Aragorn vs movie Aragorn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm still working on that.

[Primula Baggins]

I was maybe 9 or 10 when I first read LotR, and I don't remember how I felt about Aragorn. I think I was distracted by Frodo and Sam even then. Oh, and the Rohirrim. Horses! Lots of horses!

But the book has layers and layers and layers, and even young kids skimming the top can find plenty to love.

[WampusCat]

I don't know if it was the first reading or a later one (probably later), but I wrote in the margin "I LOVE Strider!!!!!" So I think he made a good impression.

[River]

Book Faramir is my favorite. I developed a terrible crush on Book Faramir on my first or second reading and can't. Get. Past. It. I told S about this and after calling me a nerd he got a little jealous. Until I reminded him that Faramir is words on a page and a face in my imagination (well, okay, my imagination is heavily influenced by Anke Eissman but...yeah).

Anyway, Aragorn. My preference is for the book's characterization of him. His character does arc a bit in the book. Sort of. LOTR is picking up on the downswing of Aragorn's story. He's grown up. He's come through his crisi point where he has to decide who he is/wants to be. And now he just has to get there. When it opens up, he's still a rather mysterious Strider the Ranger. You know there's more to him; in fact you quickly find out he's the lead Ranger and, as a friend in college once put it, the baddest bad-*** in fiction. As the book progresses, he changes, rising into the role of king as it is needed. I never got the impression he was reluctant - he was just being smart about it. He wanted and needed people to be ready to recognize and accept his kingship because of who he was; he didn't have an army to back himself up and he wouldn't take the ring and anyway, he wasn't really the conquering type. He did what he did because it had to be done, and for the love of Arwen. And even as he's stepping into the role of king, and his persona becomes more and more remote, the Ranger is still there. Somewhere towards the end, one of the hobbits points out "Strider the Ranger has come back!" and Aragorn replies, "He never left." It was all very subtle, but it was there.

Interestingly enough, after the Fellowship breaks, it has always felt to me like I was reading two stories. One was about Frodo, the other was about Aragorn. I never really felt like he was an archetype or lacking soul. He has to hold himself apart for various reasons, including leadership, but you know he's a man. A great man, but still a man. There was the whole thing at the Argonath, where he laments all the choices gone wrong. He knew what was going on with Éowyn. He came back tired from a struggle with the palantír, mastering it only because it was his to start with. And his relief and delight are palpable when the Rangers show up with a banner from Arwen, to accompany him on the Paths of the Dead and whatever else may follow.

Unfortunately, that sort of subtlety wasn't going to work on film. But I'm annoyed that they made him sounsure of himself until halfway through. The baddest bad-*** in fiction must never be unsure of himself. As Prim said earlier, there had to be another way to give him a character arc that would work on screen but without diminishing everything we love about Aragorn. Maybe throw in some Gonodorian politics (hinted at in Aragorn's backstory already): Aragorn really couldn't make a move on the throne while a strong Steward is in place. So maybe it starts out with him, and everyone else, assuming Gondor is stronger than it actually is. Then Boromir shows up and casts some doubt on that assumption, and as the Fellowship marches along and Boromir talks about home, Aragorn begins to understand that the time is nearer at hand than he realized.

And don't even get me started on the whole off-the-cliff thing. I hate the whole "he's dead! No, wait, he's back!" plot device. Gandalf's return almost drove me away from the book. And PJ had to do it again with Aragorn.

[Frelga]

Unfortunately, that sort of subtlety wasn't going to work on film. But I'm annoyed that they made him sounsure of himself until halfway through. The baddest bad-*** in fiction must never be unsure of himself. As Prim said earlier, there had to be another way to give him a character arc that would work on screen but without diminishing everything we love about Aragorn. Maybe throw in some Gonodorian politics (hinted at in Aragorn's backstory already): Aragorn really couldn't make a move on the throne while a strong Steward is in place. So maybe it starts out with him, and everyone else, assuming Gondor is stronger than it actually is. Then Boromir shows up and casts some doubt on that assumption, and as the Fellowship marches along and Boromir talks about home, Aragorn begins to understand that the time is nearer at hand than he realized.

I think the dilemma Aragorn actually faces in the books would work great on film. He must achieve Gondorian Kingship to marry Arwhen (cue a flashback to Elrond's wrath on finding his daughter is in love with a mortal ) but he realizes that making his claim would his people in danger of a civil war. Until it is time. It goes unspoken in the books, but could work perfectly fine on film, as River's example shows.

River, and the -mir brothers of my imagination are much closer to Katherina Khmel's images.

[vison]

I am in total agreement with Riverthalos. Aragorn was like The Man of the Forest, like Lew Wetzel, like The Rider of the Purple Sage, like King Arthur, like Tarzan, like John Carter, like all the manly and competent heroes whose exploits I adored reading about all my childhood. He was the strong, silent type. He's the guy who, if you got lost in the woods, you'd want him to rescue you. He could kill a bear with his bare hands and then make you a tent out of its hide and bake a pie on hot rocks using bear fat for lard. Yes, he could.

Movie Aragorn was a whiny self-doubter. You got the feeling that if you were lost in the woods he might find you and then dither about which river to follow to the sea. He'd squeal if he saw a bear and throw you at it while he stood by biting his nails.

[Primula Baggins]

vison, this reticence about revealing your opinions is going to get you nowhere.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Wot River sed.
But to add to it Tolkien does recognise the dangers of the disengagement with humanity as Aragorn approaches kingship that Ax describes so well.
River mentioned the brief moment of relaxation after the fall of Isengard where the narrative problem is virtually made explicit - unusual for Tolkien. I always found it a shame he edited out Aragorn's blackly humorous snap-back at Gimli after his palantír ordeal. (and restored in in my treatment) We also have Pippin's informal greeting in the Houses of Healing and the reaction of Imrahil the aristocrat. This is followed shortly by Aragorn's jest with the recovering Merry.
Much of his talk after his acceptance as king is in high language but there is this:

... but I would have you wait a little longer: for the end of the deeds that you have shared in has not yet come. A day draws near that I have looked for in all the years of my manhood, and when it comes I would have my friends beside me.'

Bear in mind that Tolkien deliberately makes merely the slightest references to Aragorn's emotional life within the narrative knowing full well it would alter both the balance and the tenor of the story, saving the detail for the appendices but nevertheless in his own manner they are there for the attentive reader. I love that aspect of his writing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am in total agreement with Riverthalos. Aragorn was like The Man of the Forest, like Lew Wetzel, like The Rider of the Purple Sage, like King Arthur, like Tarzan, like John Carter, like all the manly and competent heroes whose exploits I adored reading about all my childhood. He was the strong, silent type. He's the guy who, if you got lost in the woods, you'd want him to rescue you. He could kill a bear with his bare hands and then make you a tent out of its hide and bake a pie on hot rocks using bear fat for lard. Yes, he could.

But he is so much more than this. Those are only his superficial qualities, which make him like those he-men heroes that you name. It is his other qualities, his sensitivity, his healing touch, and yes, his spirituality, that make him more than them. And despite the changes to the character in the films I thought that Viggo did quite a remarkable job capturing those harder to capture, intangible qualities.

[axordil]

And despite the changes to the character in the films I thought that Viggo did quite a remarkable job capturing those harder to capture, intangible qualities.

Good point. In some ways I felt that Viggo was attempting to play the same Aragorn with a different script.

If one only looked at the scenes in the movie which are cognate with those in the book, the depictions of the character are much closer--this (and V-man's observation) lead me to think of the added scenes as stabs at "behind the scenes" looks at Aragorn...and remind me that the public faces of people in positions of leadership are not always identical with their private selves.

[Siberian]

Viggo did a good job in some scenes. That's why some others, where he is rude or arrogant are particularly jarring to me.

[axordil]

Well, it's hard to make decapitating an envoy look kingly...and there are certainly scenes in the book (left out of the movie!) where he comes off as more arrogant as well--the initial meeting with Éomer comes to mind, and of course the scene at the door of Edoras where he won't give up Anduril.

[Siberian]

Well, it's hard to make decapitating an envoy look kingly...and there are certainly scenes in the book (left out of the movie!) where he comes off as more arrogant as well--the initial meeting with Éomer comes to mind, and of course the scene at the door of Edoras where he won't give up Anduril.

Are you sure you're not confusing Aragorn with Gimli?
Aragorn is perfectly cordial when he meets Éomer. He answers his questions, doesn't demand anything, even horses (Éomer does iit himself) and prevents the confrontation between Éomer and Gimli. Finally, he promises to help the eorlings when he can.

As for reluctance to part with Anduril, it's quite understandable. This is the family heirloom and one of the proves of his heritage. Besides, it's not wise to go unarmed into a possibly hostile situation.

[axordil]

Aragorn is perfectly cordial when he meets Éomer.

Right up until the point where he draws Anduril, does his "I'm the Legendary King" speech, and demands Éomer either help him or get out of his way.

And his reluctance to part with Anduril is understandable...as is Hama's reluctance to let an armed man of dubious provenance into his lord and master's home.

[River]

That scene at the door to Edoras struck me as childish to tell the truth. I rolled my eyes a bit the first time through and now generally just skim past it. There were rules, laid down by culture and king, he was supposed to follow to make things go smooth. He was trying to set himself above/apart from all that.

Ah well, it worked out for him.

[vison]

Well, even Book Aragorn could be testy. I heartily forgive him that scene at Edoras: the King of the West, being treated like a nobody at the door of a hall where brigands drink in the reek and the children roll around on the floor with the dogs . . .

Besides, he and his companions have been running like deer for days trying to save Merry and Pippin because if Merry and Pippin fall into the hands of Saruman, it's all over for Aragorn and for everyone else and here is some henchman of a minor chieftain demanding he give up the noblest weapon in Middle Earth, wasting his time; he's exhausted, worried, frightened . . . yet, while he is testy and short-worded, he is still dignified, still noble, still Aragorn son of Arathorn on a great quest, carrying the whole weight of his past and his future.

I dunno. Maybe because I was already an adult the first time I read it I "got" more of Aragorn than someone who read it as a child? Maybe. Could be.

I think Viggo Mortenson is a fine actor in the 2 other roles I've seen him in, but I did not like him as Aragorn for merely physical shortcomings (mainly his voice). However. The scene where he sang in the shower of white petals shows what he COULD have been and done and I wish there had been more of THAT Aragorn than Arwen's bit of rough.

[Siberian]

Aragorn is perfectly cordial when he meets Éomer.

Right up until the point where he draws Anduril, does his "I'm the Legendary King" speech, and demands Éomer either help him or get out of his way.

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. “Elendil!” he cried. “I am Aragorn son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!”

Well, he's just saying what Éomer's choices are which is true. He's not being rude, if a bit impatient and direct.

And his reluctance to part with Anduril is understandable...as is Hama's reluctance to let an armed man of dubious provenance into his lord and master's home.

But he acknowledges the will of Théoden in the end. It certainly looks better than the scene from the movie

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I dunno. Maybe because I was already an adult the first time I read it I "got" more of Aragorn than someone who read it as a child? Maybe. Could be.

I don't even know what to say in response to a comment like this, vison. I guess I'll just say that I don't think I "get" Aragorn any more than anyone else does, but I'm happy that I continue to "get" more and different aspects of his character as I continue to read the book, think about the book, and read what others have to say about the book, both "fans" and "scholars".

I have some problems with the presentation of Aragorn in the films, but the scene where he closes Frodo's fist around the Ring, tells him that he would have gone with him to Mordor, sends him on his way, and then turns to face the Uruks, captures an awful lot of what I think is important about his character.

But maybe that's because I first read LOTR when I was a child.

[vison]

Nah.

Why bother?

[axordil]

if a bit impatient and direct

Drawing a sword when in a parley with heavily armed men--on their turf, not yours--is a bit impatient, a bit direct, and more than a bit presumptuous. Rude isn't the right word: arrogant very much is.

Of course, the point of it all is that he can get away with it because of what he is: he has an inborn right to be arrogant. A lesser man, with less presence, would have died there with his comrades.

vison--

I took the point of the scene at Meduseld's doors to be that Aragorn is caught between two stations: he is the heir to the throne of Gondor, and the last of the line of Elendil, but he is not yet recognized as such. Thus, while he has some of the trappings of a king, he doesn't get them all (including "proper" deference) until he's fulfilled his destiny. Hierarchical societies are not good at "in-between" statuses.

It should also be pointed out that the "minor" chieftain in question goes on to save the kingdom Aragorn will rule over...