movie Faramir and the greatness of change
Some days ago, during my internet-less time, I talked with Padma about the Lord of the Rings films, and she more or less asked if the main reason I like Faramir in the films is because I think David Wenham is pretty.
And, well, I'm not going to deny that David Wenham is pretty, as well as talented enough to give resonance to any sort of writing. But I don't think that's the main reason the character appeals to me. Simply put, I think the character changes work.
Not so simply put, I'll have to start with Boromir. In the books, I had a lot of compassion for him, but found it hard to actually like him. He was too grim, too forbidding. And yet at the same time, there are hints through the books that he's supposed to be something else, like Pippin's thoughts upon seeing Faramir: "Pippi gazing at him saw how closely he resembled his brother Boromir - whom Pippin had liked from the first, admiring the great man's lordly but kindly manner."
In the films, Sean Bean fulfilled those hints, giving a Boromir that was softer than my impression of the books, lighter, so that you could see how he, when he wasn't burdened by his country's future and his longing for the ring, must have been a great man indeed. In the Osgiliath scene, there is a glow to him that makes him resemble a young Zeus. (Though without the philandering. Okay, a young Thor maybe.)
Nobody has had any problem with that characterisation, I just feel that it's a necessary background before I move on to Faramir.
In the books, Faramir is good to the core. He's not even tempted by the ring. He's intelligent and well-versed, yet "one whom no Rider of the Mark would outmatch in battle." And he foresees the future.
As much as I love the guy, the only reason he doesn't get the "Canon Sue ahoy" Geiger counter beeping like crazy is because Aragorn has already claimed that corner of the sky.
In the films, he is still a good man and a great one. Properly nurtured, he will leave Boromir long behind and become the man he always was in the books. But of course, he's not properly nurtured.
One of Peter Jackson's most consistent ideas is that no one is immune to the ring. Some fall faster and harder than others, but it's always a temptation. Since I was prepared for the changes in Faramir, I half accepted it even upon seeing TTT the first time, despite some gripes with how it was carried out. (Specifically, the timing of when he changed his mind was disastrous. "Here, halfling, since you're willing to give up the ring to the first Nazgul that comes along, I'll let you walk into Mordor alone.") Now that I've seen the long version, though, I think it's a crime that they cut the Osgiliath scene, because that's what gives us the "why" of the thing.
Faramir doesn't want the ring for himself - it doesn't lure him the way it lured Boromir. Instead it speaks to character traits that at another time would be strengths: Loyalty, and a desire to be loved. Faramir knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he ignores his own conscience because he wishes to honour is beloved brother and please his father. (Another minor gripe I still have: I do wish they'd taken out the "prove his worth" line. It explains a lot, yes, but since he doesn't actually prove his worth until later, I think the poetry is rather lost.)
Carrying the theme into the third film, where Faramir is allowed to deepen more (both in the original cut and the extended version), we get to see more of the Dysfunctional Family of Hell. And though it's clear that Faramir in no way deserves his father's treatment, it's not quite as King Lear and "I wouldn't know what a good child was if s/he died in my arms" as in the books. Instead of being the second greatest thing since sliced bread (Aragorn being the greatest, of course), Faramir is someone who's always struggling to measure up, and always failing. I think the physical resemblance and differences between the actors work to emphasize that: Faramir may be smarter than his brother, a better person,a wiser leader, and ultimately just as brave or more, but he's never going to have his physical presence. (If Boromir is a Zeus, Faramir reminds me most of all of Robin Hood, especially in this TTT outfit.)
So if Faramir is a good but flawed person, and Boromir is also a good but flawed person, doesn't that make them too similar?
I don't think so. First, I have to point out that IMO, they're not supposed to be entirely different - this isn't Cordelia vs. Goneril and Regan, after all. Physically, they're supposed to be very alike, which they are, but from Pippin's thoughts and some other canonical hints, I got the impression that it's more than just physicality, that the closeness between them was in part due to differences that matched each other rather than just clashed.
And I think it kind of works that way in the films. If they're both flawed, they're still flawed in very different ways. Boromir is a man basking in glory, and yet with a pride and presumption that will be his downfall. He can regret his errors, but he can't stop himself from doing them. Faramir, in his turn, has never been given a break. His moral compass is finer atuned than Boromir's, and he has no wish for his own glory. He is not only a better man than Boromir, he's of a fundamentally different temper. Though he'll always do good, it's not until he can rid himself from Boromir's shadow (which was never a problem between just the two of them) that he can fulfil his own destiny.
(On a note as much on the books as on the films, I find it interesting that he ends up with Eowyn, who has more in common with Boromir than with himself. It seems like he's unconsciously struggling to uphold that ying/yang balance.)
Faramir has changed, yes. He's now a man of more onions, sorry, layers. And I for one don't think that's a bad thing.
Now, as for Denethor and why someone mad should never be played as mad... that's a whole different kettle of fish. :-)
And, well, I'm not going to deny that David Wenham is pretty, as well as talented enough to give resonance to any sort of writing. But I don't think that's the main reason the character appeals to me. Simply put, I think the character changes work.
Not so simply put, I'll have to start with Boromir. In the books, I had a lot of compassion for him, but found it hard to actually like him. He was too grim, too forbidding. And yet at the same time, there are hints through the books that he's supposed to be something else, like Pippin's thoughts upon seeing Faramir: "Pippi gazing at him saw how closely he resembled his brother Boromir - whom Pippin had liked from the first, admiring the great man's lordly but kindly manner."
In the films, Sean Bean fulfilled those hints, giving a Boromir that was softer than my impression of the books, lighter, so that you could see how he, when he wasn't burdened by his country's future and his longing for the ring, must have been a great man indeed. In the Osgiliath scene, there is a glow to him that makes him resemble a young Zeus. (Though without the philandering. Okay, a young Thor maybe.)
Nobody has had any problem with that characterisation, I just feel that it's a necessary background before I move on to Faramir.
In the books, Faramir is good to the core. He's not even tempted by the ring. He's intelligent and well-versed, yet "one whom no Rider of the Mark would outmatch in battle." And he foresees the future.
As much as I love the guy, the only reason he doesn't get the "Canon Sue ahoy" Geiger counter beeping like crazy is because Aragorn has already claimed that corner of the sky.
In the films, he is still a good man and a great one. Properly nurtured, he will leave Boromir long behind and become the man he always was in the books. But of course, he's not properly nurtured.
One of Peter Jackson's most consistent ideas is that no one is immune to the ring. Some fall faster and harder than others, but it's always a temptation. Since I was prepared for the changes in Faramir, I half accepted it even upon seeing TTT the first time, despite some gripes with how it was carried out. (Specifically, the timing of when he changed his mind was disastrous. "Here, halfling, since you're willing to give up the ring to the first Nazgul that comes along, I'll let you walk into Mordor alone.") Now that I've seen the long version, though, I think it's a crime that they cut the Osgiliath scene, because that's what gives us the "why" of the thing.
Faramir doesn't want the ring for himself - it doesn't lure him the way it lured Boromir. Instead it speaks to character traits that at another time would be strengths: Loyalty, and a desire to be loved. Faramir knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he ignores his own conscience because he wishes to honour is beloved brother and please his father. (Another minor gripe I still have: I do wish they'd taken out the "prove his worth" line. It explains a lot, yes, but since he doesn't actually prove his worth until later, I think the poetry is rather lost.)
Carrying the theme into the third film, where Faramir is allowed to deepen more (both in the original cut and the extended version), we get to see more of the Dysfunctional Family of Hell. And though it's clear that Faramir in no way deserves his father's treatment, it's not quite as King Lear and "I wouldn't know what a good child was if s/he died in my arms" as in the books. Instead of being the second greatest thing since sliced bread (Aragorn being the greatest, of course), Faramir is someone who's always struggling to measure up, and always failing. I think the physical resemblance and differences between the actors work to emphasize that: Faramir may be smarter than his brother, a better person,a wiser leader, and ultimately just as brave or more, but he's never going to have his physical presence. (If Boromir is a Zeus, Faramir reminds me most of all of Robin Hood, especially in this TTT outfit.)
So if Faramir is a good but flawed person, and Boromir is also a good but flawed person, doesn't that make them too similar?
I don't think so. First, I have to point out that IMO, they're not supposed to be entirely different - this isn't Cordelia vs. Goneril and Regan, after all. Physically, they're supposed to be very alike, which they are, but from Pippin's thoughts and some other canonical hints, I got the impression that it's more than just physicality, that the closeness between them was in part due to differences that matched each other rather than just clashed.
And I think it kind of works that way in the films. If they're both flawed, they're still flawed in very different ways. Boromir is a man basking in glory, and yet with a pride and presumption that will be his downfall. He can regret his errors, but he can't stop himself from doing them. Faramir, in his turn, has never been given a break. His moral compass is finer atuned than Boromir's, and he has no wish for his own glory. He is not only a better man than Boromir, he's of a fundamentally different temper. Though he'll always do good, it's not until he can rid himself from Boromir's shadow (which was never a problem between just the two of them) that he can fulfil his own destiny.
(On a note as much on the books as on the films, I find it interesting that he ends up with Eowyn, who has more in common with Boromir than with himself. It seems like he's unconsciously struggling to uphold that ying/yang balance.)
Faramir has changed, yes. He's now a man of more onions, sorry, layers. And I for one don't think that's a bad thing.
Now, as for Denethor and why someone mad should never be played as mad... that's a whole different kettle of fish. :-)