Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Secularism gets Tolkien Wrong
I have had to check out of Ricochet for a while because I was assigned to write a book, which is cool but to get anything done on that project I needed to take a break. I came back to the site and started reading posts and sure enough that made it impossible for me not to write up a post myself. A post by @LoisLane really inspired me to write I post I have been thinking about for a very long time you can find her excellent post and fascinating comment thread here
The Lord of the Rings movies differed from the books in many ways, which is to be expected since a movie and a book are very different mediums. For instance at the “Breaking of the Fellowship” I think it was vital to the movie to show Boromir fighting for Merry and Pippin and Aragorn “avenging” Boromir. I saw the Fellowship of the Ring three times in the theater and each time the audience was on the edge of their seats as Boromir redeemed himself and they erupted in applause when Aragorn dispatched the Uruk-hai that killed Boromir.
Tolkien handled that situation perfectly in the books too and he did not need to “show” us anything, but that was because is was a book and not a movie. Other decisions that Jackson and Co. made are debatable but understandable I think due to the medium that Jackson was working in. Did Gimli, Merry and Pippin need to become so strongly comical in the movie? Did Jackson merge Gimli, Merry and Pippin’s heroism well with their comic turns? For me in the movies Gimli was basically two characters, Merry had a well-done hero’s journey and Pippin was ill-used by Mr. Jackson. Despite my quibbles with how those characters were used I understand the choices made by Jackson because of the needs of a movie. Even Arwen and Legolas are understandable in that to have the payoff of Arwen and Aragorn uniting in marriage at the end of the movie you need to see her in the movies. While I find Legolas super hero turn to be personally baffling I get the idea that Jackson really wanted some stunning visuals in the battle scenes and thought that an Elf could do things men could not do. So we see Legolas as a super hero, who inexplicitly lost a killing contest with Gimli who was not a super hero, but most people loved Legolas in the movies so what do I know?
What constantly bothers me about the movies is Jackson and co.’s inability to understand the clear Christian themes in the books or even the ability to recognize those themes causing them to butcher some of the most important characters in the books. In what follows I will focus on Frodo and Sam, Faramir and Gollum. I could bring in other characters too like Aragorn, Gandalf, Theoden and Eowyn to name a few but I think the ones I name make the clearest examples for the case I am making.
Frodo and Sam
When I first read the books at 13 I was blown away by how amazing the books were and I was totally lost in the world that Tolkien had made. At the time I was working on being confirmed in my church because my parents had told me that if I got confirmed I was free to choose to go to church or not. I wanted to be confirmed so I could choose not to go to church. So when I first came to books I was not Christian myself but I was not ignorant of Christianity either. When I first read the Two Towers my heart thrilled at the confrontation in Shelob’s lair as Frodo faced down his greatest challenge to date, from the book,
*************
Slowly the eyes crept nearer.
“Galadriel!” He called, and gathering his courage he lifted up the Phial once more. The eyes halted. For a moment their regard relaxed as if some hint of doubt troubled them. Then Frodo’s heart flamed within him, and without thinking what he did, whether it was folly or despair or courage, he took the Phial in his left hand, and with his right hand drew his sword. Sting flashed out, and the sharp elven-blade sparked in the silver light, but at its edges, a blue fire flickered. Then holding the star aloft and the bright sword advanced, Frodo, hobbit of the Shire, walked steadily down to meet those eyes.
They wavered…
***************
My reaction to this heroic moment tracked exactly with Sam when he exclaimed,
“Master, Master!” cried Sam. He was close behind, his own sword drawn and ready. “Stars and glory! But the Elves would make a song of that if ever they heard of it!”
That moment showed Frodo to be who I thought he was in the books a true and magnificent hero with a loyal and faithful friend. I had hope at that moment that these two little hobbits could indeed succeed despite the treachery of Gollum. When Frodo fell and Sam took the ring my heart fell. I knew the quest was doomed there was no way that Samwise Gamgee was going to get the Ring to Mount Doom. Frodo was our only hope and now he was dead. When Sam realized that Frodo was alive hope burst within in me but at the end of the book when the door slammed closed on Sam, it also slammed closed on my hope for the entire quest. If Sam could not save Frodo there was no hope of winning, the West was doomed to fall to Sauron, maybe forever.
In the movies after that scene played out I only wondered why Sam was doing something so stupid as to try and rescue Frodo. Frodo was a fool, who nearly destroyed the whole quest with his weakness and stupidity. It seemed to me that Sam could easily trot to Mount Doom and throw the Ring into its destruction. I might understand why Sam would want to rescue Frodo from charity but if he had been smart he would send Frodo away and finished the Quest without him. When Frodo says in the movie that Sam can’t handle the burden of the Ring it sounded false and self-serving. Sam was clearly not a hero but the hero of the story.
I spent a lot of time wondering about this. How could Jackson and Co., who so obviously loved the books, get Frodo so wrong? Why did they deny him every heroic moment he had in the books and why did they make Frodo so consistently stupid? By knocking Frodo down they then had to distort Sam greatly making him into more and more of a hero giving to Sam the role that Frodo was supposed to play in the tale. If you think back to the movies the only heroic action that Frodo manages is the decision to take the Ring on the journey. Surely that night in the Shire Frodo was a hero. Beyond that, he is primarily a victim for most of the movie and he has to be repeatedly rescued. Even at the end of Fellowship when Frodo does decide to leave the decision is so mixed up with the attack of the Uruk-hai that he seems partially forced into his decision instead of it being one of heroic sacrifice as it seemed in the book.
So let’s back up for a minute what did they get wrong about Frodo? They missed his wisdom and how that wisdom led Fordo to have virtue and Frodo’s virtue allowed him the power that Sam saw in the passage quoted above. In the interviews that Jackson and Co. gave in the extended versions of the movie they explained that they allowed Gollum to trick Frodo because, “Gollum needed some kind of pay off for all his scheming.” The pay off should have been simply getting Frodo and Sam to confront Shelob not destroy their friendship. So Jackson seems to make a choice to take away Frodo’s heroic moment with the Barrow wrights. He gives Arwen the heroism of Frodo at the ford. Jackson makes Frodo looks desperate instead of wise when he breaks the Fellowship and then he completely unmans the character making him into a base fool at his most heroic moment in Shelob’s lair. By constantly cutting Frodo down he then has to in turn make Sam grow bigger making him a bigger hero and wiser hobbit than Frodo at every stage of the story. Which ruins the whole heroic art of Sam. Instead of Sam becoming better and better to live up to Frodo’s example and be the companion that Frodo needs, Sam instead grows into his role because his Master, Frodo, is unworthy of the quest and Sam basically has to do the quest for Frodo. Which makes a hash of a bunch of the dialogue in the movie because the dialogue holds true to the books but the actions that are seen on the screen tell a different story.
This I think is because Jackson and this secular age in general no longer understand pity and therefore never understood the “pity of Bilbo” that in the end led to the destruction of the One Ring and the victory of the Free people of Middle Earth. Jackson keeps Gandalf’s speech in Moria about the “pity of Bilbo” but can’t follow through with the concept. Frodo was a righteous hobbit with just the right mix of sensible Baggin’s common sense and wild Took side of adventure. He was schooled in the ancient ways and knew the old wisdom of the Elves and learned at the feet of Gandalf, in other words, Frodo had Faith. This gave him greater wisdom and insight about what needed to be done and what he must do. The hero journeys of Pippin, Merry and Sam were bound up in those three hobbits seeking to be more like Frodo, to live like him, to live up to him in a way.
You see the same relationship between Aragorn and Boromir as Boromir fully realizes that Aragorn is truly a better man than he was and Boromir tries to live up that higher ideal at the end of his life. This is the Christian concept of discipleship and Jackson doesn’t see it or doesn’t seem to be able to grasp it. In the Books, Tolkien gives us a good hobbit who starts off inexperienced and grows wiser and braver as the journey goes on until he burns himself out in the face of terrible evil and is only saved by Grace, the same kind of grace he showed Gollum. In the movies, Jackson and Co. give us Frodo the good hobbit that becomes progressively more foolish and base and desperately claws at the ring pushing Gollum into the volcano and being saved from suicide by the love of his best friend. In the movie, you can make the case that the ring was destroyed by Frodo and Gollum’s mutual greed and vicious ambition instead of the “pity of Bilbo”.’
Gollum
Which brings us to Gollum and Frodo a relationship that Jackson never seems able to grasp. Jackson’s take on the relationship seems to be that Frodo sees himself in Gollum and that if Frodo can reach some good part of Gollum that will give Frodo some hope that a good part of Frodo will survive too. The characters are nothing alike though, Smeagol was a thief and liar before he ever found the Ring and Frodo was a righteous, learned and virtuous hobbit long before rightfully gaining the One Ring. The difference between the two hobbits was immense. Frodo felt pity at how over matched Sméagol was and how completely craven and destroyed Sméagol had become by being in the presence of the Ring. Jackson obviously feels sympathy for Gollum and works hard to make the audience feel that same sympathy. He works hard to give Gollum a reason to betray Frodo and same as the “good” and happy Sméagol is brutally attacked and repeatedly beaten by the Thug Faramir. At the end of the Two Towers film Gollum is brutally beaten in front of Sam and Frodo again with out a protest from either of them and then, because of the brutally of the beating, forced to crawl after them. In that context Sam’s little speech about “no hard feelings” was like pouring salt on Gollum’s wounds. Who, watching that scene in the movie could not have a little part of them wishing for Gollum to get back at his tormentors.
It seems to me that Jackson made this decision because he thought of Sméagol as Frodo’s future and that Frodo saw that too and so Jackson built up the similarities between the two characters. While in the books the two characters are in contrast. Sméagol was evil before the Ring and the Ring enhanced his evil. Frodo was good and therefore wise before the Ring and so he was in battle with the Ring. Frodo was never going to be Sméagol there is no version of Gollum in Frodo’s future. Frodo instead wanted to do what rescue work he could on Gollum and it was Frodo’s wisdom, patience and mercy that eventually made Gollum an instrument of good instead of evil. Even at the very end when Frodo was almost wholly given over to the Ring and cursed Gollum on Mt. Doom he was still struggling to show him mercy! He says to Gollum if you touch the Ring again he will die. A Frodo at his most evil was still giving Gollum another chance. Gollum was supposed to be a character in contrast to Frodo not in sympathy to him. Jackson and Co., could not quite grasp this form of mercy and grace and therefore can’t see Frodo’s wisdom in preserving Gollum’s life and so they had to make Frodo stupid and foolish and Gollum intensely clever and Sam a self-sacrificing martyr that served an unworthy master.
Faramir of the Books vs. Thug Faramir of the movies
Which brings me finally to Faramir. As a 13 year old, I wished I could have been a Sam helping Frodo succeed in his quest. I also saw myself in Faramir, Aragorn seemed too great for me, but to me, Faramir seemed relatable. His wisdom and learning were seen as a weakness, his courage underestimated, his formidable fighting power despised. I loved Faramir but in the movies I did not find Faramir I found instead a character invented by Jackson who I named Thug Faramir.
In the interviews after the Films on the extended DVDs Jackson and Co. seem to understand that they messed Faramir up and claim that they gave him a story arc, because he had no arc in the books, and they had to preserve the power of the Ring so they could not make Faramir resist the Ring even for a moment. First, let’s look at this story arc they supposedly gave Thug Faramir. In the movie, Two Towers Thug Faramir follows in the footsteps of Boromir but puts the Ring in even more danger of falling into Sauron’s hands than even Boromir did. He only repents of his evil after a Nazgul attack and Sam’s speech. This is supposed to free the Thug Faramir of his daddy issues and he becomes a man capable of being more than he was before. But even at this moment of maturity, he beats a helpless Gollum for no reason, antagonizing Gollum and making sure that Gollum has good reason to betray Frodo and Sam and then sends them on their way. So, as terrible as it was to see Thug Faramir in Two Towers I had hoped to see a better Faramir in Return of the King.
When reading the books as a teenager it was clear to me that the Nazgul in chasing Faramir’s men across the plains wanted to kill Faramir above all because he was then the only hope of Minas Tirith holding out against the armies of Minas Morgul, Faramir was a true threat to Mordor. In contrast in the movie Return of the King, the Thug Faramir is there again even more trapped in his daddy issues than he was before, a frightened victim of his daddy’s disapproval. Instead of resisting the evil of his father he resigns himself to commit suicide and Thug Faramir survives by happenstance. His lost appeared to me be at no great cost to Minas Tirith. What kind of story arc was that supposed to be? If anything it seemed to me, based on the movies alone, that of the two sons of Denathor Boromir was the better man. Tolkien it hardly need be said wanted us to have the opposite conclusion.
Now in the books Faramir’s story arc is clear, not nonexistent as Jackson claimed. Faramir is a wise, righteous man well-schooled in the ancient ways and the only man shown to lead any kind of prayer in the books. This wisdom helps him over and over again in the books giving him penetrating insight and the wisdom and strength of character to help Frodo and Sam on their quest and speed the Ring to its destruction. Well aware of his Father’s shortcomings he acts within the confines, that his duty and honor give him, to minimize the evil of his father. Helping the good at Gondor and Gandalf to resist the despair of Denethor. Not a victim he is a man of honor asked to make greater and greater sacrifices to maintain that honor until he is finally struck down saving his as many of men as possible. That is a story arc with preserving and a perfectly valid hero’s journey. Faramir of the books is supposed to be in contrast to Boromir and was a better man than Boromir but in the movies, this Thug Faramir is, if anything, less than his brother, who unsuccessfully tries to repeat the same story arc he had in Two Towers, in Return of the King.
Power of Faith is lost on a Secular Age
There is a theme here with Frodo and Faramir where Jackson seems unable to handle wise characters, who handle themselves with honor and dedication to their duty. In Tolkien, it is almost always true that wise characters are faithful characters that have Faith in God. I have always wondered if Jackson and Co. simply had a hard time grasping that wisdom, Faith, can actually help you make the right choices in life, that evil has a harder time corrupting you and that you can be harder to fool. I think these themes were just not in Jackson’s secular wheel house and he had a hard time figuring out how to handle these characters. With Faramir, I think Jackson made a conscious decision to replace him with Thug Faramir because he didn’t know what else to do. With Frodo I don’t think that Jackson tried to make him a foolish bumbler instead of a hero but I think that he views the story too strongly from Gollum’s eyes in the section of the story where Gollum and Frodo were together, and he needed to make other characters present in the movie that lessened Frodo’s role. In the end he just could not understand the “pity of Bilbo” even though Gandalf explained it to him.
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:20-25 (ESV)
I regret not having the space to rail against the mistreatment of Treebeard. He fits into my theme that Jackson and Co. could not handle wise characters. I think though that Jackson’s motivation was that he was deeply amused by Treebeard and liked to laugh at him. Treebeard amused him! This is also why he did Pippin so wrong. At least Merry escaped Jackson’s clutches mostly intact. Not that Merry wasn’t damaged but at least he ended up in the right place.
I just can’t agree with this more or like it enough. Yes, well said!
Despite the criticisms I’ve leveled so far – and believe me, there’s plenty more where they came from – I watched all of the movies at the theatre and at home at least 20 – 25 times. You’re absolutely right – if they were junk we wouldn’t still be talking about them. (For just one example, I think Jackson’s treatment of the escape from Moria – the “backstairs” – was just amazing!) There were memorable scenes, wonderful photography and special effects in all three movies. So I think that’s why I get so miffed at the changes in character that Jackson made – they were choices, not the result of limitations, and often the choices seem to reflect modern sensibilities. Since moderns like their characters internally conflicted, we get an indecisive Aragorn who shuns his destiny. Instead of a strong, wise Frodo, we get an anxious, dewy-eyed victim. Instead of a noble, wise Faramir, we get a very modern character, scarred by poor parenting, and capable of cruelty and abuse of power. The OP is right – Jackson doesn’t “get” wisdom! So the fact that Jackson could do such splendid work somehow makes the transgressions more galling.
I think it goes too far to blame “secularism” on Jackson’s choices. I don’t like many of his choices, but unlike Brian Wolf I don’t see Samwise as a hero. All he ever does is cry. His character is whiny and pathetic. Aragorn is nasally and uninspiring. Sean Bean should have played Aragorn. Gimli is a clown rather than dignified. And Frodo is a nothing. Arwen’s role is magnified greatly because they need to have the feminists approve of their movie. I suspect that this is the reason the Hobbitt movies were so bad, but in truth they were so bad I never even watched them all. I couldn’t stomach it.
But it is not secularism that caused these choices. It’s the influence of nihilistic post modernism on our society. Jackson and his leftist writers don’t understand heroism or true character because deep down they don’t believe it really exists and cannot conceive of an audience that can understand it.
Why was Faramir treated this way? Because they can’t understand him, so they misportray him.
I want to address your comments on Sam, but I will start with something else while I calm down.
Secularism is nihilistic. Literally. One is a rejection of religion and its meaning. The other a separation from religion and its institutions. Take your pick. @brianwolf is absolutely on point that the writers, being separated from religious perspectives, were unable to adapt the characters appropriately.
Now, Samwise Gamgee. Not only is he a hero, he’s The Hero. And that’s not some favoritism on my part, it was Tolkien who referred to Sam as the Chief Hero in letters to his son. Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf were, in various ways, bestowed with a duty to combat Sauron in various ways. For all their heroic actions, they are defined by duty, obligation. Even Merry & Pippin who join for adventure are eventually bound by duty as they take oaths with Rohan & Gondor.
Sam’s destiny was to be a gardener. To work hard and provide for Rosie and the kids. His duties as a gardener (and friend) ended when Frodo reached Rivendell. He could have returned to an ordinary life that he loved and cherished. Instead, he walks with the Fellowship toward despair. And not out of obligation. Not for honor or glory. Not as his station in life. But because he understood that whatever minor impact he might have, was worth risking everything–personally–to protect what he loved.
For everything the movie gets wrong about the characters, it gets Sam right. He’s not there for the adventure, he cherishes the dirt in the garden he left behind. And not because he’s been sent–in fact he was sent home. He’s not whining. He loves the Shire and longs for home, but marches away from it anyway.
Well, I’ll accept that in the book Sam is a hero or the hero. My point is that in the movie all he does is cry like a baby in almost every scene.
Yes, nihilism is secular. But not all secularism is nihilistic.
I loved the books and the movies, but I admit I didn’t see God mentioned in either. A strong sense of morality, and history and prophecy – but no God. FWIW. Is it possibly eye of the beholder?
(Also, Boromir was a meathead. There. I said it. )
Maybe not as obvious in the books. You can find plenty of it if you know what to look for, and people who know write books, like this one.
It’s more obvious in the Silmarillion. G-d is named Eru, the One, or Iluvatar.
Sorry. Urdu meh, daur ka mutlub hai? Aur tak ka mutlub hai?
Miri Urdu achi nihi.
@saintaugustine I’m rereading the novel now, just enjoying it, which means it will take me a long time to finish the journey. The last time I read the novel in full, I was also not a Catholic, so I bought a book by Peter Kreeft to read afterwards because these themes are much more important to me now…. Are you familiar with his commentary on this? Do you prefer Ralph Wood’s analysis?
@saintaugustine – daur literally means run, Tak mean till. It’s a muhavara which translates as the Mullah’s limit is to go to the mosque. Meaning: he doesn’t go anywhere else. Because of who he is. Another way of saying: if you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Tolkien himself said the story was not a Christian allegory. As I’ve said before, it’s got the themes in there, but his purpose was not to create an allegory. It is for sure in the eye of the beholder.
No. Secularism and Nihilism are separate philosophical concepts which do not perfectly overlap. But nihilistic is the appropriate adjective for all of Secularism. In either case, to correct Brian’s argument for Nihilism but not Secularism is making a distinction without a difference.
I get it. You don’t like the suggestion that Secularism is devoid of virtue. And if that were the subject, I would agree with you (check my pseudonym). But that is not the argument. Brian states that many characters end up in the right place. It is the journey, the process (the 12 hours of content in the middle) which is done wrong. Secular philosophy is certainly capable of reaching some admirable conclusions in the realm of morality and ethics. But the process, the journey is very different. When discussing a narrative, the conclusion is important, but the journey is what defines it. Likewise, the film writers ended the story like it began, but without a Christian perspective on the work, the adaptation required that other courses be taken.
Sure, you could argue that their substitution of Freudian psychoanalytics is a more nihilistic result than had they incorporated, for example, Lockean Ethics. But its a question of degree as a Lockean interpretation would no-doubt really screw up Sam’s narrative arc (and that’s just a start). Brian is absolutely right that you cannot separate Tolkien’s whole work from a Christian understanding of virtue.
Which brings me to:
To say that it is a Christian Allegory would be to misuse the concept of Allegory (which is frequently done.) Gandalf is not an Allegorical Christ the way that Aslan is. Gondor is not the Christian Church the way that Narnia is.
But this is not the same as claiming for or against an intrinsic Christian worldview. For a better understanding of what Tolkien himself says it is, read his essay On Fairy Stories. His point: Stories which take place in a realm of fictional/invented mythology allow authors (and readers) to transplant their ideals into a world free of the this one’s complexities for the purpose of questioning those beliefs or experiencing the happy ending that may not be possible in this lifetime.
Tolkien wrote the story to explicate Christian virtue in a world free of complexity. Good vs Evil. Film writers wrote about the Free Peoples vs Mordor, but illustrated very different virtues.
That’s a desperate claim. Some people cannot conceive that their religion is not absolute and therefore deny that anyone not believing their beliefs can possibly be human and rational.
Guess you didn’t read my full response (or even just my name). I made an attempt to treat you as if you knew what you were saying, but that is now clearly not the case.
I read it. It’s still a desperate argument that many make. You parrot the baseless argument, so while you claim not to adhere to it is irrelevant.
God is there, but since Tolkien didn’t like allegory, he wasn’t going to be explicit about it. And you should take Tolkien’s own words as authoritative as to the story’s inner religious content:
“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”
I an only say that I like Wood’s analysis. Never read Kreeft.
Acha. Lekken as an objection to something the mullah says it would be an ad hominem argument–usually fallacious.
Not always, just predictable.
Let me take on Sam first. What you are talking about here is your dislike for the way that Sam was portrayed by Sean Astin and directer by Peter Jackson. Which, of course, is a perfectly valid opinion. I did not mind his emoting as much as you did but mileage will vary on this issue. As for Sam being the hero of the movie that is beyond question. Frodo is wrong about Gollum, Sam is right about Gollum. Frodo foolish throws himself into Shelob’s trap and Sam rescues him. Sam defeats the monster Shelob. Sam rescues Frodo from the tower and literally carries Frodo up Mount Doom. He is the one that watches the two monsters in thrall to the ring grapple over it and watches Gollum plummet to his death. Then Sam rescues Frodo from despair preventing his suicide.
In the extended editions on DVD Sam has one moment of panic that might have lead to the the capture of the hobbits and Frodo’s quick thinking rescues them. While this scene fit into the book perfectly it was not characteristic of the movie versions of Frodo or Sam and Jackson cut it from the movie. There is no question that Sam is the hero of the film and Frodo is a problem that Sam has to overcome. Having a distaste for how Jackson and Astin handled the charter on film is a completely different issue.
I don’t think that is true. Jackson and co. were straight forward in their view that Aragorn’s love for Arwen was central to understanding his character and story arc. A view I could definitely defend. For that story to pay off in the movie they needed to make Arwen present in the narrative. They wrestled mightily with how to do this and at first decided to make Arwen Warrior Princess then repented of it and made them have shared moments throughout the film but kept Arwen in Glorfindel’s roll in Fellowship giving Frodo’s heroic moment to Arwen. Probably should have dropped that whole line but they did not. I will address your further comments below.
Exactly my point!
You are picking a flavor of secularism here and simply blaming that for Jackson’s lack of understanding of Tolkien’s Christian themes. I am not sure how we disagree. What ever flavor of secularism that Jackson and Co. were raised in and imbibed it did not enable them to understand basic Christian themes in the books and so Jackson did not handle those themes well. Let me further clarify to say that a person with a secular morality and an Atheist is perfectly capable of grasping Tolkien’s themes and handling them more successfully than Jackson did.
If Jackson and Co. had not set out to take a secular view of the work I think it would have been impossible for them to not understand Faramir and Frodo and all the rest. They could have made the choice to ask themselves what was Tolkien thinking in putting these characters in these situations and they would have come up with better answers, without become Christian themselves. Maybe that clears some things up for you.
I have wanted to address this before. The Ring would not have made it to Mt. Doom without Frodo full stop. Give Sam the Ring in the Shire and send him out on the mission the mission fails. In that way Sam is not the hero Frodo is the hero. Fortunately for us heroism in not a zero sum game. There were many heroes in story and they all had their own journey.
Sam’s hero’s journey is the one that is motivated by a self-less love for Frodo. In that sense he is the most Christian character in the book in that love alone holds him to Frodo and his love for Frodo empowers Sam to become something much, much greater than a gardener. Also from Frodo’s point of view Sam is the hero of the story and I am sure he would say that to anyone that asked. I think that Tolkien often found himself thinking of his books through the eyes of Bilbo/Frodo quite often.
God in the books made sure that it was Frodo that got the ring, Frodo was worthy of Sam’s love and Sam’s love gave him the power to kill monsters and conquer towers full of foes.
Sam was a wonderful hobbit.
The Ring is destroyed in the end because Frodo and Bilbo were extraordinary hobbits of exceptional character and wisdom and they both showed mercy and even grace to a creature quite unworthy of that grace.
Understandable but for Tolkien the basis for that strong morality, history and prophecy was his Christian faith. He also wrote that Gollum fell into the volcano because of Iluvtor’s design, Gandalf references this theme as well when he talks about the Ring came to be in Bilbo’s then Frodo’s possession. Gandalf’s point was if there was no God working their will for good and only Evil in the world how would it be possible they gained this chance to destroy the Ring?
But one can certainly, many have, enjoyed the books without knowing any of that! I certainly did the first time I read them.
I think there’s a difference between Sam being seen as the hero and the story being told poorly. Frodo is the hero, even if Jackson showed it poorly. I find it hard to find anyone to be heroic when all they do is cry through the whole movie. Opinions vary.
You picked the theme of secularism. Merriam-Webster’s defines it exclusively as:
It does not say immoral. It does not say lacking values.
I’m not sure how this is christian. People have had friends for eons before christianity came around. Is Frodo a substitute for a deity? No. So how does this require a christian interpretation? Certainly Tolkein was Catholic and although it is not an allegory for christianity, which would have made it insufferable, much like the Narnia books, but being nice or faithful to people is not a defining characteristic of christianity.
In the book he was. Frodo was much stronger in the book too. In fact, all the characters were stronger in the book, except Arwen who was pretty much dressing as I recall. I think the fundamental flaw is that Jackson relied on writers who do not understand men and heroism. The movie was a masterpiece of presenting an image of Middle Earth as envisioned by Tolkein, but not of the characters. He was even worse in the Hobbit where he completely missed everything about the characters and combined that misunderstanding with far too much deviation from the text of the book.
I think you might enjoy Kreeft. He was (is still?) a professor of philosophy at Boston College, and is a good writer and teacher. I have his book, “The Philosophy of Tolkien – The Worldview Behind The Lord of the Rings” and recommend it. Also, though I haven’t played it, I noticed that at his website there’s an audio of him discussing the Christianity in The Lord of the Rings. Go to Peterkreeft.com, and click on “Featured Audio”, and you’ll see it.
You are right that the Ring wouldn’t have made it to Mt. Doom without Frodo. It was left to him because his wisdom and single-mindedness were the necessary qualities. I don’t mean to detract from the heroism of other characters. You are right, it is not a zero-sum equation. But the ability to see it through, not for himself but for others, comes from Sam.
Heroism is not not judged by the scale of an accomplishment. Tolkien was not a consequentialist. Instead, he preferred the Ordinary. And Sam is most certainly that. An ordinary hobbit, whose virtue isn’t wisdom, courage, or strength. It’s love, not just for Frodo, but for all things that grow. Love, the virtue of complete self-sacrifice, lends all other virtues their purpose. Without Sam, without Love, without the Shire, what purpose is destroying the Ring?
This is where I think you’ve got it very wrong. Backwards, in fact. Tolkien didn’t think of LOTR through the eyes of Frodo. He thought of it through the eyes of Sam. Sam is Bilbo’s heir–narratively speaking. In the end, Frodo turns over the manuscript–two whole books after the story shifts to Sam’s perspective at the end of The Two Towers.
Frodo’s burden as Ring-bearer doesn’t end when he departs from the Grey Havens. His story goes another direction. This story wasn’t his to begin with. Sam is the one who gives the quest purpose. He sees it through. Away from his cherished Shire through the depths of despair to see a new dawn. There and back again.
Thanks for the tips, @painterjean!
This is a very insightful essay and thanks for writing it.