Wow. What a kick ass flick!!
I know what I was watching was created on a computer screen somewhere but it was flawless. I am ready to book a trip to the Gondor so I can visit the White City of Kings built into the side of a mountain. Bravo.!! Mad props!!
But….Why did Frodo have to leave the Shire??
Was it just to emphasis the point that the journey changed everyone (especially Frodo) and that being he touched the evil present on Middle Earth he is now too tainted to live amongst the pure in the shire?
Whats your take??
I never read the book so I haven’t had as much time to absorb the weight of the story as those that have, (I just watched the movie yesterday) so Im looking for other views to compare mine to.
I’ve read the books, and IIRC, Frodo left the Shire not because he was tainted but because he needed healing he could only get in the Lands of the West. He was simply too drained to go on living in Middle-Earth, probably tied to the fact that he carried the ring and destroyed it, and a lot of his strength became bound up in the Ring.
Someone who’s more Tolkien-literate that I am might show up to correct me, but I think that’s the essence.
I am a long time fan of the books who also liked the movies. I also believe that the movies should stand on their own terms. I like your interpretation which is plausible based on what you saw in the movies.
In the books it wasn’t so much that Frodo was tainted, more that he was injured, poisoned, and maimed physically and emotionally. He could no longer find rest and ease in the Shire. He had to go West to have a hope of finding real healing and rest.
Actually I thought this was one aspect of the movie that was a little unclear. I thought Frodo looked a little too relaxed and happy back in the Shire (that scene in the pub, for instance).
He left because his wounds were too deep to be healed. In the book, he basically was getting progressively worse. In addition, ALL the holders of the major rings left…and he was a ring barer. I believe that, in the epilogue Sam ends up leaving eventually too, after his wife dies and in his old age, and travels across the western sea to the undieing lands. Legolas and Gimley also eventually go across the sea (in the epilogue)…I think hes the first dwarf to make the trip or something like that.
Something else that was overlooked in the movie that you might not have caught btw. Faramir and the Lady Eowin fall in love and he becomes prince of Ithilian under Aragon (I’m probalby spelling all the names wrong btw). They don’t go into this at all in the movie. Also, they don’t tell the fate of Saraman. The ents eventually let him go, but he’s killed in the shire in the last part of the book…after wreaking great distruction (there is no initial happy return for the hobits in the book).
Maybe im wrong but it is never explicitly said that Sam does end up making the trip. If i remember correctly he was last seen by his daughter Elanor heading in the direction of the grey havens and was never seen in the shire again, but by that time would there even be a ship to take him to the undying lands? Legolas had to build his own ship to carry him and Gimli, i doubt poor Sam could manage to do the same.
Frodo makes a speech at some point telling Sam he’s also a ring barer and that he’ll have thus and thus children, and become mayor, and be the most famous hobit, ect ect…and that eventually he’ll take the ship across the sea. Its been years since I read the book, but I recall there were clues about this at the end, and then in the appendix they go into a bit more detain. I don’t know if its ever EXPLICITELY said though, no. They also talk about what happens to the rest of them (When Aragon is dieing, Perigrin goes to be with him and they die together, if I remember correctly…stuff like that).
You’re right, though i still wonder how he made the trip when there where suposed to be no ships left. Actually Merry and Pippin went to see the dying Eomer, then spent the rest of their lives in Minas Tirith with Aragorn who outlived them by a long time.
For Uncle Poo, the thread starter: So very glad you enjoyed the movie! What fun to read your enthusiasm. I’m an old timey books fan, but I think (as a previous post stated) that the movies can be enjoyed on their own. I also agree,
tho, that the movie didn’t make clear why Frodo had to leave. As others have said Frodo was too badly hurt during the quest. He was like a shell-shocked veteran who could not readjust, mentally or physically, after sacrificing himself. In addition, I believe he was wracked with guilt - after all, he did fail. He would not have destroyed the ring. It was only his earlier kindness to Gollum (letting him live many times over) that allowed the ring to be sucessfully destroyed. In addition, he still suffers from an addiction/withdrawal from the ring, one which can never be satisfied and also keeps him from being able to be at peace.
Oh, there were ships left. In the appendices to LOTR, Sam is last seen in Westmarch, where he gives the Red Book to his daughter Elanor Fairbairn. It then goes on to state that Gamgee family tradition holds he went to the havens, where he sailed west, the last of the ringbearers.
Cirdan did NOT depart on the ship with Bilbo and Frodo. It is explicitly stated in the book LOTR that he would not sail until the last ship left, and that perhaps he abides still in middle-earth.
Legolas built a ship because he lived down south along the Anduin. Easier to build a ship than to schlep across Eriador to get to the Grey Havens. Besides, elves used to sail from nearby Dol Amroth to the west, in earlier times. A missed ship by an elf resulted in the elvish strain in the Prince of Dol Amroth’s blood.
Others have answered the question on the plot level – that his wound from the Morgul knife “will never fully heal” (comment made by Elrond in FotR movie), and that he has come too close to the heart of evil, is tainted, is worn down, etc. All those things.
On a thematic level, it’s that “you can’t go home again.” The counter-example to Frodo is Dorothy in THE WIZARD OF OZ (book, not movie) who goes back home and picks up life as before. Or Horatio (am I remembering aright?), the idealized Roman soldier who saves Rome and then goes back to his farm. Tolkien was writing from World War I – many soldiers (especially officers) who had seen the death and destruction and horror did NOT adapt easily when they returned to “normal life.” Their injuries (physical and mental) were always with them, shell-shock was common.
Thus, allowing Frodo to escape to the Undying Lands is a compromise between Tolkien’s recognition that Frodo can’t just go back to normal life, and at the same time wanting his story to have a happy ending (“They all lived happily ever after” is the ending Bilbo wants for the tale, and the ending we ALL want from the tale.)
In contrast, by the way, Sam can return to normal life. He was never tempted by the ring, he did not look into the face of evil as did Frodo, he is and remains a simple gardner. That’s his strength.
I believe you’re thinking of Cincinnatus “According to tradition, in his first dictatorship he came from his farm to defeat the Aequi and Volscians. . . He returned from battle, resigned his dictatorship, and went home to his farm.”
> I never read the book so I haven’t had as much time to absorb the weight of
> the story as those that have, (I just watched the movie yesterday) so Im
> looking for other views to compare mine to.
Then read the book. The movies make no sense on their own. The fact that people have to start threads which ask, “What does this thing in the movies mean?” is just another piece of evidence that anyone who watches the movies carefully will have a lot of questions which can only be answered by reading the book.
Maybe for other parts of the story, but Frodo’s reasons for leaving the Shire make pretty good sense in he film, IMHO. He winces in pain (admittedly a little briefly) and then has a little speech about how you cannot go home again, some wounds going to deep, etc. It’s clear that he’s too traumatised by the Ring to feel happy in the Shire. What the film doesn’t do is go into the subtleties of what he’s feeling – not just physical pain, but unreasoning guilt, etc.
I think the trouble Jackson ran into is that once a) the Ring is destroyed and b) Aragorn and Arwen are wed, there isn’t time to show the hobbits coming home, establish their new routine and thus depict how Frodo is still suffering from his quest; Jackson can’t afford to introduce what is, in effect, a new subplot.
It’s really too bad they couldn’t do the scouring of the Shire. It wraps up so much of the book thematically, showing how strong Merry and Pippin have become as they organize an army to take back the Shire. And you also see, in a way the movie doesn’t allow, how damaged Frodo is, how he’s so sickened by violence he can’t even bring himself to fight to free his home. Frodo’s decision to leave makes a lot more sense in that context: in his heart, he’s already left before he even arrives home.
He essentially did all that, except instead of showing Frodo suffer an attack as described in the book, he gives us a dry voice over and see him rubbing his shoulder like he’s got an old baseball injury. I think Jackson went a little soft here and, by not showing us Frodo’s suffering, made the final several scenes seem superfluous. More vividly showing Frodo’s suffering would not have taken more time and might have even defused some of the “multiple endings” criticisms, as people would have understood better the need for Frodo’s departure.
Mind you, I loved the films and have yet to produce my own trilogy of critically acclaimed blockbusters.
I couldn’t help but feel like they were sitting in that tavern at the end thinking, “This isn’t right. Shouldn’t we be doing something?”
Damn!! I’m happy that the ending wasn’t ambiguous or anything!
It’s unreal how many people (I included) take this story as serious as they do.
I never watched a movie that transported me into it’s world as this one did.
I’m just very dismayed that it’s all over being I have now watched the final part of the trilogy. I really wish I had read the book so that I could add my imagination to the story as well as all of you have obviously done!!
Is there any other Tolkien writings on the same tip??
Not really, no.
The Hobbit has a different tone, as it’s more aimed at younger readers. But do be sure to read it!
The Silmarillion reads more like a collection of myths and historical treatises (I actually find Sil quite intensely fascinating) which many LOTR readers have trouble getting into.
Ditto for Unfinished Tales, and even more intensely academic are the History of Middle Earth Series (HOMES, all 12 volumes!).
Other writings (Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Leaf by Niggle, Farmer Giles of Ham, etc.) all have their charms, but really there’s nothing like LOTR! IMHO!