 by -
GaugeMistress
(Sat Mar 22 15:24:10)
|
|
 UPDATED Sun Mar 23 15:15:54 |
Don't you know who I am? Tolkien repeatedly confronts his characters and his readers with this question, playing on our perceptions, memories, and expectations. I postulate that Peter Jackson rises to the challenge of reinterpreting the mistaken-identity device for film.
Perceptions about identity play a crucial role in the struggle for good in Middle Earth, as the lure of the ring creates distortion and the perversion of wisdom. Contrast the subjugated Theoden ("Theoden no longer recognizes friend from foe") with the fair Galadriel, who instantly sees to the heart of each member of the fellowship, calling them by their true names. Even Frodo's vision becomes clouded as his grasp on the ring grows tighter ("Don't you know your Sam?").
More specifically, direct confusion of one identity for another abounds. Consider Frodo realizing that it was Gollum who pulled him out of the water in the Dead Marshes, or orcs who capture the wrong halflings, or Boromir learning the lineage of the man he thought was a mere ranger, or... (you were wondering when I'd get to this...) Gandalf the White being taking for Saruman.
The concept itself was nothing new, of course; Tolkien knew the stories of the Biblical patriarchs, Greek mythology, and Shakespeare's comedies (among many examples, several involving the exchange of gifts or absurd pregnancies). However, I propose that Tolkien made intentional (or at least non-random) use of this device, deftly revealing the character of the one who was mistaken.
(Indulge me for a minute, and read the last phrase of that paragraph again. Did you take it as a reference to the person who was incorrect, as in "I was mistaken when I made that false accusation"? Or as a reference to the one about whom wrong assumptions were made, as in "I was mistaken for my older sister"? For the record, I meant both.  )
Finally, I'll note that this an interesting device to carry over into film. The entire event is a cognitive one, hinging on sensory perceptions and complex associations within a mind, such that a literal adaptation is difficult. When the medium is words, we can have direct narrative visibility into an event of the mind. Through the lens, an effective director might use several means. For example, when Gandalf the White first appears in the film, we see only white hair and a white robe; Christopher Lee's voice is actually morphed into Ian McKellen's as the face is brought into focus. When Frodo is rescued from the water, the previous sequence has us thinking of Sam, and the hand pulling Frodo is filmed to be ambiguous until the sudden switch to a full view of Gollum. Musical themes associated with characters can be used to form associations and expectations below the level of conscious awareness.
So what do you think? Do you see other examples of this theme in LOTR (film/book)? How was it accomplished, and what message did it leave with you? For examples from the film, any thoughts on the directing? Or do you disagree with my premises entirely? 
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
Great post! This is kinda a lame answer, but mainly I just want to bump it up where it belongs :)
In the director's commentary, PJ talks about the Bree scene where the Nazgul are about to stab the "hobbits", and there's a shot of Strider through the window looking kinda evil, the idea being that non-book readers might think for a moment that he has double crossed them and he's evil. I think this has limited effectivness because (a) Most people know he's Aragorn, (b) Even of those who don't, most people know Viggo is a main character and a protagonist, just based on the press, and (c) No one could honestly have believed that they were killing off Elijah Wood in the first 30 minutes of the movie, him being the star of all three and all (and also most films don't kill of every character they've so carefully established with 2 and a half hours to go, leaving the audience with strangers). People would have had to go into the film completely unaware of _anything_ about this movie (and ignorant of moviemaking, given the last point), and I think that group was probably pretty small. But apparently that was part of PJ's purpose in that scene--give Strider a little more mystery for a few seconds.
Also, in the beginning of Lothlorien, Gimli describes Galadriel as more or less an evil sorceress (don't remember his exact words). She hasn't been mentioned to date, and he's making her seem antagonistic, when really she's (more or less) benevolent, a fact which comes out in drips and drabs throughout the rest of the scenes (talking about the movie--I don't remember the book).
Also: Faramir seeing Frodo and Sam as servants of the enemy, Treebeard seeing M&P as orcs, and Wormtongue, although I'm not sure how long anyone believes that he's anything but what he is (he's fairly transparent).
Also the ultimate: Gollum/Smeagol. Is he or isn't he?
As I said, this is kinda lame (and not very well thought out), but your post made me think of it. Will have to brainstorm for anything else (and to make sure my points hold water).
Orcs so silly.
|
|
|
I really appreciate your response!
I had similar thoughts about Strider. It's not quite at the level of a plot twist in the movie, for the reasons you describe, but it is a good little echo of the uncertainty that will pervade character development across the story. If you aren't familiar with actor and you're still piecing the plot together, the window shot at the inn adds a little bit of extra dramatic tension. Otherwise -- as Philippa Boyens points out (or was it Fran Walsh?) -- at least it's a gorgeous shot of Viggo.
Gollum/Smeagol is certainly an interesting case study! The cinematic details used to distinguish between Smeagol and his internal doppleganger were individually subtle but collectively powerful, in my opinion. The difference is immediately perceived, but it might take multiple viewings to observe the ways the eyes dilate, the vocal pitch changes, and the facial muscles are held slightly differently.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Mar 23 09:46:26)
|
|
I can't believe I missed this thread. Good one GM.
Perceptions about identity play a crucial role in the struggle for good in Middle Earth
Very true. My favourite example of changing perceptions is Aragorn. He is first introduced to us as Strider and described by Barliman Butterbur as one of those Rangers, and not to be trusted. Frodo at first thought he was a rascal. Frodo reasoned that he was not a servant of the enemy because he would "seem fairer and feel fouler". We get this image of a dark and mysterious stranger whose purpose is unknown. Bilbo's poem about him "All that is gold does not glitter..." gives us a hint as to what lies beneath, but we don't imagine the noble character that Aragorn is to become.
Strider becomes Aragorn, not only in name, but in our regard for him, and the image in our minds, and in the minds of the Hobbits. His lineage is announced at Rivendell, and this changes our perception of him. This perception continues to evolve as Gandalf relies upon Aragorn, and, with Gandalf's fall, Aragorn becomes the leader of the Fellowship. As they get closer to Gondor, Aragorn starts announcing who he is. For example, when he met Eomer on the plains of Rohan, he first introduced himself as Strider. Eomer said there was something strange about him and said "That is no name for a Man that you give", and there was doubt and mistrust between them. After Eomer declares who he is, Aragorn throws back his cloak and swept out Anduril and said "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn..." - I loved that part. Eomer responded with "Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass" and called him "lord".
Aragorn ultimately transforms into Elessar. His majestic arrival at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields gives me goose bumps just thinking about it. He is changing not just in name but in bearing and majesty. The woman in the Houses of Healing recognizes him as the King though he has not declared it.
By the end of it, we actually imagine Aragorn differently. No longer is he the scruffy, dark rascal that we first perceived. He is a shining example of what a man should be - bright and strong and wise. He is King Elessar. God, I can't wait for Return of the King!
Another example of how perception affects things is the Orcs' belief that Sam is an elven lord, and what he accomplishes because of that at Cirith Ungol.
Also, let's not forget Boromir's amusement when Bilbo declared he would take the Ring to Mordor. He misperceived the Hobbits because of their size, and was astounded to see that others had such respect for Bilbo. If you think about it, this misperception of the Hobbits based on size is a major theme in the book. Clearly, by the end of the book, few people had the same impression of Hobbits as they did to start with.
|
|
|
This isn't as long or well thought out as previous posts...but Aule's comment about the Hobbits reminded me of the part where Bergil mistakes Pippin for a child and starts challenging him.
I fear not the shadows of Men
|
|
|
That little speech to the Rohirrim, the one that ends, "Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose quickly!" -- that is one of my favorite moments. (It's one of those lines from the book that I hope I get to use in real life some day.) I actually heard those lines used in a speech recently, to illustrate the concept of "a man who knows he is".
There is ubiquitous confusion of noble for ignoble, and capable for incapable, as you more clearly bring out. It is a pointed lesson in not being too quick too deal out judgement. You not only see that first impressions can be misleading in general, but you see that you, the audience, may have misjudged a character, without real deception from the storyteller.
Aragorn also provides one example that lies thematically apart from these. As paul hawthorne points out on a different thread, Aragorn initially mistakes Arwen for Luthien. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/nest/1004377) This seems to be one pattern in a larger tapestry that shows us how the stories of our lives have been told before (or perhaps the course repeats itself unless we actively choose to tell a different story with our life, as with Aragorn and Isildur.) Their love was not weaker because he initially called to her, "Tinuviel". Rather, it resounded with the past as with a musical resonance.
Thank you for your thoughts, and for bringing to mind some images from the books that are dear to me.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Mar 23 15:05:52)
|
|
Beautifully put. I can't believe this thread hasn't received more attention. I'm going to point it out to Paul tonight when I see him.
|
|
|
Oh, of course -- I've now edited the thread subject to include "SPOILERS". If ever there was a topic that you shouldn't read if you don't want to spoil surprises...
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
"Don't you know who I am?"
No, not really. One of the wonders of the internet, isn't it?
Sean :)
|
|
|
Indeed.
There is so much importance in Middle Earth to the power of naming, of knowing true names and true characters. On this forum, we also can have many names if we choose. We toy with building up trust, with one other person or with a community, some choosing to give our deepest thoughts but not our names, some giving a real name and nothing more. Even trolls who try to get accounts deleted don't just seek to cause mayhem -- they often seek to have people remember their invented names, hence the obvious connection to the recently deleted account. A modern day masquerade, and AT&T will bring it to you (or Cisco, or Microsoft, or AOL...).
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Yes, the JPBF user is an excellent real-world example of this phenomenon. He/she/it ('he' for ease of use, eh?) seems to both build up trust through active and worthwhile contribution, but then later seeks to use this trust in a damaging fashion through name-calling and divisiveness. But is this always the pattern? Perhaps the user is affected by his interactions, even sometimes to the point you suggest - giving his deepest thoughts under a cover identity? True information becomes disinformation due to lack of trust.
"Some giving a real name and nothing more"? Seems to me everyone gives something.
Sean :)
|
|
|
On this board, I've chosen to reveal several things about myself, including some attempts at deep thoughts (hey, I tried ), but not my real name.
Yes, that "name and nothing more" statement of mine needs clarification, and still doesn't really apply to this board. Thank you for pointing that out. Everyone contributes! But people reveal themselves to varying degrees -- that was the idea in my mind. (Then why didn't I just type that? We may never know.) On some boards/forums, people might use a real name, but never post anything except helpful technical answers. That reveals a willingness to help, but little more. However, on IMDb, and particularly on this board, I really don't see much of that behavior.
Thanks for participating in this thread, by the way! I don't think it will be able to compete with Oscar talk this week, but at least I got some interesting responses.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Always glad to help. After all, it's no point parading if no one's watching. I know that I really shouldn't feed trolls, but I'm not sure you're so much of a troll as a presence. It's your trollish behaviour I object to, not your existence on the board.
See you round,
Sean :)
|
|
|
Trollish behavior? Uh-oh! I'm not sure what I've done to create offense in this case, but I'm sending you a PM to inquire. If I have bothered anybody, please let me know; it's likely that the problem was unintentional, and I'd like to not repeat the mistake.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
sean-molloy
(Wed Mar 26 12:19:41)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Mar 26 12:21:38 |
My apologies for leaping to any incorrect assumptions, GaugeMistress. There is a user on the board who uses many identities, and regularly commits trollish behaviour. I apologise if I mistakenly identified you as him.
An interesting object lesson in the topic at hand, no?
Sean :)
|
|
|
Oh, phew. That does make sense to me, now. I responded to a post about some trolls by immediately talking about my own secretive tendencies. Rather misleading of me. For the record, I have only posted on IMDb under the name I use now.
Of all the ambiguities I've accidentally created on this board, this was a pretty topical one!
Sometimes I don't even understand what I'm saying myself -- oh, wait, that's for a later thread that paul will create. (See below.)
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Great post, GaugeMistress. Very thought-provoking.
The road may pass, but they shall not! Not while Faramir is Captain.
|
|
|
Hi GaugeMistress very interesting thread! It's early in the morning right now! But I will be back tomorrow to respond with more depth.
|
|
|
A great post, that's really got me thinking (hence the delay in responding!)
It's given me a chance to articulate some thoughts I had when I last saw TTT:
Sam's question when Frodo mistakenly attacks him - "Don't you know your Sam?" made me realise how little any of the characters, or the reader/moviegoer at that point, (or even Sam himself) does know about Sam's true character.
As you said, Tolkien plays with our expectations, and never more so than with Sam. He is the lowliest of the four hobbits, a simple gardener - he goes with the fellowship simply because of his loyal devotion to Frodo. But from that devotion springs an unexpected and unprecedented courage. It's because of Sam that Frodo finds the strength to reach Mordor; and when Sam believes Frodo to be dead, he summons up yet more courage and decides to continue the quest alone - taking the ring and the Light. This leads to (as Aule has mentioned) Sam being mistaken for a "great elvish warrior".
One of the great strengths of the book is that it is the least "heroic" character that ends up as the real hero.
I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love
|
|
|
I would like to take the direction of your thoughts about perception one step further in the area of the disillusioned self. When one doesn’t recognize what one has become. I believe that Tolkien demonstrates this example with “The Nazgul” these mightiest of the dark lord’s servants, enslaved long ago to the will of Sauron. They were once kings of men, but look at them now… How could they possibly recognize themselves from before? There discontent with the status quo, as Kings turns into disaffection with oneself. The trap being a sense of power offered too them by Sauron.
Don't you know who I am? Tolkien repeatedly confronts his characters and his readers with this question.
The Nazul may say yes, but I scarcely remember who I once was.
Perception is everything!
|
|
|
Very interesting thoughts, Paul. The theme of self perception in LOTR is an intriguing one. I think Aule also began to pick up on that in his Hobbits thread, which was lost in the Great Purge. Perhaps this theme, with its focus on the internal, would be best discussed in an independent thread?
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Thanks veetree, I will give it some thought! I'll run it by Aule as well... see what he thinks too.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Mar 25 22:56:28)
|
|
Agreed. Great idea.
|
|
|
A splendid idea.
The road may pass, but they shall not! Not while Faramir is Captain.
|
|
|
I'll look forward to the other thread. Gollum is also a deep well of inner schism along these lines. Contrast his inability to recapture his past self with Strider's struggle to take hold of his future self. At the pivotal moments of this struggle, Gollum divides his own self in two, while Strider merges his own identity and that of Isildur into one, and... and... <<shush, Mistress! Not here!>> Yes. Right then. I'll wait for the other thread.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
I dont know if it’s completely related with the confusion of identities, but from the book I think is very interesting the character of Tom Bombadil.
You never get an explanation of who he is, why is he in Middle Earth, where do his powers come from (I mean, the ring seems to have no effect over him, and he has some power over Old man Willow and the Barrow Downs).
For me he is a character that remains a mistery, but that is clearly very important, if I’m not mistaken, Elrond and Gandalf discuss why he wont get involved in their quest, during the Council of Elrond, and Gandalf pays him a visit after the ring was destroyed. From a first impression, Tom is just an excentric fellow who lives in the forest, but you come to realize that he has to be someone of great importance in Middle Earth.l but we still don’t know who he is.
I didn't lose my mind it was mine to give away...
|
|
|
| by -
lkalliance
(Thu Apr 17 09:11:07)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu Apr 17 09:12:41 |
Oh, the threads one misses when one spends his time flirting with Shakra instead. Hmmmm...
Some elegant responses have been made to an elegant post, and I'll add my own meager voice to it. I'd like to look at it from the opposite direction...rather than the inherent power of hiding but the power of revelation and insight. In Tolkien, if you can name it, you can use its power. Hence Elrond recoils at the use of the Black Tongue, and Gandalf is judicious in naming Sauron out in the open, and in fact Sauron himself does not allow his name to be uttered or spelled by his servants.
Gauge's example of Galadriel is to me the clearest example. Here is a being that knows a lot of truths. She can cut through the webs of deceit and let her puissance confront the inner being. Aule's description of Aragorn and his transformation into Elessar is actually something I see differently. I've argued in other analyses that characters like Aragorn don't, in fact, grow their inner character. Strider does not grow into Elessar, in my view. He REVEALS himself as Elessar; he chooses the time and manner of his revelations.
At Isengard, as Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and the young hobbits gather round to share their tales, Aragorn wraps his cloak tightly around him and takes a pull at his pipe. One of the hobbits cries out "Look, Strider the Ranger has returned!" and Aragorn responds that he had never left, that he is both Ranger and heir of Gondor.
I actually used to chuckle sometimes at what appeared to be a lot of predestiny in Tolkien. There is one Vala, Mandos, who appears to know precisely what is going to happen. Not even Manwë knows all, but Mandos seems to have a direct line to the Themes of Illuvatar. Be that as it may, the example that I always think of is the overthrow of Angmar.
The last remnants of Arthedain, including King Arvedui, have fled. Gondor's King Earnil has sent aid, but too late. Still, the mighty army that lands at the Forlond or the Harlond or one of the londs sweeps away the forces of Angmar. Earnur, himself later to be the last king of Gondor until Elessar, pursues the Witch King, but Glorfindel (Glorfindel? Who's he?) rides up and stays Earnur, saying "not by the hand of man will he fall."
And of course, the Witch King probably derived a lot of power and dread just from that somewhat vague pronouncement. But at the crucial moment, when the Witch King is faced with the one who will in fact kill him, the moment that individual is revealed as not, in fact, being a man is a moment of great doubt for the sorcerer. At last there is a name for his doom in place of the vague "not a man": woman. Shadow has been replaced by knowledge. And consummation of the prophecy is immediate.
===============
As an aside, I used to laugh at Glorfindel's pronouncement. There are moments I'm extremely cynical about the Elves, and this is one of them. I can just imagine him riding up in a hurry (perhaps he had been having trouble tying the little bells into his horse's mane without his morning coffee, or whatever), realizing he's too late to get to the Witch King himself, and thinks "Oh, jeez, I've got to think of something clever, quick!" and blurts out the prophecy off the top of his head. A self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps, that affected the minds and strategies of Gondor's leaders ever after (except Earnur, who as king rode off to face the Lord of the Nazgul and never returned).
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
"Boromir, quit trying to cut off Frodo's head ..." ~ Blatant favoritism most annoying.
|
|
|
...the angels had guitars even before they had wings...
|
|
|
...the angels had guitars even before they had wings...
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
