Of course Sam is a hero. And so is Frodo. And so are Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, etc.
SPOILERS ahead.
As others have pointed out, it is only through the efforts of every member of the Fellowship that the Ring is finally destroyed. This is true in both the books and the films. If any part of the Fellowship had failed to accomplish what they did – from Frodo volunteering to take the Ring at Rivendell (a decisive moment for Frodo, and a key turning point in the story) to Boromir giving his life to save Merry and Pippin to Aragorn’s final desperate charge at the Black Gate to Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain – the quest would have failed.
Frodo may not be the awe-inspiring type of hero you prefer, but he is a hero nonetheless. One of the themes a reader/viewer can take away from Lord of the Rings (in either medium) is that there are different kinds of heroes, and some of them don’t have to prove their heroism with a sword.
As for the accusation of Gollum being “pulled out of a hat” at the end, I’d disagree pretty strongly with that. There were strong hints (to me) throughout the story that Gollum’s fate was bound to that of the Ring. Call it poetic justice or inevitability if you will, but Gollum eventually being the one to destroy the Ring made perfect sense to me. Frankly, it surprises me that anyone would feel cheated by that… Gollum was shadowing Frodo for three films (or books), and he’d been around for 500 years or so… did you really think he would be that easy to get rid of?
But Frodo knows this every step of the way, and more than that, he’s experiencing it, because he’s the one who carries the Ring, right into the mouth of the volcano… and you’re saying that carrying it for a day or two (less, in the film) makes Sam the “true hero”? Interesting.
I disagree, obviously… though Sam is certainly heroic for other reasons, Frodo bore the large majority of the burden of the Ring, and is a hero for that, as well as for agreeing to take it when nobody else would in Rivendell.
If you’re only watching ROTK, I might agree. But the other day I had the opportunity to watch Fellowship yet again, and I was struck by how different his performance was in that film. For the first half of FOTR, Frodo’s face is clear and light, free of worry. No knitted brows there… he was all smiles and laughter. The comparison between Frodo in the first film and the third is remarkable. If you’re only looking at Wood’s performance in the third film, I think you’re missing out on this perspective.
Even after the Ring is gone, Frodo’s face is still deeply troubled. I still say that Wood’s performance here, over the course of the three films, is quite excellent. It’s hard to see it on the basis of any one of the films, though… you really need the broader perspective for it.
I’ll butt in once more, to second what Avalonian has been saying:
-I agree that Elijah Wood looks and acts very different in the 1st and 3rd films. And remember everything was shot out of sequence, making his (along with everyone else’s in the films) that much more admirable!
-I also agree with your points about the entire Fellowship being necessary. Again, I also think you’ve got a good point about Sam being heroic, but Frodo being more so. Frodo did carry the ring longer and understood its effects better. And let’s not forget Frodo’s willingness and desire to do the right thing, both when Gandalf told him about the ring in the Shire and also at the Council in Rivendell.
Its allready been mostly done, but I’m just going to add my own little speil about the ending. One thing you need to remember is that Tolkein was a devout Catholic, and as such had a strong belief that humanity (and I guess, hobbanity?) cannot be saved by themselves alone, but only through the grace of christ. This is represented in the story that Frodo, though he was very strong, could not destroy the ring himself. But because he showed compassion towards Gollum, the ring was destroyed.
Oops - typo in last post - I meant to say shooting the 3 films out of sequence made the entire cast’s remarkable performances that much more remarkable…
Gandalf did mention in Fellowship of the Ring that it was pity that stayed Biblo’s hand. And when Frodo came across Gollum, it was the same pity that stayed his hand, for Frodo, from learning about Gollum’s past (told by Gandalf), he had compassion on him. Instead of removing an immediate threat by killing Gollum, or leaving hm there to starve, he decided to show compassion and pity towards Gollum.
Frodo is a different, complete type of hero, the everyday man who tried to rise up to the occasion even though he knew he could not, but he would try anyway, even if he failed. And yes, from the letters that Tolkien wrote, he intended it to be such from the beginning. Frodo’s heroic is in deciding to bear the burden in the first place, persisting in the quest when the going get tough, sparing Gollum out from compassion. It is his compassion which save the quest at the end of the day, for it is Gollum who in the end indirectly destroyed the ring. Even Gandalf has a fore-telling of Gollum’s part in quest in FoTR.
Missing from the film is how Sam showed compassion towards Gollum on Mount Doom itself. Sam has drawn his sword against Gollum and Frodo had raced off to the cracks of doom himself. Sam delayed on a moment whether he shall kill Gollum or not, but in the end decides to let him off. So according to the book, Gollum’s presence at the Cracks of Doom is not mere luck. Twice he would have not been there if not for the compassion and kindness of the two hobbits. He’s hardly the Deus Ex Machina. He’s just another contestant after the ring.
Not wishing to quote a spoiler. Very interesting stuff. I think Mr Jackson should have joined the SDMB. I’m sure that the way the story is told does not show some of the elements discussed here. The people I saw it with all felt like I did.
The important thing about the movie is that one must watch RoTK with the Fellowship and the Two Towers in mind. For in RoTK,
Frodo has already weaken to such an extent that he is doing all the wrong things, and that he really need Sam by his side. Frodo as a hero is only clearer when in Fellowship and the Two Towers. There’s also a notable part about Frodo in the Scouring of the Shire, which was not mentioned in the movie. In a battle of hobbits against Saurman’s thugs, Frodo played the part of peace, preventing hobbits killing the thugs who has surrendered. His final dialogue with Saurman proved how strong he has began since after embarking on the quest. Before the quest, he was wishing to that Gollum has been killed. After the quest, he refused to kill Saurman, who was responsible for the chaos and suffering in the Shire.
I guess who you see as more heroic depends on what you value -Frodo is all about lofty ideals, things that exist in the abstract. Sam’s heroism is more salt-of-the-earth. Frodo’s burden is the corruption of The Ring (duh) that is constantly pulling at him and tempting him. Sam’s burden is, well, Frodo. He cares for Frodo’s basic physical needs for safety and food.
You can organize Sam and Frodo’s roles according to Maslow’s heirarchy of needs: Air, food and water are at the bottom (2/3 courtesy of Sam). Next comes safety (Again, Sam’s forte). Then belonging and love (this is where Sam and Frodo overlap). After that are Esteem, followed by Fulfillment. Those are provinces of Frodo, in the sense of self-respect and mastery.
One final note on Elijah Wood’s portryal of Frodo in ROTK, then I’ll shut up about it.
SPOILERS again.
For most of the film, Wood had the “knitted brows” thing going. However, his easy smile at the end, as he looked back at his friends and nodded before sailing into the West, was purely delightful. Finally, all the cares he had travelled with were truly lifted and he was his old self (as we saw in Fellowship) once again.
Dammit, it’s making me misty just remembering it. If he can do that much with just a change of expression, I can’t say it was bad acting. A fine performace, all around.
One point about Gollum and the ring. In the book (haven’t seen ROTK yet, so I don’t know if this appears or not) When they’re climbing Mount Doom Sam sees a “vision” of Gollum cowering before Frodo. There’s a glowing eye where the ring should be on the chain around Frodo’s neck and a voice comes out of the ring telling Gollum if he ever tries to touch it again it will cast him down and destroy him.
Of course, the next time he tries to touch it, well, you know.
So, the ring, full of it’s creator’s evil, destroyed itself.
This wasn’t in the theatrical release of the film (somewhat to my disappointment), but I’m wondering if it will make it into the Extended Edition. It’s such a quick thing, but fairly important, too.
Because it’s been foreshadowed and established up the yin-yang that Gollum could not keep himself from pursuing the Ring up until the very end. Frankly, I can’t see any other inevitable ending that doesn’t have Gollum show up at the last minute. Tolkein set up that ending perfectly. Instead, you make it sound like a total deus ex machina that came out of left field. Trust me, man… 'at ain’t the case.
I highly recommend the letters of Tolkien. In them he reveals many reasons the story went the way it did. One of the most interesting letters is number 246 where he deals with several what-if questions. For example, what if Gollum had not been there to destroy the ring and Frodo kept it? Hint: he wouldn’t have kept it for long.
Let me butt in here and add some amplification to another aspect of Tolkien’s writing that the movie does only imperfect justice to: the Ring Saga as an epic story. Spoilers abound.
That is to say, the Ring was destroyed only because Frodo spared Gollum. Gollum only sought the Ring because Bilbo did not kill Gollum in his cave under the Misty Mountains; Gollum only found the Ring because Isildur failed to destroy it because of Sauron’s own powers.
Or to trace back another thread into antiquity: movie-Saruman was defeated by the Ents because the Ents marched on Isengard; the Ents marched only because Pippin showed Treebeard the extent of Saruman’s destruction of the forest; Pippin was only at Fangorn because Boromir sacrificed himself; movie-Boromir was only at Rivendell because his father Denethor sent him to collect the Ring; Denethor only needed the Ring because of the immiment threat of attack by Sauron’s own powers.
At the end of The Two Towers Sam makes some comments about the great tales, and how people in them do not know how the tale will end, but they continue on inside the tale. This concept is lifted directly from the books. Sam even looks at the glass of Ëarendil’s star, captured in the light of the star-glass that Frodo carries, and comments that, in a way, he and Frodo are still part of the story of Beren One-Hand and the Great Jewel, since they carry a piece of that story with them. Obliquely, Tolkien is alluding to his own story-telling device. And hey, how about that song, and the famous Tolkien poem “The Roads Go Ever Ever On?” That’s a hint, too.
Tolkien’s point is that things don’t happen for no reason, but are based upon things that happened in the past, choices that people once made, actions they once took, and paths that people followed of old. There is little room for chance in Tolkien’s world. Characters collide and re-intersect like some kind of literary Brownian motion, and an action taken now will have a repercussion to be felt later.
Interesting comments, FISH. I was sort of subconsciously aware of your point; thanks for bringing it to the forefront.
Also, way earlier in the thread Tallayan made a wonderful summary of the theme of grace. (Yet another spin: Frodo is a Christ-like character, but for someone with Tolkien’s sensibilities, believing in original sin, there can only be one Christ. Therefore even Frodo was doomed to fail without the grace he gained by pity and compassion.)
Re Sam and Frodo’s heroism, another thought: Frodo carried the ring out of a love of the Shire and other free peoples; Sam carried the ring out of a love (non-sexual) for Frodo. Is one love greater than the other? Hard to say.
