less evident on his face, but he is beginning to fade as a result of the Ring and his wounding by the morgul-knife. His face is also beginning to glow with light, a process of purification which Gandalf indicates may someday totally remake him.

This Frodo shows considerable bravery in facing enemies much larger than himself. In the Barrow-Downs, at Weathertop, and at the river ford, he personally asserts himself and is not simply a piece of luggage carried along by someone else. In each situation, he also cries out to one of the "greater" powers to aid him--specifically, Tom Bombadil, Elbereth, and Luthien.

Both of my Frodos are clearly compelling characters with their own unique appearances and attitudes. So what, if anything, should I do to reconcile them?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Dear Sharon,

Having also read the book first many years ago, I see Frodo much as you do, as two distinct images. I don't know if those can be reconciled and I'm not sure whether they need be! I find it better to realize that the different approaches of the two different art forms (motion picture and book) have produced this discrepancy and to just live with it.

This character has huge eyes which beautifully express the innocence and caring in his soul. He is in his late teens, and could melt the heart of any woman who is not a block of ice. He brings out every maternal instinct which I possess.

What a wonderful description of your reaction to the movie Frodo (i.e. Elijah Wood)!! I can subscribe to that fully! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]


The other character of which I have split images is Aragorn - older and more dignified in the book... I'd have to take more time than I have right now to ponder on my mental images of the book's characters and locations - I hope to do that, encouraged by the comments of the other Downers!

[mark12_30]

Sharon and Estelyn,

I agree with you both.

Sharon, I don't think you need to reconcile the two Frodos. I certainly have no intention of reconciling them. I think Tolkien's Frodo is far deeper and richer than Jacksons-- although I am also terribly fond of Jackson's Frodo as well.

Have you read, at TheONeRing.net under GreenBooks/ Moonletters, the peice of fan fiction called The Fanfic lounge? If you have not yet read it, PLEASE do. For one thing, it is hilarious, but for another it makes what I think is a very important point.

The movie is not canon; the movie-- a script written after Tolkien and in admiring imitation of his work-- is **** fan fiction***. Really, really good fan fiction, but fan fiction nonetheless. I for one will keep them separate. (And that frees me, incidentally, to rework my own fanfic and make "my" Frodo as faithful to TOlkien's Frodo as I can-- without losing sleep over it. Fanfiction is fanfiction, even if *I* wrote it.... Tolkien I'm not. (Thank Goodness, Bilbo laughed.))

Having said that, Wood's interpretation of Frodo made me go back and reread Tolkien's Frodo with a new understanding and compassion. I never really grasped Tolkien's Frodo before-- Sam, Merry, and Pippin were always easier for me, and of course all the men... But the two Frodos are now more separate for me than ever.

Estelyn,

Aragorn-- whoo boy, do I ever agree with you. I'm growing somewhat fonder of Jackson's Strider, but .... Telcontar/ Thorongil he's not... (heavy sigh)

In general:

Somewhere (I think at TheOneRing.net) there is a poll: who do you think is the most accurately portrayed character in the movie? Gandalf is winning. That makes sense to me, simply because (1) McKellan was VERY familiar with the books and loved them, whereas much of the rest of the cast had reputedly only read the Hobbit; and (2) McKellan, reputedly, was consistently holding a copy of the book out to Jackson, open to the current scene, pointing to it and hounding Jackson-- "See here, the book says that Gandalf says this, right here, Gandalf says this. Why can't I say exactly that????"

To which I say, "BULLY!!! ALL RIGHT!!!!"

I only wish that the rest of the actors had had that kind of gumption and understanding of their Tolkienish characters. But they didn't. Heck, Wood was nineteen or something like that. He did what he was told to do. I think he did it really, really well. But what he did was Jackson's Frodo, not Tolkien's.

Like I said before, though-- I love them both. One of the most poignant lines in the movie for me is in Rivendell, when Wood-Frodo softly says to Holmes-Bilbo, "I'm not like you, Bilbo." (Weep! Complete heartbreak... utterly brilliant line and delivery.) So they both have their strong points.

--Helen

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Nar]

Take heart, Sharon, the movie's Frodo will fade to his proper 'good-Jackson-movie' status, and the book's Frodo will remain in his rightful place in your mind. I couldn't agree more with your description of the real Frodo: 33 year old & so both mature and energetic, kind & thoughtful, already growing in wisdom & insight, and, last but not least: as brave as a hobbit half the size of almost every other race can possibly manage.

Although I liked the movie, there were too many scenes of Frodo sliding backwards into a corner away from menacing nasties: this was both unfaithful to the book and visually dull. Otherwise, I liked Wood's Frodo well enough. Famous plays can have thousands of differing interpretations of their protagonists, some of them stray wildly from the text. We can handle one variation on Frodo in a generally delightful movie.

Perhaps you'd like to speculate on what Tolkien's Frodo would make of the movie Frodo? Suppose he turned up in one of those lovely dreams Wood's Frodo will have on the road to Mordor, what would he say to his young counterpart as they strolled together through meadows in the sun? I imagine he'd treat Wood's Frodo with some of the perceptive thoughtfulness he showed Sam.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[mark12_30]

Nar:

You wrote: "Although I liked the movie, there were too many scenes of Frodo sliding backwards into a corner away from menacing nasties: this was both unfaithful to the book and visually dull."

Thanks. Beautifully put. (I'm sure Wood was only doing what the director said to do.) So that begs the question, why did Jackson do this, I've often wondered??? I know he wanted to show the overwhelming awfulness of the Ring-- but why should that prompt Jackson to turn Frodo into a wuss? Why should Jackson have made Frodo any less brave than Sam, Merry, Pippin? Any ideas??

--Helen

[MallornLeaf]

You brought up a good point, because I also read the books several years before the movie came out. While there are distinctions, I think that your two descriptions really could be seen as similar if you want them to. For instance, you describe Frodo #2 with a quote from the book which says he has red cheeks, fair skin, etc. While in real life, this may not be the Elijah Wood you so perfectly described, in the movie, I think that is somewhat what the makeup artists did. They give Frodo reddish cheeks and fair skin. his eyes have a gleam in them. for age, according to the shire's reckoning, he wasn't much older than a boy at the time of the party. and since the movie is (hmm... ) more hurried than the book, that is about right. as far as physical descriptions go, I never found much different. Non-physical characteristics were very different though. like you said. . . in the movie, Frodo instantly becomes weighted by the ring... where this is not the case in the book. I think the main reason they made it this way was b/c of the time. in the book, all this happens over a bunch of time, whereas in the movie they make it look like it only was a week or so between the party and his leaving.

Now If you don't feel like reading all that above... just read this:I don't think it is necessary to try to balance the book and the movie. The movies rock, and the books are sweet. there will always be a difference though. This is a conclusion i have only come to in the last few days. they're different, but both are excellent. Let's enjoy them for what they are!

[Leto]

To reconcile your dilemma...choose the book! always! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] The changing of Frodo's character, I believe, is one of the worst alterations the movie could possibly make, and is my biggest complaint about it. (which goes hand in hand with my complaint about Arwen stealing Frodo's place at the fords) If I were you, I'd forget the movie Frodo as best I could, and pray that the next movies show a little more of Frodo's 'true' nature. (of which I am doubtful)
It is a good movie, as movies go. Of course some adaptation needs to be made, to translate such a rich story to film. But what has been done in this movie is beyond 'adaptation'...it is 're-writing'. Such a shame.

[Naaramare]

::laughs:: I never really had this dilemma. Mostly because the BBC production is still the first audioalization (is that a word?) I ever heard and thus, all the voices, syntax and even visuals I have will be forever linked to that series of tapes.

Then again, I've had much more time to listen to the tapes than I have had to watch the movie, so I suppose we'll see.

I've also never had this dilemma because everything I see of everyone's interpretations of Tolkien's works simply gets added together in my mind, with details added and extracted until I end up with a Frodo I like. The Frodo of my mind looks a great deal like Elijah, but his voice is and forever will be Ian Holm's (BBC production). Ian McKellan is a perfect visual Gandalf (for me) and his voice and whoever played the BBC's voice have melded and added together until Gandalf's voice can sound in my head.

Sharon, you're right; there is a definite difference between a purly book-based Frodo and Jackson's movie-Frodo. As other have said, this is mostly because of time differences. The same can be said for Aragorn. In the book, by the time we meet Aragorn all of his big life's questions have been solved (internally). He will have to become King and he knows it, for otherwise he can't marry Arwen. That major issue, whether he has the right and ability to take up his heritage, is solved in his mind.

But that's something that's much easier to make interesting in narrative than in movie-form, and I understand (and approve of) the changes made for the movies. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Then again, I also approve of the changes made to Arwen, and I know I'm in a minority there, so . . .

[piosenniel]

mark12_30 - that was a wonderful clarifying point you made about treating the LOTR movies as great pieces of fan fic!

The movie version, to me, is a Frodo who is a tragic VICTIM of The Ring. Events conspire to make him a Ringbearer and he is well on his way to becoming the shell-shocked person who leaves the Shire at the end of the story because he is overwhelmed by his wounds and seeks a safer place in which to find healing. He is not a well-rounded character in the movie, a person who has any reserves of character to draw on. He is always shown as having someone elso have to defend him. In fact, to me, he is a little comical - always ending up on his back in one way or another when the action gets tough!

This is not the Frodo I know from the books - still fun-loving and gentle, but far more mature in his outlook than the movie-Frodo. In the books, he seems to be stretched beyond the boundaries of his maturity, taken to a new level of understanding, become filled with an overflowing Light that puts his character's definition of himself beyond the confines of the Shire and even of Middle-earth.

I don't know that the movie-Frodo will be able to mature into any semblance of the more mature Tolkien Frodo.

I am grateful to PJ's version of Frodo for prompting me to think about the sort of person Tolkien's Frodo really was.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Whoa, I am very glad I posted this thread. I initially had some hesitations, but I am amazed at the number of responses coming through in such a short time and, more importantly, the depth of insight shown.

I am also interested that people have genuinely different views on this. Some seem to feel comfortable with maintaining two distinct images, others recommend
somehow blending them, and still others come down firmly on the side of the Frodo as shown in the book.

Helen's suggestion to treat the movie Frodo as fanfiction does have real insight. For years, I have been able to maintain my central view of the characters, while also being willing to experiment with writing fanfiction which puts forward alternative images or to enjoy similarly "adventurous" interpretations from others.

You are right--PJ is as much a fan as I am who just happens to have a few more resources than I do for getting his ideas and images across to a wider audience. Sometimes he hits the mark, and sometimes he falls short.

This idea of treating PJ's Frodo as fanfiction also led me to another realization. One way I might comfortably look at the movie Frodo is to think of him as being about 21 years old, rather than 33. This is when Bilbo first adopted Frodo and brought him from Buckland to the Shire. He is the less secure young man, who has grown up largely "on his own" in the great hall of the Brandybucks (tons of relatives there, but no one special person) and still, I suspect, feels the loss of his parents.

I actually see Bilbo as incredibly important in Frodo's life, teaching him and helping him to mature in his 'tweens, an age which hobbits viewed as being a particularly critical and unpredictable time. In our focus on Frodo's friendship with Sam which is depicted with such insight in LotR, we often lose sight of Tolkien's view that Bilbo was actually the hobbit whom Frodo most longed to be with. To me, the movie Frodo with his fears and immaturities, his lack of spiritual awakening, might be more relevent to the time when he first came to Bilbo and Hobbiton.

Have to run to a friend's birthday lunch. I want to respond with additional ideas, but will do so later.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[mark12_30]

Regarding book-Frodo as a "Perky chap with a cleft in his chin":

I ran across that description earlier this week, and I've been wondering for several days now: can anyone enlighten me on when Frodo (of the book) was "perky"? I have to admit I never thought of him that way. I always thought of him as a deep thinker, rather moody perhaps, more profound. But the thought of a "perky" Frodo has tremendous appeal.

My main view of book-Frodo is weary, increasingly hopeless, doggedly perseverant, that we see anytime during and after he crosses the Emyn Muil; but that contrasts with something else, surely, or Gandalf would not have described Frodo as "perky"? Help me out here.

This also deepens the contrast between Movie-Frodo and Book-Frodo, because the only time in the movie that Frodo is perky is at Bilbo's party. Definitely no "perky" after that.

I suppose for one thing, only a "perky" Frodo would have jumped up on a table at Bree and started singing about the man in the moon.

Maybe when he rolls Pippin over for bossing Sam around about breakfast and hot bathwater out in Green Hill country?

Any other perky moments?

--Helen

[Evenstar1]

Very interesting perspectives, all! (LOVE the fanfic concept, Mark12_30!)

I, unfortunately, fall into the camp of "Movie-Firsters." Although I had read (at least part of) the LOTR when I was young (around 12), I didn't retain much of it. I also have a vague recollection of having seen the cartoon-version **shudders**, but that, too, is much beyond my retention. So now, having seen FOTR as an adult, I immediately went out and got the books and read them all as fast as I could. But my Middle Earth world was very easy to reconcile with what I'd just seen in the movie. And my Frodo looks like Elijah Wood, Sam like Sean Astin, etc. And I especially appreciated Sean Bean's interpretation of Boromir, after having read the books! (Ian McKellan, of course, was astounding, as always!!)

The only real trouble I had was reconciling Tolkien's Bree with PJ's Bree. But the Nazgul (and most all of the other characters) were right on!

[TarElendil]

I have trouble when reading LoTR because at times i imagine Frodo looking like Elijah Wood. the characters Merry Pippin dont ever appear to me as they did in the movie. One character that i just cant get out of my head looking like the movie, is Sam. The dude that played in "rudy" just fits perfectly in the roll to me.
Agent Smith as Elrond? dont even get me started on that [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Evenstar1]

LOL, TarElendil! (I just responded to a comment about that exact thought on a thread in the Movies-section.) [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

You know, it's funny. I also think of Sean Astin when I read about Sam, but that image does not bother me. I'm pretty sure I visualized Samwise like Astin even before he was cast in that role! I do see more of a master/servant relation between Frodo and Sam than what PJ emphasized. But I have no touble grafting that onto my visualization.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[The Silver-shod Muse]

For me Middle Earth took on a repulsive two-dimensionality after seeing the movie which (ironically) I loved. It was a great movie, but it just wasn't LotR. Comparing the two, the impression I get is that the book is full and rich, the movie thin and too shiny and flashy.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I've felt for some time that excluding the Barrow-downs from the movie caused us to have a much weaker Frodolijah. While he was far more mature in the books to start, the real 'growing up' in terms of bravery was when Frodo chopped of the hand of the Barrow-wight instead of running. That set the stage for his standing up to the ring-wraiths later. Without it, PJ couldn't do a credible scene of Frodo at the Fords.

"Perky" I think was from a crusty wizard's perspective. Ironic is a better description of Frodo's pervasive sense of humor. Example: "She very nearly curdled me." Even in Mordor he never loses that warm observant irony. Cirith Ungol: "Or have you inquired about inns along the way?" [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I love Frodo. Book cannon. Frodolijah I merely like, and pity somewhat. Frodo I love, admire and respect.

-Maril

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Well, I saw the movie first, so it's sad to say that the images of the charaters in FOTR were already pretty much set in my head...
Although, I am interested to see how the new characters from TTT and ROTK will compare to my already created images of them.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Pio -- I never did get a chance to respond to your earlier post which I loved. You summarize very aptly two of the main problems which I have with the movie Frodo.

I object to Frodo being portrayed as a victim in such a one-sided way. I know we talked on another thread about the essay which argued Frodo's decision to depart for Grey Havens was motivated solely by despair. It's not that there's not some truth in the images suggested by that essay and by PJ, but it is NOT the whole picture.

Secondly, I totally concur with your concern about the later movies. I don't see how PJ is going to show the goodness and maturity growing in Frodo as he treks through Mordor. The light in Frodo's face and the gleam of the Elf-friend just aren't there.

I have a another concern about TTT and RotK. I read on one of the movie websites that the model they will use to show the growing dominance of the Ring will be that of drug addiction. Yes, there are points of similarity. And a modern audience who hasn't read the books will probably key in to something like this. But, for me, this analogy is not wholly satisfactory.

Oh, great, now as I read the books, I'll have a Frodo in my brain who is shooting up drugs!!! What a wonderful 20th/21st century urban motif--it just doesn't fit into the legendarium or Middle-earth!

I've just about decided to give the movie Frodo the boot out of my head and classify him with fanfiction which can be fun, but is not to be taken too seriously! But I will salvage those eyes and meld them in to my book Frodo.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Birdland]

I've been reading this thread with interest, since I've never seemed to be able to "see" characters in my mind's eye, and usually will select an illustration in a book that appeals to me, if I feel the need to put an image to the words being spoken by the characters. (I've never been good at drawing people, either on paper or my mind's eye.)

Thing is, I've never seen a illustration of Tolkien's hobbits that appealed to me visually. The Hildebrandts tend to make the halflings rather "big headed". And even Alan Lee's illustrations have an unfinished quality to them, as if even he is not really sure what a Frodo face would look like, either.

So I went to Google's "Image" search. There is an amazing amount of Tolkien illustration art out there, both by professionals an amateurs. I saw many Frodo pictures, some interesting, some downright scary. But none of those appealed to me either.

Elijah Wood's face is very appealing, and he is a wonderful, expressive actor, so I have no problem seeing him in the role of Frodo. But no...his face just doesn't seem to be the right image either. (He is VERY young.) Oddly, the other actors in the film suit me to a T. I'm very comfortable using their images when picturing characters.

I guess if pressed, I would actually choose an older version of Billy Boyd's face as a good image of Frodo. That's getting nearer the mark for me. But not quite.

(Sigh) Maybe I should just give up, and leave Frodo's face a cipher.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

I fear your forebodings are correct. I've read in at leat one interview (which one I can't remember) that Wood interpreted the Ring as a growing addiction, through Ithilien and Mordor, and acted it that way. Drat.

Maril,

But Gandalf has a **serious** sense of irony. Doesn't he? Why would Frodo's sense of irony strike Gandalf as "perky?" I don't see what you see, yet.

Sharon again:

Yes, Sean is a great Sam. Much better (I think) than Dom is a good Merry (not!!! unless, again, I'm blaming PJ's interpretation of him, which I guess I am... but I wouldn't have picked Dom as Merry...) Billy Boyd, now, that's closer.

I've written my own hobbit, and now that you mention it, I picture him closer to Billy Boyd's Pippin than any of the other three.

And in scenes where they all interact (I have a few), Sam looks like Sean, Pippin is entishly-too-tall and doesn't really remind me of anybody-- how DOES one picture a four-foot-six hobbit???-- and Frodo reminds me of a conglomeration of some previous artwork and Boyd's Pippin, grown-up, serious, and deep-- and most definitely brown-eyed. Even though I credit Frodolijah's eyes for half his role, or more.

Go figure. How does Pippin end up being a blank face for me when I think of him as pretty-close-to-the-the-essense-of-hobbitness??? Maybe it ws that growth spurt.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I’ve been thinking over my mental images of some more persons of the Fellowship/book.

The first is Boromir. Seeing the movie made me realize how one-dimensional my mental image of him was from just reading the book – dark and sinister, more bad guy than hero, the Judas of the Fellowship. I certainly could not have imagined him smiling, laughing, playing with the hobbits as he taught them sword-fighting, tousling Frodo’s hair… PJ’s movie interpretation added a new, positive dimension to Boromir for me. I can quite happily reconcile the two sides and can easily accept Sean Bean’s face as my personal Boromir “canon”!

Aragorn is the second character I’ve been thinking about. At first viewing, though I liked Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, I could not fit his doubts and uncertainty into the book image I had. But seeing his more human, less heroic side made me appreciate him more, made him feel less distant. To me, the movie’s Aragorn is a prequel to the book, showing the younger man with the issues he had already resolved before Tolkien’s narrative begins. I guess that’s my way of combining the two differing images I have there.

Both wizards, Gandalf and Saruman, fit in with my mental images perfectly, so I have no problems with discrepancies there, at least as far as the characters are concerned.

In contrast, I find the movie Gimli very one-dimensional. None of the charm he shows in the book is visible behind that beard, unfortunately… [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[piosenniel]

I had always thought Frodo's face a cypher, too, despite all the lovely drawings of him by various artists. My favorite depictions of him being John Howe and Ted Nasmith, but as said in a previous post, even these images are ephemeral and don't quite stick.

For me,it's easier to 'see' the other characters because they are separate from me - heroes, villains, youngsters, lords and ladies, etc, grand figures in a grand story.

But Frodo is, in a way, the ordinary person confronted by a great challenge,who rises to it in an admirable way. He is the possibility, to me, of my own ability to do such. In a sense, I look out from his eyes when I read the story, & in that respect it's hard to see one's own face.

[Susan Delgado]

C7A said:

This idea of treating PJ's Frodo as fanfiction also led me to another realization. One way I might comfortably look at the movie Frodo is to think of him as being about 21 years old, rather than 33. This is when Bilbo first adopted Frodo and brought him from Buckland to the Shire. He is the less secure young man, who has grown up largely "on his own" in the great hall of the Brandybucks (tons of relatives there, but no one special person) and still, I suspect, feels the loss of his parents.

I actually see Bilbo as incredibly important in Frodo's life, teaching him and helping him to mature in his 'tweens, an age which hobbits viewed as being a particularly critical and unpredictable time. In our focus on Frodo's friendship with Sam which is depicted with such insight in LotR, we often lose sight of Tolkien's view that Bilbo was actually the hobbit whom Frodo most longed to be with. To me, the movie Frodo with his fears and immaturities, his lack of spiritual awakening, might be more relevent to the time when he first came to Bilbo and Hobbiton

This would also mathc up with the way Jackson didn't allow the time to pass between the Party and Frodo's departure. In the movie, it seems like only a few weeks pass between the two events, so in the movie, Frodo is 17 years younger than in the book. Since he didn't have this time to mature, it's understandable that Elijah Wood would play him at his own age (20), which is probably about the equivalent of a Hobbit's 33.

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

I was reflecting on your observation of how important Bilbo was to The Real Frodo (BookFrodo). This always puzzled me and I realize it's because I always focus on Frodo's comment to Sam when Sam is reviewing the victuals supply, where Frodo calls Sam "friend of friends". I always assumed that that meant that Sam was his best friend yet.

But maybe "friend" holds less water than "uncle and friend" combined:

Bookwise: Frodo was adopted and moved into Bag End at twenty-one (but spent much time with Bilbo even before that; he was Bilbo's "favorite nephew". So Bilbo and Frodo lived together at Bag End, aristocratic bachelors (read-- no careers except what they chose to do for fun), until Bilbo left: when Frodo was Thirty Three, coming of age.

That's twelve years together... twelve years of walking and hiking, studying, eating, smoking, chatting, visiting the Green Dragon, and giving parties, not to mention visiting elves.

Have any of us ever spent twelve uninterrupted years (of aristocratic leisure-time, no less, with all our basic needs met by servants) with somebody chosen precisely because they have so many of our own interests? I think that's why Bilbo chose Frodo. Thinking of it that way, I'm amazed they were separable at all. I'm amazed that Bilbo didn't take Frodo with him. I'll have to think that over some more.

After Bilbo left, there was another seventeen years Frodo spent developing other friendships-- most noted are, Folco and Fatty, Pippin, and Merry. Sam is not listed as a "friend", interestingly enough. But none of those friends moved into Bag End, nor (seemingly) lived very close. So Frodo had twelve very close years with Bilbo, and then seventeen years of more casual friendships with Pippin, Merry, Fatty and Folco. Fatty and Folco stayed home.

And Sam was the servant. There was some affection there perhaps, and certainly some loyalty (hence Sam's choking under the window when he realised Frodo would leave) but nothing whatsoever to imply as close a relationship than Frodo had with his uncle.

And there was all that time, during those seventeen years, when Frodo was tempted, in the fall, to be off and following Bilbo, and see if perhaps he could even find him.

I wonder why Gandalf never mentioned, "Yes, Bilbo is safe and sound at Rivendell." Perhaps because Frodo would have been off and running down the road without a hat or pocket hankerchief.

So... "You were very fond of Bilbo, were you not?" "Indeed, yes, I would rather see him than all the (?mountains and towers?) in the world."

To me that makes far more sense now than it did.

Again, the movie leaves all this out. And since Wood had never read the Real Frodo, he had nothing to put into it, and Jackson, being a monster-expert, was more interested in the monsters than the heroes of the light. Too bad. (I gotta stop knocking the movie. For a fan-fiction, it really was superb.)

--Mark12_30

[Child of the 7th Age]

Estelyn - I agree with your assessment of Boromir. He is the one and only character where I actually prefer PJ's vision over Tolkien. I think there's a reason for that. If you look through Tolkien's Letters, you can see that Faramir was the character in the book that the author identified with most closely. The author explicitly states that Faramir is the character most like himself. Tolkien talks repeatedly in the Letters about Faramir and defends his actions.

Tolkien says very little about his brother Boromir and that is largely negative. Tolkien stated that Faramir was bossed around by his father and brother. Accordingly, he didn't have a lot of sympathy for the brother.

Tolkien's Boromir did repent his hasty actions towards Frodo and the Ring. However, if you compare the wording, PJ's scene is actually the more poignant with Boromir explicitly acknowledging the leadership of Aragorn.

There was another thread where we went into Tolkien's identification with Faramir and dislike of Boromir, but I don't remember exactly where it was!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[TarElendil]

And Sam was the servant. There was some affection there perhaps, and certainly some loyalty (hence Sam's choking under the window when he realised Frodo would leave) but nothing whatsoever to imply as close a relationship than Frodo had with his uncle.

I think sam and frodo's relationship as friends was no smaller (if not more) than Bilbo and Frodo's. Its just on two different grounds.

[mark12_30]

TarElendil,

Could you elaborate on that? Why do you think so? Are you thinking of passages from "A Long Expected Party" or the following chapters, that I've missed?

Thanks, --Mark12_30

[mark12_30]

Nar,

You wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to speculate on what Tolkien's Frodo would make of the movie Frodo? Suppose he turned up in one of those lovely dreams Wood's Frodo will have on the road to Mordor, what would he say to his young counterpart as they strolled together through meadows in the sun? I imagine he'd treat Wood's Frodo with some of the perceptive thoughtfulness he showed Sam.

C'mon.. .someone's gotta do this... Sharon? Nar?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -- LOL --Just had a look at your earlier posting. Didn't see it cause I was slowly doing this post. I will think about te question, but probably won't get back till Sunday. Hope someone else has some ideas on this too.

Here are additonal ideas on the book Frodo and his relation with Bilbo and Sam.

Chapter 2, "The Shadow of the Past" gives a clear list of Frodo's close friends--Folco, Fredegar, Pippin, and Merry. Sam isn't even mentioned.

Sam started out with Frodo in a master/servant relationship. We, in this country, have a hard time visualizing this because it is not really part of our heritage. Sense of class and class differences were much more pronounced in Britain, especially in Tolkien's day. Even in contemporary English society, these things still linger on in a way that is different from our own society.

I, myself, was a "nanny" and all round housemaid to a family in Kent, if only for a few months. So I had some first hand experience with this, at least on the servant end. (I don't think I've ever worked so hard in my life!!) My whole focus was the family, but in a definitely deferential role,

When I attended University over there for one year and later did research for a doctoral dissertation, people were always surprised to learn that my own father was a factory worker, and my grandfather was a miner from Cornwall. There were some academics in that situation, but it was definitely more rare than in the U.S. All this happened some 25-30 years ago; it may well be different today.

Sam's close relationship with Frodo really developed on the Ring quest, especially as the two made their way alone across Mordor. It's true that Sam still maintained his formal address, "Mr. Frodo", but it's also obvious that their friendship had gone far beyond any superficial class differences.

You know, Frodo had so many terrible things happen to him in the LotR. He was broken down in such a way that he could only find healing in the West, or perhaps even beyond the circles of the world. So it is kind of nice to think that the one personally positive thing he did achieve on that journey was his wonderful friendship and closeness with Sam.

Despite this strong friendship with Sam, the author stated in Letter 246 in 1963 that "Bilbo was the person that Frodo most loved." Helen mentioned the first time in Rivendell when Frodo said "I would raher see him (i.e. Bilbo) than all the towers and palaces in the world."

Returning from the quest in "Many Partings", Frodo said he wanted to journey to Rivendell: "For if there could be anything wanting in a time so blessed, I missed Bilbo..." Frodo then begged "leave to depart soon." Again he repeated, "I am going to Rivendell first, whatever happens."

It's easy to lose sight of Frodo's love for Bilbo. Most of it takes place between the Hobbit and the LotR, so we don't even have a written record of how this relationship grew. But it's clear that those 12 years, from when Frodo was adoped at age 21 and then up to his birthday at age 33, were obviously critical to his education as well as his feelings for Bilbo.

Again, the movie Frodo gives very little hint of this, not because of any failure on PJ's part, but because the actual events occurred before the beginning of the film.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

The images in my mind as I read the books over the years haven't been compromised by the movie. I was very disappointed in the movie. It left far too much out. I am still debating whether it would be a waste of money to see the next two when the first one was so barren of everything that Tolkein put into the three books. The movie has none of the charm of the books. I would not mind visiting Tolkien's middle earth. The movie's middle earth you can keep.

I must confess though, that the scene at the bridge of Khazad=dum was breathtaking. Exactly as I imagined it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Toad Onion Rock Pole Set -- Welcome to the Downs. I personally wouldn't go as far as your post about the disappointment you felt with the movie. I enjoyed many things about it, but there were also many disappointments. My frustration is that I sometimes find it difficult to get the images of the movie out of my head, even though I've been reading Tolkien since the mid-sixties. The depiction of Frodo primarily as a victim, the portrayal of Lorien, the lack of the Barrow-downs or Tom and apparently of the Scouring as well--all these were disappointing.

Have fun posting. Hope to see you again.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[akhtene]

I myself could sign under almost every word Bidland has written here. I also have difficulties with vizualising faces and places I read about. Another problrm I had while reading 'The Lord of the Rings' (at the age of 18) was the characters' age. Everything worked OK with immortal elves. But somehow I simply couldn't reconcile myself to the fact that Frodo was over 50 at the start of his quest. So I personally feel now quite comfortable with Frodo being so young in the film (though perhaps he could look a bit less angelic). Anyway every time I watch the film I feel that I like him more.
As for Frodo being made so helpless in the film, I could try to explain it this way. While reading the book we 'see' Frodo's brave actions, but we also read that he is terrified, desperate etc. Oh, please don't send all the curses on my poor head!!! [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img] By no means I wish to diminish Frodo, but this idea of struggling with fears or acting against his basic instincts is present in the book. Without knowing that, on the screen we'd get just another tough hero waving his sword or fists, which to my mind would be even further from Frodo's character.
But how can the character's thoughts be brought to public? By introducing lengthy monologues theatre-style? Or have somebody comment on what's going on in Frodo's mind? Even greater nonsense.
So Frodo of the book is strong because he overcomes his weakness and doubts(of which we can learn from the text). The film, to my mind, carries a different idea: no matter how weak Frodo is he is capable of making all-important decisions and taking a great burden upon his sholders.
And anyway, why not see the film just as one more illustration (vizualisation) of the book.

[mark12_30]

Ahktene,

You wrote:

but this idea of struggling with fears or acting against his basic instincts is present in the book. Without knowing that, on the screen we'd get just another tough hero waving his sword or fists, which to my mind would be even further from Frodo's character.

Actually, while I see your point about the fears needing to be visible, I have enough "faith" in Elijah Wood's acting to know that he could have shown fear, shown terror, adn still mastered himself and done the courageous thing.

Did you see him in Forever Young, as Nathan the 10-year-old, in the tree at night, singing "You are my sunshine" to that little redheaded girl? (best love scene in all of moviedom, IMHO) He clearly shows nervousness, momentary indecision, and intimidation when her father appears at the window. And yet, despite all this he gathers his courage (gulp) and launches into a spirited defense of his actions. "No, sir. This is no prank. I'm Nathan, I'm ten years old, and I'm in love with your daughter!" He gets told to go home, but Redhead is impressed.

I would have loved to see that (Nazgul replacing Intimidating Dad, of course) in this film. Black rider appears; Frodo is intimidated, terrified, indecisive for a second or three; but-- argh!-- he gathers some courage, draws his sword (panic-stricken eyes would still be fine) hollers "The Shire!" or "Elbereth!" or something and dives forward, attacking-- even though he's still scared. That would have been realistic.

Elijah could have done that all that and more with **NO** problem. The kid is good. Why, oh why, didn't PJ ask him to do it? Why did Elijah get "assignment: wymp?"

[Nar]

Ouch, Helen, you want me to answer my own question? It's hard! That's why I punted it to Sharon! Oh, all right, something's coming to me.

I see them walking together over green meadows with a very late golden sun shining, the time when every blade of grass throws its own shadow. This would be a late dream, so Frodolijiah (great name, Maril) would be looking pale & rather battered. Frodo I'm imagining from the year after the scouring, still tied to middle-earth, but slowly forming his resolution to go. One restless night, Frodo's dreaming self has wandered into this movie and, being a generous soul, gone to counsel his beleagered other self. He leads young Frodelijiah down a hill, and they pause by a stream. Frodo turns to him.

'Well, young Frodo,' he says, 'I see the terror in your eyes. I see the fear of Sauron's creatures, the fear of death or capture, and the fear of failure. Most of all I see the fear of being left alone with it. This fear is growing on you. I understand. I felt it too, in my time. Sometimes I feel it still. It's worse for you now than it was for me, because you've known nothing in your life but real friendship. You found Sam out much sooner than I did. In all the time since Bilbo left, I've had to take just a part of what I need from each friend, because none of them could give me everything. Good cheer from Pippin, good counsel from Merry, good fellowship from Fatty, good faith from Sam. I had to journey as far as you and farther, all the way to Cirith Ungol, to learn all that Sam was capable of, when you've always been permitted to know it. Today, if I had to sum up the Shire, I'd say: Sam. Sam is the Shire to me, and I know whatever path I take, Sam will be with me, one way and then another, bringing everything the Shire is in his own soul. Because you know this now, the terror of the descending darkness that covers the face of the world and even the face of your best friend is all the sharper. It was easier for me to endure, because I've been essentially alone for so long. I was alone until I woke up in Sam's arms on the long stair to Cirith Ungol, and then I knew I was no longer alone; I knew I had a friend to match Bilbo. You will learn this too, that Sam is nearby, or following, even if you can't see it. Even if you don't believe it. When you can neither see nor think of anything but that thing in our minds, you'll hear him, and you'll be comforted.'

Ahh, well. I tried. Anyone else?

Edit: I see you've posted at the same time as me, Helen-- I'd been thinking about that Weathertop scene, which was so unfair to Frodo in the movie. I think the reason for it was that all the movies were shot together under such pressure. There are a couple of visual moments that were repeated, I think because PJ couldn't fit any more visualization in his brain. He was just too overwhelmed, and relied on a stock image in his mind signifying 'terror,' and varied only by scene and monster. It may also be that in the case of 'hobbit is dangled by one foot by troll/watcher' there was a limit on the special effects available. I don't think PJ could have carefully reviewed all the shots that would be used while everyone was there, or perhaps PJ has greater tolerance for favorite images than I do. That particular Weathertop scene stood out because it was so very wrong. On second viewing, I noticed in the movie that Frodo actually struck a few blows at the Troll in Moria, but never connected as he did in the book. The way the scene was shot and cut, those heroics were swallowed up, and the general impression was of continual fleeing ending in that same blasted corner as on Weathertop. I'm not sure if that was intended-- I think it wasn't. The director was denied a certain period of thought and review he would have had if he'd shot the movies one at a time-- but if he had, all the actors would have aged much more between movies, which wouldn't have been right. We can console ourselves with that, perhaps.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Birdland]

So many interesting comments! Where do I start?

I certainly could not have imagined him (Boromir) smiling, laughing, playing with the hobbits as he taught them sword-fighting, tousling Frodo’s hair...

Estelyn - I agree that Sean Bean brought some beautiful dimensions to the role of Boromir, but I saw the "head-patting" scene a a perfect, non-verbal way to express the Gondorian's underlying pride and condenscension towards these "half-men" who had, "by unhappy chance", been handed such a powerful weapon.

I mean, come on! He's patting the head of a 50-year-old grown-up, even if he is only 3 and a half feet tall. How would any of us take such a gesture? (And the look that Frodolijah gives him was priceless! Like Boromir's about to get B***h-slapped!)

Moving on to the Frodo-Bilbo relationship, (which is slightly off-thread-topic, but fun anyway). I always saw the two as having a kind of Socratic relationship, with Bilbo being the teacher-mentor-friend to his most promising pupil. It must have been heaven for the young, intelligent, restless hobbit, growing up in Buckland Hall as a well-looked after, but often-overlooked, orphan. Who can blame him for loving Bilbo as he did?

Getting back on topic: I did see an Alan Lee illustration of Bilbo in Rivendell, where the old hobbit bore a remarkable resemblence to Benjamin Franklin! The perfect teacher!

As for the perfect Frodo "look"; I'm thinking of browsing through an image search of European and Britannic faces, and seeing if I find a picture that says "Frodo", to me. If I find one, I'll try to post it here.

Hey, if nothing else, maybe I can start a new career as a casting director. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Birdland]

Oh, one more comment: I agree with Mark. The only thing that bothered me seriously about the film was P.J. stealing Frodo's thunder at the Ford.

Elijah Wood was robbed, being denied that scene. Robbed, I tell ye!

[mark12_30]

Nar:

Frodo Counsellor guiding Frodolijah: Brilliant.

PJ's reusing the slide-into-corner-retreat: Perhaps you are right. But the impression that I get (unfortunately, it was suggested by a critic and it has stuck) is that PJ is a monster-expert., and can make the most believeable BadThing (troll, balrog, black riders, Eye, traitorous wizard, teeming hordes of orcs...) and just not that good at doing, well, goodness.

Virtue is just not his thing. He's better at portraying vice. Isn't that why Galadriel comes across as oooo-spooky and scary, rather than shining and trustworthy? Why is Lorien spooky? And even Elrond has more of a temper than I ever pictured him having. Gandalf has the deepest patience of any character in the movie, and I attribute that to MacKellan's study of Tolkien and his hounding of PJ to let him use canonical lines (Bravo!).

Ranting. Sorry. You could send FrodoCounselor to calm me down... heh.

[mark12_30]

Nar, I just wanted to add I've been pondering FrodoCounsellor ministering to Frodolijah off and on since I read it. Really.

Good work. Do you write fiction often?

[Nar]

Helen, thank you very much. *sighs with happiness* Yes, I write every morning; on a fantasy novel which I started purely to please the folks on Littlemanpoet's 'serious fantasy writer' thread, and some stories. The novel's a real world / other world story with multigenerational protagonists. Have to stop myself or I'll be way off topic.

On PJ's limitations with goodness, I thought that the depiction of Frodolijiah and Sam's 'Best friendship,' in the Shire was a competent depiction of goodness. That was of course not in the book, but it was an understandable change when you think of all that has to be explained about an eccentric country 'master' and a smart, unusually educated 'servant'. I liked all the Shire material. The foreshadowing of Sam's later role in the adventure, the cornfield scene, for example, I found heavyhanded, but sincere and moving. I think the Shire sequence shows he can do justice to goodness, I really do. I was disappointed in the Lorien of the movie because it should be a place that embodies sunlight and they chose to show it at night, but I thought that they just misjudged the importance of light and golden-leaved trees rather than that they were unable to do goodness. Perhaps they couldn't make convincingly golden leaves. Beeches do that golden roofed look well, but there may be no beech forests in New Zealand, I don't actually know. The director barks 'Get me some beeches! At least 50 feet tall! Comandeer a container ship, just get it done! Rip up Nottingham forest if you have to!'

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]