In this series I have been exploring the literary genre “High Fantasy” using the works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as exemplars that define this category of fiction. In this essay we will examine the tension between hierarchy vs equality in their original works and in the modern film adaptations. Part 5 of 7.
.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
– J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
*
Jane looked; and instantly her world was unmade…. she had long since forgotten the Imagined Arthur of her childhood — and the imagined Solomon too. Solomon — for the first time in many years the bright solar blend of king and lover and magician which hangs about that name stole back upon her mind. For the first time in all those years she tasted the word King itself with all linked associations of battle, marriage, priesthood, mercy, and power.
– C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
*
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psalm 2 verses 1 – 3
***
I had contemplated updating this essay comparing Tolkien’s books to the movies to include Amazon’s The Rings of Power in detail, but where to start? To tally up the things the show got right would be a far shorter list than trying to tabulate every instance where it departed from the spirit of Tolkien’s works.
My common complaint about Hollywood these days is “Great Hardware, Poor Software.” By great “hardware”, I mean that the sets, costumes and special effects all have the look of being done by professionals at the top of their craft (The way Númenor and Khazad-dûm looked in ROP were amazing!). Meanwhile the “software” is the writing and direction, especially the writing; which feels like it was done by amateurs chosen more for their holding of the correct political views than for their craftsmanship. Again, while the show’s CGI folks did a great job of showing the grandeur of Tolkien’s world, the writers seemed determined to tear down Tolkien’s hierarchical worldview on the altar of modern equality.
As in the examples I give in this essay, the worst changes made to the spirit of Tolkien’s characters were not made through inexperience, but deliberately made and for the same reasons. Yes, these issues are far less present in Peter Jackson’s otherwise wonderful films, but I think they stem from the same causes, the same type of education and the same worldview. It’s why “Medieval Literature” or “The Western Canon” were viewed as positive influences on our culture for writers like Tolkien and Lewis, and in negative terms denoting the writings of “Dead White Men” for most of modern Hollywood. (For a sample of this anti-classics philosophy at work in modern academia and a bit more of my views on its effect on ROP, see note 16 *.)
Why Hierarchy vs Equality?
Throughout this essay I will use the word Hierarchy in the classical sense, of a structured order based on merit, rank or authority. (1) However, when I use the word Equality, I do not mean it in the classical Christian sense, that all people are equal in the sight of God. Nor am I talking about equal opportunity under the law; as citizens should find under the U.S. Constitution.
The “Equality” in the title of this piece, which is in opposition to “Hierarchy,” is the modern, politically correct view which holds equality of outcome, despite any differences in merit, as the ultimate good.(1A)
One view of equality is founded on man as made in the image and likeness of God; on courage and the confidence that we are loved. The other is based on envy and the fear that we will be found inferior.
***
History
Let us begin by examining the ancient’s views on hierarchy via Lewis’ writing in The Preface to Paradise Lost.
“It may be called the Hierarchical conception. Everything except God has some natural superior; everything except unformed matter has some natural inferior. The goodness, happiness, and dignity of every being consists in obeying its natural superior and ruling its natural inferiors.”
Later in this chapter we read:
“Dominion absolute’ was given to Man in general over Beast in general, not to one man over other men.
Since the Fall consisted in man’s Disobedience to his superior, it was punished by man’s loss of Authority over his inferiors…Man has called for anarchy: God lets him have it.”
Lewis further writes:
“The justice or injustice of any given instance of rule depends wholly on the nature of the parties… Where the citizens are really equal then they ought to live in a republic where all rule in turn. The difference between a king and a tyrant does not turn exclusively on the fact that one rules mildly and the other harshly. A king is one who rules over his real, natural inferiors. He who rules permanently, without successor, over his natural equals is a tyrant—even (presumably) if he rules well. Justice means equality for equals, and inequality for unequals.”
Lewis uses the word justice here as in a footrace justly administered: the fastest runner will win 1st place and the slowest, last. Doing otherwise is unjust to both first and last, as it robs the winner of his efforts and all others of their incentive to do better.
Regarding the angelic rule of the planets and the spheres they ride in, Lewis writes:
“Every being is a conductor of superior love to the being below it, and of inferior love to the being above. Such is the loving inequality between the intelligence who guides a sphere and the sphere which is guided. For the Renaissance thinker… the universe was packed and tingling with anthropomorphic life…” (for more on this, read part 4 of this series “Cosmos vs Chaos”)
Lewis continues: ”its greatest statement of the Hierarchical conception in its double reference to civil and cosmic life is, perhaps, the speech of Ulysses in Shakespeare’s Troilus. Its special importance lies in its clear statement of the alternative to Hierarchy.
If you take “Degree” away “each thing meets in mere oppugnancy” (antagonism), “strength” will be lord, everything will “include itself in power.” In other words, the modern idea that we can choose between Hierarchy and equality is, for Shakespeare’s Ulysses, mere moonshine. The real alternative is tyranny: if you will not have authority you will find yourself obeying brute force.”
Lewis says of Milton: “He pictures the life of beatitude as one of order—an intricate dance, so intricate that it seems irregular precisely when its regularity is most elaborate.… He delights in the ceremonious interchange of unequal courtesies, with condescension (a beautiful word which we have spoiled.) (note 2) on the one side and reverence on the other. He shows us…Adam “not aw’d” but “bowing low” to the “superior Nature” when he goes out to meet the archangel, and the angel, unbow’d but gracious, delivering his speeches of salutation to the human pair, (or the courtesies of lower to higher angels as “is wont in Heav’n Where honour due and reverence none neglects” or Adam smiling with “superior love” on Eve’s “submissive charms” like the great Sky-Father smiling on the Earth-Mother; or the beasts, duteous at the call of Eve.
The heavenly frolic arises from an orchestra which is in tune; the rules of courtesy make perfect ease and freedom possible between those who obey them. Without sin, the universe is a Solemn Game: and there is no good game without rules.”
***
Turning now to the book that began my inquiry on this subject, Lewis’s The Discarded Image; we find an excellent portrayal of the principle and use of the hierarchic system in his description of the order of angels, (from Pseudo-Dionysius):
Highest order:
Seraphim
.
Cherubim
.
Thrones
.
Middle order:
Dominions
.
Virtues.
Powers.
Lowest order:
Principalities
.
Archangels.
Angels.
In this list of angels, we are seeing what Lewis called the “Principle of the Triad;” which is built upon the classical idea that whenever two things are related (such as two types of angels), there must be a third thing to act as mediator and messenger between them. Think of this as the relationship between a physician, his patient and the medicine he uses, or, in the examples given in The Discarded Image, that which is working between the king and commoners are the nobility; between reason and the appetites, sentiment; between God and mankind, the angels. Here the Medievals are following one of their main authorities outside the Bible on how the universe works; the Greek philosopher Plato, who wrote: “it is impossible that two things only should be joined together without a third. There must be some bond in between both to bring them together.”
Plato is important here, as elsewhere, in defining the model of how the universe functioned. For the Medieval Model is an amalgamation of ancient Greek, Roman and Biblical writing, passed through the medieval mind that held that ancient authors carried more authority and wisdom on a subject than those in their own time. (For more on this concept, see part 1 of this series, Advanced Future vs. Golden Past.) Of course, the names of the angelic orders come from the Bible, but the importance of their arrangement, in three groups of three, finds its source in the Medieval need for both order and complexity in the universe. Therefore, the angels, who function as the intermediaries between Almighty God and mankind, must form a compound Triad of Triads.
Another triad occurs within mankind. The Medievals believed that we were made up of three parts, the body, the soul (which we would call the mind) and an eternal spirit. Yes, it’s a bit confusing, since we often use the words “spirit” and “soul” interchangeably, but for the Medievals the soul was, (to put it in modern computer terms) the operating system of the organism, be it a tree, or a fish or a man.
In the Medieval Model the human soul (mind) was divided into three parts (a concept taken from the writings of Aristotle); the Vegetable Soul (which controls the subconscious functions of the body, such as digestion), the Sensitive Soul (or the soul of the senses), which is a mind such an animal would have, that can move and perceive the world around it. Finally in mankind, we find the soul that contains the higher functions of the mind, the Rational Soul.
(Modern neuropsychologists sometimes call these divisions; The Lizard Brain, The Mouse Brain and the Primate Brain).
There is an interesting correlation to this triad concept of the soul for writers of fiction, called the Heroic Trinity. Here we see the Body, Mind and Spirit as character archetypes (sometimes also called the Heart, Head and Hand characters). The “Body/Heart” character displays the passions and appetites; they, as the ancient Romans would say, “think with their belly.” The Mind/Head character brings the rational mind to the fore. They uses logic and cold hard facts to make decisions. The Spirit/Hand character is intuitive and is the one who takes action in the story and is often the leader of the three.
We see this Heroic Trinity in the following stories:
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: Body/Heart Edmund. Mind/Head Susan. Hand/Spirit Peter (for actions) and Lucy (for faith).
The Lord of the Rings: Body/Heart Gimli the dwarf. Mind/Head Legolas the elf. Hand/Spirit Gandalf the wizard (early in the story) and Aragorn the Dúnadan (later in the story). (As for where the hobbits fit into this theory, see note 5)
The original Star Trek TV show: Body/Heart Lenard “Bones” McCoy. Mind/Head Mr. Spock. Hand/Spirit James T. Kirk.
Star Wars: (primarily in the first two movies, Star Wars and The Empire Strike Back) Body/Heart Luke Skywalker. Mind/Head Han Solo. Hand/Spirit Obi-Wan Kenobi & Master Yoda. (note 13)
Harry Potter: Body/Heart Ron Weasley (note 6). Mind/Head Hermione Granger. Hand/Spirit Harry Potter.
DC Comics: Body/Heart Wonder Woman. Mind/Head Batman. Hand/Spirit Superman.
The Heroic Trinity is a good example of how the ancient archetypes of stories have survived into our modern world.
***
Now let us examine equality. However, before I really begin, I feel the need to reiterate that I am not using the term “equality” here in the classic sense, in either equality in the eyes of God or under the law; but in the modern PC sense which seeks to treat all people as if they had the same inborn attributes, acquired skills or individual priorities.
In addition, I have to apologize for I must now delve into one of the two forbidden subjects in modern discourse, namely politics. However, since Lewis himself had much to say on this subject, I hope you will bear with me.
(Note; Lewis uses the word “democrat” in the passages below, not in the sense of the American political party, but in the classical sense; a believer in democracy and democratic systems.)
“I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. Whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people…
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget, but as an ideal, we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracy, as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of privileged societies. It will kill us all if it grows unchecked. The man who cannot conceive a joyful and loyal obedience on the one hand, nor an unembarrassed and noble acceptance of that obedience on the other – the man who has never even wanted to kneel or to bow – is a prosaic barbarian. But it would be wicked folly to restore these old inequalities on the legal or external plane. Their proper place is elsewhere.”
-C. S. Lewis ”Equality” from the essay Present Concerns.
“I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen…patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that ‘all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
“What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence—moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how Democracy (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods? You remember how one of the Greek Dictators (they called them ‘tyrants’ then) sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of corn, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no pre-eminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser, or better, or more famous, or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level; all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, ‘democracy’. But now ‘democracy’ can do the same work without any other tyranny than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.”
-C.S.Lewis The Screwtape Letters
***
So then, how did we come to our modern, PC view; in which equality of opportunity has been replaced by equality of outcome? The first place to look is with Karl Marx who gave us the phrase “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” and the idea that all of human kind can be divided up into oppressor and oppressed.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
-Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto
According to 19th century Marxist theory, when the next major war occurred in Europe it would give the proletariat (3) an opportunity to rise up and remove their oppressors from power.
When World War One came and went with only Russia throwing off the yoke of the bourgeoisie, (3) Marxist theorists were in a predicament. How was it possible that the poor did not rise up and overthrow the upper classes? Since the fault could not possibly be with Marxist theory, the fault must lie elsewhere. They decided that the great impediment was Western culture and it must be taken down first before Marxism could rise.
The creators of this new modified Marxism of the 1930s came from a think tank in Frankfurt Germany called the Institute for Social Research, which has come to be known simply as the Frankfurt School. The origin of political correctness can be traced directly back to the teachers at this school: many of whom left Germany just before WWII and became prominent instructors at our most prestigious universities in the US, such as Columbia in New York and Berkley in California.
Take away the supernatural elements and the plans of the villains in That Hideous Strength have a great deal in common with the programs proposed by the Frankfurt school. Why do Lewis’s That Hideous Strength and The Abolition of Man seem so predictive of our own time? The answer lies partly in the unchanged nature of fallen man, but also because many of today’s university professors were yesteryear’s students of the instructors from the Frankfurt school. For more info on the history of the Frankfurt School see note 4. (If you are pressed for time, skip past the long introduction and begin at section I. The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia.)
“The process which, if not checked, will abolish Man goes on apace among Communists and Democrats no less than among Fascists. The methods may (at first) differ in brutality. But many a mild-eyed scientist in pince-nez, many a popular dramatist, many an amateur philosopher in our midst, means in the long run just the same as the Nazi rulers of Germany: ‘Traditional values are to be debunked’ and mankind to be cut out into some fresh shape at the will (which must, by hypothesis, be an arbitrary will) of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
***
Books vs Movies
I began this series by contrasting the High Fantasy stories of Lewis and Tolkien with the Hard Sci-Fi stories I read in my youth. However, I think it would be more instructive to end this essay with a look at the differences between the books of Lewis and Tolkien and the movie versions of their stories, (and specifically those differences which are due to that worldview for which hierarchy is the greatest evil and equality the greatest good.)
To start, I will begin with the obvious, low-hanging fruit: Arwen’s rescue of the hobbits at the Ford of Rivendell in the 2001 film, The Fellowship of the Ring.
In Tolkien’s novel, it was the elf lord Glorfindel who found Aragorn and the hobbits and it was his horse that Frodo rode across the river. In the 1978 Ralf Bakshi animated version of this scene, it was Legolas who found the hobbits and Aragorn and led them to the ford. This change made sense to me when I first saw Bakshi’s film, since Glorfindel’s only other appearance in The Lord of the Rings is at the Council of Elrond. Having Legolas meet Strider and the hobbits was a logical way to introduce a character that will be with them for the remainder of the story.
As for the Arwen Warrior-Princess version, well, that is another matter.
Part of the Medieval Model is the Code of Chivalry (see part 3 of this series, Knights and Angels, for more on that subject). A major part of this code in Europe, when compared to other warrior codes of the time, was its specific protections for women by male warriors. Can you see the Elrond of the books sending his only daughter out (alone!) on a scouting mission to look for the hobbits when he had his sons, Elladan and Elrohir available; or warrior elves such as Legolas or the great elf lord Glorfindel at Rivendell ready to go out and do this dangerous task? (In the Silmarillion, Glorfindel had fought and killed a Balrog in single combat.)
Yes, I can see why Peter Jackson and his co-writer, wife Fran Walsh, would want to bring Arwen into the film earlier than her appearance in the books. However, the introduction of Arwen could have been accomplished by including all the other scenes with her that they have after arriving in Rivendell without breaking faith with Tolkien’s fans and what they loved about his story. Arwen in warrior mode felt like an artificial insertion of something modern into a medieval world: a sacrifice on the altar of equality, rather than a needed addition still keeping with the tone of the original story.
Please don’t think I have a problem with strong female characters in movies. I don’t – if they are done well. Ripley kicking butt in the Alien franchise totally fit that story, as did Sarah Connor in the Terminator series. In Wonder Woman, Diana was trained from childhood to be a warrior (and was a demi-god, daughter of Zeus). The movie built up logically to all the powers she displayed in the final battle with Ares. Galadriel (even without the powers described in the Silmarillion and shown in the Hobbit films) had a mystery and awe about her person in The Lord of the Rings that made her a formidable character without the need to deviate from Tolkien’s original story in Jackson’s films. However, Arwen as warrior-princess was an awkward and unnecessary departure from the spirit of Tolkien’s story.
***
STRONG MAN VS STRAW MAN
Next we come to the problem modern film companies have with the strong male characters in traditional fantasy stories. The problem Peter Jackson had in staying faithful to Tolkien’s portrayal of Faramir and Aragorn in his films is the same problem the Narnia movies had with High King Peter and Prince Caspian and is the same one modern comic book writers have with Superman.
Chuck Dixon, the creator of the Batman villain Bane, explains why current Superman writers are unable to tell good stories about this iconic character, ( but this could be applied equally well to Aragorn, Faramir and even to Peter ).
“They don’t know how to write good stories about a guy who is a Boy Scout. A guy who has a moral spine, a code of behavior. He’s a gentleman. He’s a paragon of virtue. They simply do not know how to write that kind of character and make it interesting.” ( For his full interview, see note 7 )
***
Let’s start with book Faramir vs movie Faramir:
Tolkien describes Faramir as “personally courageous and decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously just, and very merciful.”
Pipin says of Faramir; “Here was one with an air of high nobility such as Aragorn at times revealed, less high perhaps, yet also less incalculable and remote: one of the Kings of Men born into a later time, but touched with the wisdom and sadness of the Eldar. He knew now why Beregond spoke his name with love. He was a captain that men would follow, that he would follow, even under the shadow of the black wings.”
In the books, three times Faramir had the dream calling him to Imladis (Rivendell) to seek Isildur’s Bane. When he did not answer it, the dream came to Boromir (inferring that Boromir was the second choice of whoever sent the dream).
‟Seek for the Sword that was broken:
In Imladris it dwells;
There shall be counsels taken
Stronger than Morgul-spells.
There shall be shown a token
That Doom is near at hand,
For Isildur’s Bane shall waken,
And the Halfling forth shall stand”
In the books, Faramir runs a close second in nobility of character to Aragorn. When he and his men find Frodo, Sam and Gollum in the wilderness of Ithilien, the two hobbits are treated with courtesy and honor and even Gollum is treated with some level of kindness.
Contrast the book version of Faramir’s conversation with Frodo about the Ring with the actions of Faramir in the movie version.
From the book:
“’But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No. I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.’
‘Neither did the Council,’ said Frodo. ‘Nor do I. I would have nothing to do with such matters.’
‘For myself,’ said Faramir, ‘I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens; not as a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor, and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise.’”
Once Samwise names the Ring, Faramir says:
“So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought to have perished from the world. And Boromir tried to take it by force? And you escaped? And ran all the way – to me! And here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality! Ha!» He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting.”
But he has no intention of taking the ring, saying:
“We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.”
Sam’s reaction to this is:
Sam hesitated for a moment, then bowing very low: “Good night, Captain, my lord,” he said. “You took the chance, sir.”
“Did I so?” said Faramir.
“Yes, sir, and showed your quality: the very highest.
” Faramir smiled. “A pert servant, Master Samwise. But nay: the praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards. Yet there was naught in this to praise. I had no lure or desire to do other than I have done.”
“Ah well, sir,” said Sam, “you said my master had an Elvish air; and that twas good and true. But I can say this: you have an air too, sir, that reminds of, of – well, Gandalf, of wizards.”
“Maybe,” said Faramir. “Maybe you discern from far away the air of Numenor. Good night!”
Faramir has more nobility of heart than his older brother Boromir and aids the hobbits in their journey and sees them safely out of Ithilien and towards Mordor.
Upon returning to Minas Tirith, Faramir is obedient to his father in all things and submits to his authority.
Contrast this to movie Faramir:
When Gollum is caught by Faramir’s men, they beat him during questioning.
After speaking to the hobbits and learning of the ring, Faramir intends to bring them to his father Denaethor in Minas Tirith to gain his favor. He brings them partway to Minas Tirith, but let’s them go to continue their journey after they are attacked by the Nazgûl in the ruins of Osgiliath. Back with his father in Minas Tirith, Faramir does speak the lines “Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory;” but these words have a very different effect on the Denethor of the movie than they do on the hobbits of the book. Faramir is far less noble in the movie and entirely more conflicted by his relationship with his father than in the book. While movie Faramir speaks many of the same lines as book Faramir, they lose much of their impact because they are said farther along the story and often to a different person.
Jackson said in an interview that he wanted to make Faramir corruptible to show the overwhelming power of the Ring; but I think in doing so he lost something important that Tolkien was trying to say. Those who could refuse the Ring were either of a higher race than mankind; such as Valar (Archangels), elves (Galadriel) wizards (Gandalf), or were of noble blood and character, such as the Men of Númenór (Aragorn and Faramir). It was the Medieval Model’s reciprocal concept of nobility of both ancestry and of spirit that I believe Tolkien was trying to show through Faramir.
Yes, the Ring was powerful, but it was not All Powerful and those who have, as Chuck Dixon put it, “a moral spine, a code of behavior,” can turn away from temptation before it overcomes them.
Faramir becomes Steward of Gondor after his father’s death. In the appendices we learn that he lived to the age of 120.
Faramir met Aragorn in the midst of those there assembled, and he knelt, and said: ‘The last Steward of Gondor begs leave to surrender his office.’ And he held out a white rod; but Aragorn took the rod and gave it back, saying: ‘That office is not ended, and it shall be thine and thy heirs’ as long as my line shall last. Do now thy office!’
Then Faramir stood up and spoke in a clear voice: ‘Men of Gondor hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! one has come to claim the kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?’
And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice….
– J.R.R. Tolkien: The Return of the King
Book Denethor vs movie Denethor:
We see much of the same problem with Denethor in the LOTR films as we saw with Faramir. Movie Denethor said much of the same lines as book Denethor, but they were said much earlier in the film. This took away all of the tragedy of Denethor’s downfall; for the Steward of Gondor was a great and noble man before his fall.
Tolkien, in The Book of Lost Tales, calls Denethor “a masterful man, both wise and learned beyond the measure of those days, and strong-willed, confident in his own powers, and dauntless.”
Gandalf says this of Denethor to Pipin in the books: ‘He is not as other men of this time, Pipin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best. He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try.’
In the movie, we see a Denethor much lessened when compared to the book. Denethor in the movie is already bitter and nihilistic from the first scene in the throne room. In the movie he tries to prevent the lighting of the signal beacons, while in the book, he gave the order himself to light them and summon his outlying armies, ( not Theoden and the Rohirrim, as in the film. The Riders of Rohan were summoned by a messenger, who did not survive the return journey: one of the reasons Denethor saw no hope for reinforcements at the end ).
In the book, we see a Denethor strong enough to contest wills with Suaron through the Palantir stone. The book says that these contests weaken Denethor physically and prematurely age him (Aragorn and Denethor are close to the same age in the books), but do not effect his mind until the end.
This is another profound lesson that Tolkien gives us in the books that is lost in the movies. Denethor falls into despair and is broken mentally only when he believes (falsely, as it turns out) that all hope is lost.
In chapters 5, 6 & 7 of The Return of the King, defeat and death often seems close and inescapable:
Faramir is brought back to the city, wounded by a poison arrow shot by the Nazgûl.
“I sent my son forth, unthanked, unblessed, out into needless peril, and here he lies with poison in his veins.” says Denethor, on seeing his only remaining son so near to death.
Denethor goes to his tower and consults his Palantir stone, in which Sauron shows him an image of the corsair ships sailing towards Minas Tirith. Denethor takes that sight as enemy reinforcements coming to overwhelm his defenses; not knowing that it is Aragorn with the Rangers of the North and other allies.
Denethor apparently also sees an image of Frodo, captured in Mordor; for on his return to prepare his funeral pyre he says to Pipin, “Comfort me not with wizards! … The fool’s hope has failed. The Enemy has found it and now his power waxes.” (Denethor does not know, but the reader does, that Sam has the Ring at that point and is about to rescue Frodo.)
Sauruman the wizard had been corrupted by Sauron early on through his use of the Palantir stone, while Denethor, striving with Sauron for many years, was not corrupted until the very end. Gandalf said of Denethor: “He was too great to be subdued to the will of the Dark Power; he saw nonetheless only those things which that Power permitted him to see.”
Denethor’s fall in The Return of the King is tragic. A great and noble man whose hope and faith has failed; giving in to despair and committing suicide just before the defeat of his enemy.
Book Aragorn vs Movie Aragorn:
First we should remember that Aragorn was a Númenórean:
From the Silmarillion:
When therefore Morgoth had been thrust forth, they (the Valar ) held council concerning the ages that should come after. To the Fathers of Men of the three faithful houses rich reward also was given. Eönwë came among them and taught them; and they were given wisdom and power and life more enduring than any others of mortal race have possessed. A land was made for the Edain to dwell in, neither part of Middle-earth nor of Valinor, for it was sundered from either by a wide sea; yet it was nearer to Valinor.
Then the Edain set sail upon the deep waters, following the Star; and the Valar laid a peace upon the sea for many days, and sent sunlight and a sailing wind … [The] Edain came at last over leagues of sea and saw afar the land that was prepared for them…. Then they went up out of the sea and found a country fair and fruitful, and they were glad. And they called that land Elenna, which is Starwards; but also Anadûnë, which is Westernesse, Númenórë in the High Eldarin tongue.
This was the beginning of that people that in the Grey-elven speech are called the Dúnedain: the Númenóreans, Kings among Men. But they did not thus escape from the doom of death that Ilúvatar had set upon all Mankind, and they were mortal still, though their years were long, and they knew no sickness, ere the shadow fell upon them. Therefore they grew wise and glorious, and in all things more like to the Firstborn (elves) than any other of the kindreds of Men; and they were tall, taller than the tallest of the sons of Middle-earth; and the light of their eyes was like the bright stars. But their numbers increased only slowly in the land, for though daughters and sons were born to them, fairer than their fathers, yet their children were few.
Tolkien said that Númenór came from his fascination with the legend of Atlantis.
In a letter to his publisher Stanley Unwin, dated 14 September 1950, Tolkien writes:
“The Men of the Three Houses were rewarded for their valour and faithful alliance, by being allowed to dwell ‘westernmost of all mortals’, in the great ‘Atlantis’ isle of Númenóre.”
Now let us examine the specific elements of Aragorn’s character and lineage. Here is a description of him from the books and appendixes: ( before anyone argues against using the appendixes, it was these that Jackson relied upon to bring many of the details about Arwen into The Fellowship of the Ring ).
His ways were hard and long, and he became somewhat grim to look upon, unless he chanced to smile; and yet he seemed to Men worthy of honour, as a king that is in exile, when he did not hide his true shape. . . Thus he became at last the most hardy of living Men, skilled in their crafts and lore, and was yet more than they, for he was elven-wise, and there was a light in his eyes that when they were kindled few could endure. His face was sad and stern because of the doom that was laid on him, and yet hope dwelt ever in the depths of his heart, from which mirth would arise at times like a spring from the rock.
(When) Aragorn had grown to full stature of mind and body, and Galadriel bade him cast aside his wayworn raiment, and she clothed him in silver and white, with a cloak of elven-grey and a bright gem on his brow. Then more than any kind of Man he appeared, and seemed rather an Elf-lord from the Isles of the West, and thus it was that Arwen first beheld him again after their long parting, and as he came walking towards her under the trees of Caras Galadhon laden with flowers of gold, her choice was made and her doom appointed.”
Here is the poem Bilbo wrote about Aragorn: (From Gandalf’s letter delivered at The Prancing Pony in Bree, a bit late by tavern owner Butterbur).
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
(After reading Gandalf’s letter) Sam still eyed Strider dubiously. “You might have done in the real Strider and took his clothes. What have you to say to that?’
“That you are a stout fellow,” answered Strider; “but I am afraid my only answer to you, Sam Gamgee, is this. If I had killed the real Strider, I could kill you. And I should have killed you already without so much talk. If I was after the Ring, I could have it — NOW!” He stood up, and seemed suddenly to grow taller. In his eyes gleamed a light, keen and commanding. Throwing back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that had hung concealed by his side.
“But I am the real Strider, fortunately,” he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile. “I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.”
At last Frodo spoke with hesitation. ‘I believed that you were a friend before the letter came,’ he said, ‘or at least I wished to. You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would — well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.’
‘I see,’ laughed Strider. ‘I look foul and feel fair. Is that it? All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost.’
‘Did the verses apply to you then?’ asked Frodo. ‘I could not make out what they were about. But how did you know that they were in Gandalf’s letter, if you have never seen it?’
‘I did not know,’ he answered. ‘But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name.’ He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. ‘Not much use is it, Sam?’ said Strider. ‘But the time is near when it shall be forged anew.’
Here is the same scene from the 1978 Ralf Bakshi animated film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orLz433Cf-g
Here is the scene from Jackson’s film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QySRWRHuftg
Both film versions compress the information given in the scene, compared to the book. One of the main differences between the Bakshi and Jackson movies is that Bakshi at least takes the lines the characters speak directly from Tolkien and keeps those lines in their original setting.
This is a common difference between the two films. While both compress some elements of the books, Bakshi seems to have more respect for Tolkien’s original writing than does Jackson.
In doing research for this essay I read through many comments on line by people who had strong feelings regarding the differences between the books and Jackson’s films.
A common thread among those who praised Jackson’s changes to the story (especially on the types of changes discussed in this essay) was the charge that Tolkien was an elitist, even a racist, in his views of the people of Middle Earth and in our real world as well.
This seems to me more a sad commentary on our times than any judgment of Tolkien himself. For more on this, see Tolkien’s response to Nazi inquiries about him having any Jewish blood when they inquired about having The Hobbit published in Germany. (Note 15 )
Here are more differences between book and movie to make my case.
We first see Aragorn as a king as the fellowship passes the great Argonath statues on the river Anduin: “Fear not!’ said a strange voice behind him. Frodo turned and saw Strider, and yet not Strider; for the weatherworn Ranger was no longer there. In the stern sat Aragorn son of Arathorn, proud and erect, guiding the boat with skillful strokes; his hood was cast back, and his dark hair was blowing in the wind, a light was in his eyes: a king returning from exile to his own land.”
Later in the story Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are pursuing the orcs who took Merry and Pippin:
The Riders halted. A thicket of spears were pointed towards the strangers…. Then one rode forward… taller than all the rest; from his helm as a crest a white horsetail flowed. He advanced until the point of his spear was within a foot of Aragorn’s breast….
‘Who are you, and what are you doing in this land?’ said the Rider, using the Common Speech….
‘I am called Strider,’ answered Aragorn. ‘I came out of the North. I am hunting Orcs.’
The Rider leaped from his horse. Giving his spear to another… he drew his sword and stood face to face with Aragorn, surveying him keenly….
‘[You] know little of Orcs, if you go hunting them in this fashion. They were swift and well-armed, and they were many…. But there is something strange about you, Strider…. That is no name for a Man that you give. And strange too is your raiment…. How did you escape our sight? Are you elvish folk?’
‘No,’ said Aragorn. ‘One only of us is an Elf, Legolas from the Woodland Realm in distant Mirkwood. But we have passed through Lothlórien, and the gifts and favour of the Lady go with us.’
The Rider looked at them with renewed wonder, but his eyes hardened. ‘Then there is a Lady in the Golden Wood, as old tales tell!’ he said…. ‘Few escape her nets, they say…. But if you have her favour, then you also are net-weavers and sorcerers, maybe.’
‘I am named Éomer son of Éomund, and am called the Third Marshal of Riddermark…. wanderers in the Riddermark would be wise to be less haughty in these days of doubt. First tell me your right name.’
‘First tell me whom you serve,’ said Aragorn. ‘Are you friend or foe of Sauron, the Dark Lord of Mordor?’
‘I serve only the Lord of the Mark, Théoden King son of Thengel,’ answered Éomer. ‘We do not serve the Power of the Black Land far away, but neither are we yet at open war with him…. We welcomed guests kindly in the better days, but in these times the unbidden stranger finds us swift and hard. Come! Who are you? Whom do you serve?’….
‘I serve no man,’ said Aragorn; ‘but the servants of Sauron I pursue into whatever land they may go…. The Orcs whom we pursued took captive two of my friends. In such need a man… will not ask for leave to follow the trail. Nor will he count the heads of the enemy save with a sword. I am not weaponless.’
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!”
Gimli and Legolas looked at their companion in amazement, for they had not seen him in this mood before. He seemed to have grown in stature… and in his living face they caught a brief vision of the power and majesty of the kings of stone. For a moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that a white flame flickered on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.
Éomer stepped back and a look of awe was in his face. He cast down his proud eyes. ‘These are indeed strange days,’ he muttered. ‘Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass.’
Later in the scene…’Our friends were attired even as we are,’ said Aragorn; ‘and you passed us by under the full light of day.’
‘I had forgotten that,’ said Éomer. ‘It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels…. How shall a man judge what to do in such times?’
‘As he ever has judged,’ said Aragorn. ‘Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.’
‘True indeed,’ said Éomer…. ‘I do not doubt you…. Yet I am not free to do all as I would. It is against our law to let strangers wander at will in our land, until the king himself shall give them leave, and more strict is the command in these days of peril. I have begged you to come back willingly with me, and you will not. Loth am I to begin a battle of one hundred against three.’
‘I do not think your law was made for such a chance,’ said Aragorn…. ‘My duty at least is clear, to go on…. Aid us, or at the worst let us go free.’….
Éomer was silent for a moment, then he spoke. ‘We both have need of haste,’ he said…. ‘This is my choice. You may go; and what is more, I will lend you horses. This only I ask: when your quest is achieved, or is proved vain, return with the horses over the Entwade to Meduseld, the high house in Edoras where Théoden now sits. Thus you shall prove to him that I have not misjudged. In this I place myself, and maybe my very life, in the keeping of your good faith. Do not fail.’
‘I will not,’ said Aragorn.
Compare the text from the book to the scene from the movie. While much of what was lost was likely due to time constraints in the film; I would argue that much more of Aragorn’s nobility was lost unnecessarily:
The Lord of the Rings – The Riders of Rohan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCwsZavV0mM
After the battle of Helm’s Deep and the destruction of Isengard, Aragorn receives the Palantir of Orthanc from Gandalf for safekeeping (for Gandalf himself dares not look into it). Aragorn uses the Palatir to challenge Sauron and force him to move his focus away from Mordor (where Frodeo and Sam are) and towards an attack on Minas Tirith.
‘I have looked in the Stone of Orthanc, my friends.’ ’
‘You have looked in that accursed stone of wizardry!’ exclaimed Gimli with fear and astonishment in his face. ‘Did you say aught to – him? Even Gandalf feared that encounter.’
‘You forget to whom you speak,’ said Aragorn sternly, and his eyes glinted. ‘What do you fear that I should say to him? Did I not openly proclaim my title before the doors of Edoras? Nay, Gimli, I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough – barely.’
He drew a deep breath. ‘It was a bitter struggle, and the weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I deem; for he knew it not till now. The eyes in Orthanc did not see through the armour of Théoden; but Sauron has not forgotten Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed; for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him.’
‘But he wields great dominion, nonetheless,’ said Gimli; ‘and now he will strike more swiftly.’
‘The hasty stroke goes oft astray,’ said Aragorn. ‘We must press our Enemy, and no longer wait upon him for the move. See my friends, when I had mastered the Stone, I learned many things.’
Now compare the book version describing Aragorn’s right to use the Palantir to the scene of his use of it in the Jackson film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_njsPDGRs
Aragorn ruled as King of Arnor and Gondor for 122 years after the War of the Ring. We see his nobility of spirit and lineage both in the beginning of his reign and at its end. In the appendixes to The Lord of the Rings we find a description of the death of Aragorn (who lived to the age of 210.)
Then going to the House of the Kings in the Silent Street, Aragorn laid him down on the long bed that had been prepared for him. There he said farewell to Eldarion, and gave into his hands the winged crown of Gondor and the sceptre of Arnor, and then all left him save Arwen, and she stood alone by his bed.
When Arwen asks him to stay, he replies: “Nay, lady, I am the last of the Númenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift. Now, therefore, I will sleep.”
Then a great beauty was revealed in him, so that all who after came there looked on him in wonder; for they saw that the grace of his youth, and the valour of his manhood, and the wisdom and majesty of his age were blended together. And long there he lay, an image of the splendour of the Kings of Men in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world.
In the scenes from Jackson’s film which covers this, we see much of Arwen’s pain, but very little of Aragorn’s nobility.
See note 12 to read how Tolkien ended The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings.
Overall, the Aragorn of the book is a much more resolute and forceful man than the indecisive character portrayed in the Jackson film.
***
The Chronicles of Narnia.
Turning now to the Narnia films, we find another instance where the traditional chivalry towards women that our exemplar high fantasy authors (in this case Lewis) portrayed in their books was edited out of the films.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe director, Andrew Adamson, gives this explanation for his changes to the scene where the children meet Father Christmas and are given gifts, such as a bow for Susan and a dagger for Lucy:
“[In the book], Father Christmas says, ‘I do not intend you to use it because battles are ugly when women fight.’ I thought that was very disempowering to girls, the fact that you get a tool and you’re not allowed to use it…’Battles are ugly affairs’ made it more of a universal thing and not a sexist thing.”
When Lewis had Father Christmas say to Lucy and Susan that “battles are ugly when women fight,” he is writing as a combat veteran of WWI. Yes, all battles are ugly, but Lewis the historian could give you many examples of battles that got really ugly; i.e. when things became so desperate that the women of the town or village were made to fight. All their men were dead and the women were expecting a worse fate.
The Medieval Model of Lewis based its treatment of women on the Biblical view of man and women as created to complement one and other. Where one is weak, the other will be strong to compensate. Of course, for the worshipers of equality at any cost, no one can be in any way weaker than anyone else (unless they are at the bottom of the Marxist/PC hierarchy, such as land owning kulaks for Marxists or Hetero white mans for the PC crowd). (note 9)
Peter Pevensie, in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (LWW), is another of the natural leader personality types, which, judging by their stories, were so admired by both Lewis and Tolkien and yet so misunderstood by modern film makers.
Both Tolkien and Lewis were combat veterans of World War One. It does not surprise me that they have strong male characters in their novels who epitomize the personality of the natural leader, because men at war will see this type of person during times when such people are needed most. I would also suspect that men of the stoic leader type are much more likely to gravitate towards careers in the military than in the ego driven film industry. (For more on the natural leader personality type, see note 8.)
Let us now return to Peter, from the Chronicles of Narnia.
From the Wikipedia page: Peter was born in 1927 and is 13 years old when he appears in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. After the defeat of the White Witch Jadis, he is crowned by Aslan as His Majesty King Peter the Magnificent, High King of Narnia, Emperor of the Lone Islands, Lord of Cair Paravel, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Lion. As a monarch of Narnia’s Golden Age, he rules with his brother and sisters for 15 years, reaching the approximate age of 28 before returning to the age of 13 in England at the end of the LWW. By The Last Battle he is a 22-year-old university student with his heart still in Narnia, though he had not been there since Prince Caspian, when he was 14 years old. Peter’s reign in Narnia was a Tetrarchy (Greek: “leadership of four”), and as High King Peter the Magnificent, he had supreme authority over all subsequent Narnian monarchs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pevensie)
Lewis, in the first of his Narnia stories, shows great wisdom in an element I’ve never seen mentioned in reviews of his work; namely the choosing of the ages of his main characters. Of course having both boys and girls as the heroes makes sense, but spreading out of their ages adds to the potential audience in both an expected and an unexpected way. As you would expect, children can most easily identify with kids their own age in a story, however, they also like to read about the age that they wish to be. The two younger Pevensie children satisfy this first urge, while the two older children satisfy the second. This is why you saw so many teenage sidekicks to adult superheroes in the golden age comic books and why advertising for various age groups so often show models that are not the age of the target audience , but of the age the target audience wishes to be.
Note: the average age of readership of the girls magazine “17” is not young women of that age, but fourteen year old girls. Seventeen year old girls are actually reading Cosmopolitan magazine. (And why, if you have ever read the titles of the articles of each magazine while on line in the supermarket, you should forbid your teenage daughters -as the top of your household’s hierarchy- from reading either one).
The reason I am mentioning all this, is that there is a marked difference in maturity levels between the Peter of the books and the Peter of the movies.
Prince Caspian director Adamson explains his changes to the personality of Peter:
“I always felt . . . how hard it must have been, particularly for Peter, to have gone from being high king to going back to high school, and what that would do to him, do to his ego. . . . I always thought that would be a really hard thing for a kid to go through.”
But the original story wasn’t about Peter’s ego, was it? Or even mainly about the children. It was about Aslan and what it meant to be a true Narnian, ( and the Person and people those names represented in our own world. )
In Steven Boyer’s insightful essay for Touchstone magazine, “Narnia Invaded. How the New Films Subvert Lewis’s Hierarchical World,” he gets right to the heart of the matter between Lewis’s Narnia and Disney’s Narnia.
“In Lewis’s telling of all of the Narnia tales, the children’s experiences as kings and queens in Narnia consistently transform them into nobler, more virtuous people in their own world. They are not spoiled children wanting to be kings again; they are noble kings who carry that very nobility back into their non-royal roles as schoolchildren.
But not so in Hollywood. To be a king at all is to hunger for power forevermore, like a tiger that has tasted human blood and ever afterwards is a “man-eater.” To lose imperial power by being transported back to England is to become a bitter, sullen, acrimonious brat. That is just what Peter has become, and his folly is the driving force behind most of the action in the movie.”
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-030-f
Here is part one of the BBC version of Prince Caspian. Compare how Peter is treated in this version compared to the one from Disney. This version begins with Peter and his siblings arriving at the train station and then goes right to Narnia and the troubles of young Prince Caspian. The Penevsie children do not enter Narnia in this video until the 20:45 mark.
This scene in the train station take about one minute in total and Peter’s most important lines are noble ones, “We are wanted. We are called.”
Here are the opening scenes of the Disney version. This sets the tone of how Peter is treated through the majority of the film.
The Disney version of the station scene takes over five minutes and Peter’s lines are mainly about who is at fault for his getting into a fight and how he wants to be treated like a king again.
I find it useful to compare the differences between the books and the BBC and Disney versions because they show the differences between a film company that respects an author’s work and one which does not.
In the BBC miniseries, the differences you find are most often simply shortening the scene through taking out some lines; while those lines that remain are from the original text. Each scene in the miniseries are a miniature, but still very recognizable, version of the original.
In the Disney version, while you might recognize the “bones” of a scene, (as in ‘Lucy saw Aslan in this scene, but the others did not believe her’) almost none of the original lines remain.
For example, in the original story Lucy sees Aslan near a stone wall and knows that is the direction they should go.
In the BBC version, Peter is not sure if his younger sister truly saw Aslan, but speaks to her kindly and decides to take a vote on which way to go. The lines of dialog have been reduced, but the meaning of what remains has not been changed.
In the Disney script, it is the lines from the original text that demonstrate respect for hierarchical authority that are removed.
In the Disney version, Peter asks Lucy, after she sees Aslan but he does not; “Why wouldn’t I have seen him?” Why wouldn’t Aslan, the creator of Narnia, present himself to me, the High King of Narnia?
From Lewis’s text of Prince Caspian, after Peter and his siblings save Caspian from his kidnappers:
“We don’t seem to have any enemies left,” said Peter. “There’s the Hag, dead. . . . And Nikabrik, dead too. . . . And you, I suppose, are King Caspian?”
“Yes,” said the other boy. “But I’ve no idea who you are.”
“It’s the High King, King Peter,” said Trumpkin.
“Your majesty is welcome,” said Caspian.
“And so is your majesty,” said Peter. “I haven’t come to take your place, you know, but to put you into it.”
Contrast this with the movie scene after the failed attack on Miraz’s castle; (an attack which did not appear in the book).
Lucy: “What happened?”
Peter: “Ask him.”
Caspian: “You could have called it off, there was still time.”
Peter: “No, there wasn’t, thanks to you. If you had kept to the plan, those solders might be alive right now.”
Caspian: “And if you had just stayed here like I suggested, they definitely would be!”
Peter: “You called us, remember?”
Caspian: “My first mistake.”
Peter: “No, your first mistake was thinking you could lead these people.”
Caspian: “I am not the one who abandoned Narnia.”
Peter: “No, you are the one who invaded Narnia. You have no more right to rule here than Miraz. You, him, your father. Narnia is better off without the lot of you.”
Where is King Peter’s nobility of heart, which was so evident in the books. Where is the courtly courtesy? Where is the admission of mistakes, the asking of forgiveness and repentance made? The humility? The honor?
The beauty and appeal of the Narnia books was the immersion in another world. On the surface, the part of that world that attracts at first is the visual; the creatures, the magic, the events. But looking further there is a deeper magic. It is the ethos, the worldview, the culture so different from our own time that is the longer lasting attraction.
Many of the reviews praising the changes made to the movies when they depart from the books of both Lewis and Tolkien use the same phrase; that the changes made the characters “relatable to modern audiences;” as if good men who remained true to their moral code during times of trouble were more outside the scope of reality than the magic and monsters of the stories.
Is it an unrealistic leap to think that those who have the most trouble with noble male characters such as Faramir, Aragorn and Peter have never seen such a man or that the very existence of such men goes against the current Zeitgeist, the spirit of our times?
“There is in all men a tendency (only corrigible by good training from without and persistent moral effort from within) to resent the existence of what is stronger, subtler or better than themselves. In uncorrected and brutal men this hardens into an implacable and disinterested hatred for every kind of excellence.”
-C. S. Lewis, “Democratic Education,” from the essay Present Concerns.
***
Lewis’s The Discarded Image has been for me the code book that showed what is missing in much of today’s fantasy stories. This is particularly true of the movie adaptations of the works of Lewis and Tolkien and any elements therein, such as the hierarchies discussed here, as these are viewed as the enemies of the ruling philosophies of our day.
The next part of this series will focus on the category of creatures known as Longaevi, the “Long Lived Ones,” ( such as elves ) who stand in Medieval literature somewhere between humans and angels.
Sed Nobilitatis
William R. McGrath
You will find the extreme kind of equality discussed in this essay used by the Antichrist character in his plans for world domination in chapter 6 of my novel Eretzel – which you may read free of charge via this link:
http://theswordoffire.com/?page_id=336
HIGH FANTASY AND THE MEDIEVAL MODEL:
INTRODUCTION
Part 1: Advanced Future vs. Golden Past
Part 2. Urban vs Rural
Part 3: Knights and Angels in the Age of Chivalry
Part 4: Cosmos vs Chaos
Part 5: Hierarchy vs Equality
Part 6: Longaevi: The origins of fantasy creatures in Medieval Literature
Part 7: The Good God vs. “gods”
.
NOTES
Anthropologists tell us that humans have spent the vast majority of our time on earth in Hunter-Gatherer societies and it was the males who were the hunters and the females who were the gatherers. Furthermore, phycologists who have studied this subject argue that most of the physical and psychological differences between men and women are due to our evolving over millions of years to fit the physical and mental needs of these roles. Of particular value to our discussion is why men value merit based hierarchies and women value fairness and equality; as these were life or death survival strategies for their roles within Hunter-Gatherer groups. While men were bringing meat back to the tribe, women were gathering fruits, grains and other vegetable foods and then distributing all these foods equitably to their offspring.
An interesting theory posits that the dogmatic requirement for equality in all things by social justice warriors is that instinct to distribute food equally among ones own offspring, taken to the extreme and made universal in all things for everyone. (note 14)
(For more on the physical and psychological differences between the sexes see note 9. For info on how hierarchies help in a business setting, see note 10).
Note 1: From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “The earliest meaning of hierarchy in English has to do with the ranks of different types of angels in the celestial order. The idea of categorizing groups according to rank readily transferred to the organization of priestly or other governmental rule. The word hierarchy is, in fact, related to a number of governmental words in English, such as monarchy, anarchy, and oligarchy, although it itself is now very rarely used in relation to government.
The word comes from the Greek hierarchēs, which was formed by combining the words hieros, meaning “supernatural, holy,” and archos, meaning. “ruler.” Hierarchy has continued to spread its meaning beyond matters ecclesiastical and governmental, and today is commonly found used in reference to any one of a number of different forms of graded classification.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy
Note. 1A. The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself.
From: https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=8932
Note 2. The verb condescend used to be free of any hint of the offensive superiority it usually suggests today. It could mean literally “to go or come down” or, figuratively, “to willingly lower oneself to another’s level,” senses that are still occasionally encountered in writings on the Bible.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescend
Note 3. For definitions of proletariat and bourgeoisie see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
Note 4.
The History of Political Correctness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs
The History of the Frankfurt School: https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html
Note 5. I am still working out how the hobbits fit into this theory. Merry and Pipin are an easy choice as the Heart characters, but who is the Head and who the Hand? Samwise starts off as the practical Head character, but later in the story he and Frodo seem to take turns taking the Hand mantle.
Note 6. Ron Wealey’s middle name is “Bilius” (which) sounds like the word “bilious,” which means “full of bile.” That could refer to a liver disorder, but it also sometimes means “ill-tempered,” in a reference to the four temperaments of the Greek humors, which is more likely. Ron isn’t exactly emotionally mature. (This snippet is taken from a great page about Harry Potter character names: https://www.insider.com/harry-potter-character-name-meaning-2017-4#ronald-bilius-weasleys-name-refers-to-his-status-as-harrys-sidekick-2 )
Note 7. https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/08/20/bane-creator-chuck-dixon-explains-why-current-writers-cant-tell-good-superman-stories/
Note 8. Seven Hearts, a Character Study for Fiction Writers:
http://theswordoffire.com/?p=422
Note 9: Science tells us that there are basic behavioral differences between the male and female of every mammalian species on this planet; human beings included.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/biological-sex-differences/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-dont-belong-in-combat-units-11547411638
On Russian Kulaks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak
Note 10: Equality or hierarchy? Built-in hierarchy leads to greater productivity and fewer conflicts: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152322.htm
Note: 11. The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.
http://www.henneth-annun.net/things_view.cfm?thid=200
Note 12. The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales
by Bruno Bettelheim
Note 13. In the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke moves through a common character arch for the Spirit character; starting as a heart or student character, spending time in study as an expert/head character and finally becoming a master as a spirit character. In a martial arts movie, we might call this arch, Student-Blackbelt-Master. Speaking of Star Wars, I would argue that many of the problems with the latest movies can be attributed to the modern film industry’s distaste for hierarchy and the worship of the PC version of equality that has affected the fantasy movies I have discussed in this essay.
Note 14. Why are SJWs more likely to be female? Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bX52d5f0MU
Note 15. https://www.good.is/articles/jrr-rolkien-nazi-letter
The painting that heads this essay depicts “The Nine Worthies” a fresco found in Castello della Manta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castello_della_Manta).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Worthies
Note 16. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2021/01/did-you-know-disrupt-texts-is-the-latest-attack-on-the-western-canon/
*This anti-classics attitude is fleshed out when the cast or crew of ROP says they must “modernize” Tolkien’s stories or “bring them into today’s world.” Some people took this to mean simply to include POC, but that is a minor change, even when handled as ham-handedly as ROP.
That was a bit like every TV show in the early 70s that had a big city street gang requiring them to be racially diverse. For those of us who grew up in the big cities of the time, this was hilariously unrealistic, (the skinny white actors trying to sound just as cool as the black actors in the show’s gangs were my favorites for a laugh). When the show “Hill Street Blues” appeared, it was praised for its realism in it handling of police life, but it also destroyed Hollywood’s unrealistic portrayal of the racial makeup of inner city gangs. Getting back to ROP, we can see the right way and the wrong way to portray POC in a modern story simply by comparing it to Game of Thrones, where different countries were peopled by different ethnic groups. In more cosmopolitan areas, you found more diversity of ethnicities, but this fit in naturally in GOT and did not feel like someone was checking off ethnic quota boxes to keep their bosses happy, as it did in ROP.
ALSO WORTH WATCHING:
Jordan Peterson | Hierarchies, Inequality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sSe6FSrylc
You must be logged in to post a comment.