Excellent essay. Jackson’s Trilogy have been my favorite movies for my entire life, but I’ve noticed an interesting change over the past few years as I’ve intentionally reread the books more times: with every watch and read, I love the books more and like the movies less. The more I understand who the characters are who Tolkien wrote, the less I like their depictions in the movies.
I think only Sam and Gollum are comparable between the two with Gandalf also mostly being well done. EVERY other character is altered to the point of being unrecognizable between the two mediums. And this is the true failure of the movies, not the plot changes (elves at Helm’s Deep). Great job breaking down this aspect of just one of those character changes.
I think the greatest virtue the movies have is how thoroughly they instill a love for LOTR in kids. But like holding hands with a girl for the first time, it’s only a pale shadow of the love that can grow if they really get to know her.
I'm glad you put that in, for it's no less than Aslan who says that if Caspian believed he were worthy to be king, it would be proof that he were not.
You're not wrong about Aragorn, but maybe a bit one-sided. There's a humility about him too. He accepts the superiority of Gandalf. He admits when he makes mistakes: "Vain was Gandalf's trust in me." When he does return to Minas Tirith, he initially refuses to claim the kingship, to avoid stirring up any strife in the Monday of the war. He certainly never *says* "I am worthy to be king."
He doesn't doubt his right or duty to be king of Gondor. But I think he would pass Aslan's test. If asked, "Are you worthy to be king of Gondor," I think he'd say it was his duty and he would do his best, while expecting that he would fall short and wishing he had more wisdom.
Educated elites ought to be like Aragorn, recognizing frankly their natural leadership and exercising it boldly for the common good. Too many run away from responsibility into academia or something, where they don't have to lead.
I part ways with Lewis on this one. His essay "Equality" (from Present Concerns) builds the case for democracy based upon his own unfitness for power. But how's that working out for us? Not well, I'd say. He overstates his own unworthiness. It seems almost performative, not actual humility. If men like Lewis are unwilling, lesser men with worse intentions will surely seize the opportunity. Like I said, I get where that line of thinking comes from, but it has real limits.
Hmm, is that a disagreement? I think Lewis would buy the idea that although we're all unworthy of rule-- we are all sinners, after all-- yet some are worthier than others, and it's perfectly reasonable for some to say, "For all my faults, I'm the best one to rule right now, so I'm going to try to be king." Lewis was a huge fan of *Lord of the Rings,* and a formative influence, so I presume he strongly approved of Aragorn, and figures like High King Peter of Narnia are similar. He may have preferred democratic equality as practiced by the US and UK to the models of one man rule that were on offer at the time -- Hitler and Stalin -- but The Chronicles of Narnia are very countercultural in favor of old-fashioned feudalism and almost a kind of divine right monarchy. In the Space Trilogy, he hints at a yearning for some kind of Arthurian restoration. I think we all agree here.
On the principle that when the relatively worthy sell themselves short and don't aspire to fame and power, they leave the way open for worse men to dominate the public square and work great evil, I emphatically agree, and we see that truth urgently illustrated every desperate day of these benighted times. I wouldn't blame Lewis for lacking ambition at a time when Britain has leaders like Churchill. But urging good men to greater ambition is very apt today, and Aragorn is a good example of that.
Excellent essay. While I think it's a good rule of thumb that those who seek power often should be kept from it, it certainly isn't an ultimatum.
"""
'Welcome, Prince,' said Aslan. 'Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the Kingship of Narnia?'
'I—I don't think I do, Sir,' said Caspian. 'I am only a kid.'
'Good,' said Aslan. 'If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been proof that you were not.”
""" – C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian
This isn't exactly the same sentiment, but it has a similar pitfall, if taken to apply in all cases. It certainly *is* possible to feel yourself sufficient to a leadership position (but only with much preparation and continued humility throughout). The shortsighted and power-hungry will often feel sufficient when they actually are quite lacking, and these people often will pursue leadership positions. But there absolutely can be a chivalrous man who can feel sufficient (with God's continuing aid) to the tasks set before them.
Agreed. Lewis has an essay on this in Present Concerns (the same essay collection that features "The Necessity of Chivalry"). He says he's a democrat because he wouldn't trust himself with power. Like I mentioned, I get the point, but I think it's a tad naive about how power actually works. If good men aren't willing to wield it, bad men certainly will be. YOU'RE CS LEWIS—GET OVER YOUR ANXIETIES!
I have watched the films countless times, but for all that I have never actually read the books and I had no idea how drastic, and tragic, of a difference there is.
Straightforward assessments of one's own prowess in anything are promises. They encumber one with the duty of being able to back up his words with his deeds. Others, naturally, will hold one to such statements. Much easier to "play it safe" in being reluctant, and self-doubting. But, that's not what we need in leaders. Reluctant to do what one ought? Doubt in the heat of the moment brings hesitation that births ruin.
But it's difficult for many, especially in Hollywood, to not envision men reluctant and crippled with doubt. Well, much of this ties in with this society's fear of personal loyalty. Because the sort of magnanimity Aragorn exhibits (in the book, not the fake movies), is the kind that inspires such loyalty in men. But our whole society is structured around tearing humans apart from real relationships. Our "leaders" are a circus of buck-passing duty-evading bureaucrats and other career liars, who always pretend they aren't ruling over us, micromanaging and grinding us into the dust. They're as allergic to personal responsibility as are women. But personal responsibility goes with personal loyalty. So those who dread the one, will shirk the magnanimity that produces the other.
A tragic alteration in the movies that says alot about the kind of hero our culture is willing to tolerate. We cannot countenance an aspirational hero. It makes uneasy to feel his pull upwards into the heat of action. Better that we drag him down to our immobile level, so we can feel ourselves heroic without lifting a finger.
Like the previous comment: excellent essay. When I first heard they were making a LOTR movie I was disappointed. I couldn’t imagine anyone doing the story justice. Having said that, I had such low expectations that I ended up liking the movies. It took me a while to get past what they did to Aragorn, Boromir and a few others, and it got progressively worse as each movie followed, but it was a gigantic undertaking and I ended up respecting the effort.
Excellent essay. Jackson’s Trilogy have been my favorite movies for my entire life, but I’ve noticed an interesting change over the past few years as I’ve intentionally reread the books more times: with every watch and read, I love the books more and like the movies less. The more I understand who the characters are who Tolkien wrote, the less I like their depictions in the movies.
I think only Sam and Gollum are comparable between the two with Gandalf also mostly being well done. EVERY other character is altered to the point of being unrecognizable between the two mediums. And this is the true failure of the movies, not the plot changes (elves at Helm’s Deep). Great job breaking down this aspect of just one of those character changes.
I think the greatest virtue the movies have is how thoroughly they instill a love for LOTR in kids. But like holding hands with a girl for the first time, it’s only a pale shadow of the love that can grow if they really get to know her.
Fantastic! I need to reread the series. I missed this before.
"even if they contain some wisdom"
I'm glad you put that in, for it's no less than Aslan who says that if Caspian believed he were worthy to be king, it would be proof that he were not.
You're not wrong about Aragorn, but maybe a bit one-sided. There's a humility about him too. He accepts the superiority of Gandalf. He admits when he makes mistakes: "Vain was Gandalf's trust in me." When he does return to Minas Tirith, he initially refuses to claim the kingship, to avoid stirring up any strife in the Monday of the war. He certainly never *says* "I am worthy to be king."
He doesn't doubt his right or duty to be king of Gondor. But I think he would pass Aslan's test. If asked, "Are you worthy to be king of Gondor," I think he'd say it was his duty and he would do his best, while expecting that he would fall short and wishing he had more wisdom.
Educated elites ought to be like Aragorn, recognizing frankly their natural leadership and exercising it boldly for the common good. Too many run away from responsibility into academia or something, where they don't have to lead.
I part ways with Lewis on this one. His essay "Equality" (from Present Concerns) builds the case for democracy based upon his own unfitness for power. But how's that working out for us? Not well, I'd say. He overstates his own unworthiness. It seems almost performative, not actual humility. If men like Lewis are unwilling, lesser men with worse intentions will surely seize the opportunity. Like I said, I get where that line of thinking comes from, but it has real limits.
Hmm, is that a disagreement? I think Lewis would buy the idea that although we're all unworthy of rule-- we are all sinners, after all-- yet some are worthier than others, and it's perfectly reasonable for some to say, "For all my faults, I'm the best one to rule right now, so I'm going to try to be king." Lewis was a huge fan of *Lord of the Rings,* and a formative influence, so I presume he strongly approved of Aragorn, and figures like High King Peter of Narnia are similar. He may have preferred democratic equality as practiced by the US and UK to the models of one man rule that were on offer at the time -- Hitler and Stalin -- but The Chronicles of Narnia are very countercultural in favor of old-fashioned feudalism and almost a kind of divine right monarchy. In the Space Trilogy, he hints at a yearning for some kind of Arthurian restoration. I think we all agree here.
On the principle that when the relatively worthy sell themselves short and don't aspire to fame and power, they leave the way open for worse men to dominate the public square and work great evil, I emphatically agree, and we see that truth urgently illustrated every desperate day of these benighted times. I wouldn't blame Lewis for lacking ambition at a time when Britain has leaders like Churchill. But urging good men to greater ambition is very apt today, and Aragorn is a good example of that.
Excellent essay. While I think it's a good rule of thumb that those who seek power often should be kept from it, it certainly isn't an ultimatum.
"""
'Welcome, Prince,' said Aslan. 'Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the Kingship of Narnia?'
'I—I don't think I do, Sir,' said Caspian. 'I am only a kid.'
'Good,' said Aslan. 'If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been proof that you were not.”
""" – C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian
This isn't exactly the same sentiment, but it has a similar pitfall, if taken to apply in all cases. It certainly *is* possible to feel yourself sufficient to a leadership position (but only with much preparation and continued humility throughout). The shortsighted and power-hungry will often feel sufficient when they actually are quite lacking, and these people often will pursue leadership positions. But there absolutely can be a chivalrous man who can feel sufficient (with God's continuing aid) to the tasks set before them.
Agreed. Lewis has an essay on this in Present Concerns (the same essay collection that features "The Necessity of Chivalry"). He says he's a democrat because he wouldn't trust himself with power. Like I mentioned, I get the point, but I think it's a tad naive about how power actually works. If good men aren't willing to wield it, bad men certainly will be. YOU'RE CS LEWIS—GET OVER YOUR ANXIETIES!
Big dog, this is insightful beyond words.
I have watched the films countless times, but for all that I have never actually read the books and I had no idea how drastic, and tragic, of a difference there is.
Thank you JGB. Highly recommend going back to the source. I aim to revisit the series once a year, and the effort is always repaid.
I am certain. What is worth an regular beholding if not the artful lustre of Biblical manhood?
Straightforward assessments of one's own prowess in anything are promises. They encumber one with the duty of being able to back up his words with his deeds. Others, naturally, will hold one to such statements. Much easier to "play it safe" in being reluctant, and self-doubting. But, that's not what we need in leaders. Reluctant to do what one ought? Doubt in the heat of the moment brings hesitation that births ruin.
But it's difficult for many, especially in Hollywood, to not envision men reluctant and crippled with doubt. Well, much of this ties in with this society's fear of personal loyalty. Because the sort of magnanimity Aragorn exhibits (in the book, not the fake movies), is the kind that inspires such loyalty in men. But our whole society is structured around tearing humans apart from real relationships. Our "leaders" are a circus of buck-passing duty-evading bureaucrats and other career liars, who always pretend they aren't ruling over us, micromanaging and grinding us into the dust. They're as allergic to personal responsibility as are women. But personal responsibility goes with personal loyalty. So those who dread the one, will shirk the magnanimity that produces the other.
A tragic alteration in the movies that says alot about the kind of hero our culture is willing to tolerate. We cannot countenance an aspirational hero. It makes uneasy to feel his pull upwards into the heat of action. Better that we drag him down to our immobile level, so we can feel ourselves heroic without lifting a finger.
Like the previous comment: excellent essay. When I first heard they were making a LOTR movie I was disappointed. I couldn’t imagine anyone doing the story justice. Having said that, I had such low expectations that I ended up liking the movies. It took me a while to get past what they did to Aragorn, Boromir and a few others, and it got progressively worse as each movie followed, but it was a gigantic undertaking and I ended up respecting the effort.
Right, but I never said his greatness lies in magnanimity alone. I said it's what the updated version of the character is missing.
Attach link to your piece--I'd be interested to read.