Arwen: Book Vs Movie
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Got video Ideas?: forms.gle/VNTu...
Today's video is a deep dive on Arwen in the books and in her movie adaptation. Did she girlboss too close to the sun?
Donate to my tip jar: ko-fi.com/part...
Follow me on Instagram: / parttimehobbit
Contact me: parttime.hobbit.business@gmail.com
Citations are available upon request!
Music by Epidemic Sound. Check out my referral link here: share.epidemic...
That jump cut on "if you want him, come and claim him" -- still one of the most epic things thats ever happened in cinema ever
I agree! What a powerful scene!
My favorite book Arwen part is when she gives the white jewel to Frodo. The idea of her willing to share in Frodo’s pain makes her a very powerful character. She reminds me a lot of Luthien for this reason.
That wasn’t Arwen. That was Galadriel!
Arwen gives Frodo a jewel on a chain when she tells him that he can go to the Havens in her place.
@@simonmorris4226 Someone hasn't read the book
@@qcrew2938 yup!
@@simonmorris4226No, it was Arwen. It happens in ROTK, after the wedding, but before the hobbits leave Gondor.
Strangely enough, the only dialogue Arwen has in the entire written triology (minus appendices) is a conversation with Frodo (wherein she gives him a white jewel to hold when his pain becomes unbearable).
I think the movie writers did Arwen a huge solid. As a child reading the novels, Arwen made so little impression on me that I didn’t even consider her a character (I was confused that anyone got cast to play her) and I didn’t understand that Aragorn was in love with her. By contrast, the movie-dream love story enchanted me, and the scenes with Arwen and Elrond explained to me her sacrifice in a way that made my stomach drop into my shoes. The scene where she sees her future child with Aragorn and turns back from the journey west was where I finally understood and loved her. In that scene, she chose love and hope over despair. Would that we all had a moment of such clarity.
Literally just read "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" from the appendices if you want more about her character. It's not hard.
@@brooksboy78 one shouldnt have to read a side story in order to get an impression of a character who could have been in the main story. also, not everyone is as inclined to read the appendices.
I read the appendices as an adult. My comment describes my impression reading the novel first time through. Furthermore, describing the relationship in the appendix still didn’t solve the problem that Tolkien didn’t actually include her in the novel as a speaking character.
Her saving Frodo was pretty gnarly, too. Not afraid of Nazgûl at all.
@@callnight1441 Not everyone is inclined to read the appendices? I get that such things are unusual in fiction, but they are essential to LoTR, the book would be a mere shadow of itself without them. Not only fleshing out Aragon's and Arwen's history, but finishing up the story and tying up all the loose ends with the futures of the Characters, giving you that sense of closure. None of this would have fit nicely into the primary narrative, much of it happened decades before or after, but all of it was absolutely essential to the story. I've read through the appendices far more times than I've read through the primary narrative, it's the best part of the book.
I think having Arwen at Helms Deep would have undercut the Eowyn unrequited love story and diminished her arc.
True.
I was coming here to make this comment.
Thank God they removed her from helms deep. This was the hour of the race of men triumphing against all odds. Which was to hold the fort foe 5 days elves of lothlorien were under siege.
And it would have made any hint of feeling from Aragorn look like he was deliberately cheating.
I still can't get over how many generations are affected by this story, When I first read it in the mid 80's I thought I was one of a dieing breed, I love it, your focus on the details are fantastic!
I think it was ultimately a good thing that we go through the entire second film without Aragorn and Arwen meeting each other in person. It makes the reveal of Arwen at the coronation add to the feeling of celebration and victory.
I always took the "Arwen's fate being tide to the fate of the Ring" bit as Elrond telling Aragorn that now (in the movies) Arwen has chosen to stay in Middle Earth, and whatever happens in Middle Earth Arwen will not be able to avoid it, creating a greater sense of urgency. Also I would like to say that I love both versions of Arwen. Whether book or movie, I have always found Arwen a great example of a great female character. But I will say my favorite Arwen moment is from the ROTK and it's not even in the book. It's the moment when she is riding to the Grey Havens and sees the vision of her son. That look on her son's face and the realization on her's makes me cry every single time. It shows that she is strong and selfless ready to give up life in the Undying Lands for the sake of the man she loves and her unborn son. And that she has hope beyond hope that the Darkness won't last. I could go on. Thanks Jess for your beautiful content 💙
That's an interesting point, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still not 100% sure I love it as a plot device, but at least it makes sense now lol. And that moment is so striking! It helps enforce the inherent tragedy of her character, and makes you feel the impact of the choice she made. Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment!
While I do not mind Arwen showing up for Glorfindel, I completely do not understand why there is no banner made by Arwen in the movies. It is such beautifully described and has quite significant visual role. Also, they can include scenes of Arwen making this banner and so show her more without changing the story.
(Also, I do not like that Arwen's brothers Elladan and Elrohir didn't get into the movies. It is understandable - there is a lot of characters already - but still, it is a bit dissapointing.)
I always thought that the banner she's hiding behind at the coronation was meant to be the banner that she made, or at least a nod do it, but I totally agree. It would have been a fantastic moment to see onscreen if they fully realized what was in the books.
Elladan and Elrohir are shown in "Born of Hope," a LOTR fan film available here on TH-cam.
@@grossepointemichigan I tried to watch it, had to skip through some of the cringier parts to be honest, it did lead me to Horn of Gondor though which I liked much better.
The banner is in the film. It's just not black. Arwen is hiding behind it at the coronation.
I remember seeing a little LOTR comic with the twins holding a sign that said, "Arwen is NOT an only child!
One reason for the lack of Arwen in the book, is that Tolkien came up with her quite late when writing LOTR. As for the movies, Arwen showing up for Glorfindel is understandable. I was a bit sceptical when first I saw it, but it turned out ok in the end. I think Glorfindel-fangirls were the ones who were most upset.
Oh, I'm not sure I was aware of that, but it makes a lot of sense! Thanks for sharing!
I never never never thought of myself as a Glorfindel's fangirl! But I am😅 But he was so cool! Pardoned noldor, not only from Valinor but from halls of Mandos! Anyway i wasn't upset that Arwen showed up in his stead but because Frodo was once again stripped of agency and heroism
Lol ,I am a Glorfindel fan girl. I really missed him. He was a great representative of the glory of the elves in a very different way than Galidreil or Elrond
@@alexandratiniakova6363 I've always seen it as the heroism belonging to the horse far more than Frodo. It was the horses ability to resist or just ignore the fear effect the nazgul had on all (normal) living things that saved Frodo. As for agency. Remember what Glorfindel said about the horse not letting anyone fall off. Frodo was in no condition to take the reins. Book or movie he was just a passenger at the time. In both cases his loss of agency was a result of his condition. I have always been a little disappointed but also kinda appreciated that we only got to see just a glimpse of how awesome Glorfindel was in lotr. Top of my list for a minor character with a massively badass back story.
@@melferm Oh, you have a point about the horse. But at least Frodo had a mental battle for a minute and well, if not won it, he didn't loose. Glorfindel's character can live without this incident just fine considering how much heroic stuff he pulled off already. But Frodo's character suffered a lot because this was butchered
I've always believed that Arwen's character could have been better integrated into flashbacks depicting moments prior to the formation of the Fellowship. These flashbacks could have showcased her relationship with Aragorn and highlighted her elven wisdom and courage, particularly in the Nazgul pursuit scene. I envision scenes where Aragorn confides in her, expressing his doubts about his destiny, and Arwen responds with wisdom, drawing from the virtues of Numenor and recounting stories from her vast knowledge of Middle Earth. Picture Aragorn cradled in her arms, their heartfelt conversations bringing depth to their bond and emphasizing Arwen's character.
I think that Arwen's appearance at Helm's Deep would have felt very contrived and would have taken away from her mystique.
The "warrior maiden" suits Eowyn's character much better.
To me, Arwen's strenght felt more gentle and mysterious; comparable to the power wielded by Galadriel. I also believe that this is closer to what Tolkien had intended.
Arwen is more of a priestess than a combatant.
Except Tolkien already had a priestess - Galadriel.
@@squamish4244 he also already had a warrior.
@@hans-christianbauer5947 Yes. ONE.
Generally, warriors are more common than priestesses.
@@squamish4244 Yes, and the vast majority of warriors aren't women. Never have been.
That aside, what does that have to do with Arwen and what she represents in Tolkien's story?
Or are you suggesting that she should have been used to fill some sort of quota?
@@hans-christianbauer5947 in middle-earth? Yes, generally women warriors are not seen. In real-life warrior women were more common in Celtic lore.
I agree. Jackson did Arwen right by expanding her screen time without stomping on Tolkien's toes. The story needed romance.
I wouldn't have minded Arwen being somehow involved with the banner or something. But the arrival of the elven archers at helm's deep was much more troubling to me. Only Legolas was there and he wished in the book that he'd asked for help from Galadriel for elven archers.
And Gimli son of Gloin told him that war marches on their own lands!
The elves being there somewhat diminished the despair of the situation as well as the miraculous feat of actually holding the fortress with the people they had at hand, lacking a trained army
@@derimperator3847 The point of the battle, to me, was to show that, even when some battles are doomed to fail, they need to be fought anyway. There is strength and honor in not surrendering. Besides, what choice was there? They were fleeing from a determined and large -- and let's not for get, EVIL -- enemy.
In the book, they barely survive, and the rising sun shows what really saves them: the Ents and Hourns. Slow to decide, but implacable in their action. This against Saruman's arrogant self-assurance and haste.
Also, as Simon Morris points out above: Lothlorien was besieged itself. They were fighting forces from Mirkwood.
@@paulkinzer7661 I take this just as an illustration that elves were still fighting the bad guys
Oh, man, maybe you weren't in the movie theatre during the first run of the thing. We had pondered (some of us for many years) over Gimli and Legolas wishing for some of their kin to join the fight, that fight, that night. When the Lothlorian elves were revealed upon the rampart, the entire cinema erupted with a roar of joyous shouts and applause. Jackson & Co had given us the wish fulfillment on screen.
We weren't going to see the battle for Greenwood or Erebor, but they give us a sample of that loyalty and pain and struggle shared among all free peoples during the war. It was a symbol of kinship, as well as a symbol of the horrors of war that would leave bloodstains among all kinds. No one was so pretty or so noble that they would not be affected by it. Particularly, the death of Haldir made the whole thing as real and dirty and horrible as it really was.
I think this is a solid analysis, but I don't think you can truly gauge the impact without discussing the choice to cast Liv Tyler in the role. To that point, Tyler was known for... being Steven Tyler's daughter. She had substantial roles to her name, but those were mainly the cult classic Empire Records and the love interest in Armageddon, the film she played the lover interest in that was mostly known for the song Aerosmith wrote for it (the song that went on to be the band's first ever chart topper). Given the somewhat recent discussion on nepo babies, it's important to think about her in comparison to the rest of the cast.
Viggo Morgensen - breakout role (and arguably career high point)
Orlando Bloom - breakout role
John Rhys Davies - reliable character actor but not a household name
Ian McKellan - In the process of becoming mainstream after playing Magneto in 2000's X-men, but still largely known for his stage work and his Shakespearean film adaptations
Elijah Wood - known name, but mostly for his childhood roles
Sean Bean - working character actor known for his villains in Patriot Games and Goldeneye, still years off from his GoT fame
I could go on but I think you can gather where I'm coming from on this. The casting was very clearly done on merit with name recognition being far from the casting director's mind. Then we have Liv Tyler. She was known to the public, but not for any reasons that would inspire people to excitement at her casting. Limited roles, no major credits in high fantasy or period pieces to date, it just didn't feel like much thought was given to her being given the role beyond stunt casting.
With that perception understood, many fans were already primed to dislike her -- knowing how major of a character she would be portraying and what an unserious choice Tyler felt like. Once they finally saw the finished product, when the perception was that she was given the role out of name recognition (and the clout injection her parentage gave her), seeing a character sacrificed for the aggrandizement of her role rubbed many the wrong way.
From that point onward, viewer's opinions were tainted. It felt as though Hollywood politics had infiltrated Middle-Earth and she was the unfortunate face of it. The merits of her performance would be overlooked, as the added scenes were viewed as Hollywood trying to improve on Tolkein's work.
I will acknowledge that this view is fairly exclusive to people who saw it in theatres and newcomers to the series cannot share it because the perspective is entirely different. To date, Liv Tyler is debatably a larger star than her father. Half the cast was springboarded to stardom from the trilogy and many would be viewed as larger stars than Tyler is today, so from a contemporary perspective, it's understandable how the vitriol towards her can be viewed as simple misogyny, but it's actually one of the most nuanced roles on a metatextual level in terms of zeitgeist and in terms of nervous, protective fans that I can think of
Great video, love the channel
I think this is a good point. I remember hearing that she was cast and thinking that she came across as dumb and weak, but beautiful. (I'm not saying I was being kind or fair, but that was generally her public persona.) It took me awhile to warm up to her as the character, especially when there were so few other female actors and characters and when they were they were a lot more dynamic. I had to re-watch the trilogy to appreciate the softness of the character as part of her personality. I still think that Liv Tyler is one of the weakest actors in the trilogy, but I can separate her from Arwen now.
I think they could have fixed this whole Arwen character issue by showing her make the banner for Aragorn. Then she could show up with the Grey company with her brothers and accompany them to Pelennor fields. They chose to make the Army of the Dead carry that section of the fight anyway, so her presence wouldn`t be too intrusive, yet noticeable enough.
Or at least have her in the scene with Elrond (where he finally brings Anduril into the story). She could have been there with banner in hand.
Totally agree. When I read the books, I add her to those scenes in my head.
Or Hager her heading up north to fight (where most of the elves were fighting ). Although that would have introduced the issue of the wider war that the movies skipped to be concise
I was going to make the exact same comment. I don't know if I would have her go with Aragon through the Paths of the Dead, but I think that could be workable. It would be less awkward than realizing that Aragorn is fantasizing about Arwen when it is really just a horse nuzzling him.
@@megantouchton4636 Totally agree! I personally believe that if they had replaced Haldir and the Lothlórien reinforcements at Helm's Deep with the Grey Company led by Arwen and Halbarad, it would've killed 2 birds with one stone.
1. It would've given PJ and his writing team the opportunity to repeat the same technique they used in Fellowship, where they replaced minor elven characters with Arwen to help expand upon her character. Like how she replaced Glorfindel in FOTR, Arwen could've replaced her brothers Elladan and Elrohir (characters who were completely omitted from the films), who accompany the Grey Company to Helm's Deep in the books (with the obvious biggest difference being that they showed up AFTER the battle in the books vs before the battle like the Lothlórien elves in the movies). Arwen could've not only made the banner for Aragorn, but she also could've delivered it to him herself. Though as Jess said, it does leave Arwen at a weird crossroads concerning Éowyn and her involvement with Aragorn, not to mention it would've complicated Arwen's involvement in Aragorn's future story beats such as the Paths of the Dead, Battle of Pelennor Fields, etc. Because having her there by Aragorn's side during those pivotal character growth moments would've definitely changed some things. Perhaps PJ and his team could've come up with a reason for Arwen to return to Rivendell after the Battle of Helm's Deep? Maybe she's worried about leaving her father all alone, seeing as how in the movies, she is the only family he has left? I don't know. It's definitely a tricky question to answer and I can't blame PJ and his team for choosing the direction they eventually took Arwen in.
2. It also would've given the writing team a chance to remain even more loyal to the source material while still balancing their vision for the films in giving Aragorn this character arc where he is coming to grips with accepting his role as the future king of Gondor. Giving Aragorn a chance to lead his own people (the Grey Company) into battle, would've been a wonderful stepping stone for his eventual growth as a leader before he ascends the throne.
But I digress. The films are still very very well-done and the onscreen relationship between Aragorn and Arwen was nothing short of pure loveliness so I can't complain. In the end, what we got was a beautiful interpretation of the story and its wonderful characters :)
13:40 Arwen was introduced glowing because in the book that's how Glorfindel looked to Frodo when he was passing into the wraith world. But that's not just a standard elf thing; Glorfindel looked like that because he, like Galadriel, were empowered by seeing the light of the two trees on Valanor. Arwen never saw them because they were destroyed before she was even born, so she would have appeared just as shadowy and hazy to someone in the wraith world as anyone else there.
So holy radiation basically
Even more, only Frodo sees her glowing, not the rest of the company. It shows he was already going into another relm.
Talking about Arwen’s river scene…I think “…come and claim him.” Is a great line.
I haven’t really thought about it before…but we usually say “Come and get it/him.”
That change makes it much more personal and protective…. Over him specifically.
For me it's sort of a reference to "Molon labe".
The exchange between Leonidas and Xerxes occurs in writing, on the eve of the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC):
When Xerxes wrote again, 'Hand over your arms,' he wrote in reply, 'Come and take them.' (trans. Frank Cole Babbitt, 1931)
It's generally a phrase of a confident taunting defiance in the face of overwhelming adversity. The Greeks ultimately lost the Battle of Thermopylae but gained a moral victory, it inspired the Greeks to win later battles.
@@Sindrijo maybe…But, that seems totally different to me.
To be honest, the elves should never have been at helms deep anyway...
I love the movie portrayal of Arwen that we got and i just can't imagine her in Helms Deep participating in the combat, since it would completely change the dynamic and focus of that whole battle. Primarily the effect that her exposure to danger would have on Aragorn who would be (in my opinion) unnecessarily burdened by protecting the woman he loves while simultaneously also leading the defense of the fortress.
Anyway, i think her scenes in the Fellowship of the Ring were done very well and especially her heroics against the Nazgul riders established her character perfectly.
It does explain why in the movie Aragon is so eager to get to Haldir when he is being attacked. Originally it was Arwen. I remember watching that scene before I knew this and thinking, "Gee, I didn't know they were that close."
I agree with the need to expand on Arwen in the movies, and her expanded action role could have been played as an homage to the very active and present role her ancestor Luthien played in the Silmarillion. Tolkien does play up the Beren/Luthien Aragorn/Arwen parallel, and they could have really used that.
Lothian Tinuviel and Arwen Udomiel are the morning and evening stars of there people bookmarking Elvin history in Middle Earth. Their lives and loves add definition to the relationship between elves and men. They are necessarily similar, though seemingly opposite in purpose.
Since I read the books as a young boy I have been a huge fan of Tolkien and I'm really enjoying your content - because you clearly love Tolkien, his stories, characters and Middle Earth and you are very engaging. I haven't seen all of your content yet (will be watching your dragons video next) but am looking forward to seeing more. I don't really subscribe to channels, but if I did I would seriously consider subscribing to yours.
I agree with almost everything you say here about Arwen and the difference between "book Arwen" and "film Arwen". I didn't have great expectations for the Jackson LotR trilogy; Yes as a fan I was excited before they came out; but felt that the books would just be too difficult to adapt properly with their vast and deep worldbuilding, multiple storylines and large number of characters . I don't think that any book has ever been adapted verbatim into a film. What would Jackson do? To make 3 movies clearly some things would have be cut and others adapted. how could anyone get the balance right?
To cut to the quick I feel Jackson made a "Mary Poppins" LotR trilogy - which is to say practically perfect, for me anyway. Would I have liked to see the Barrow Downs and the scouring of the Shire; absolutely! Would I have preferred the elves not to show up at Helms Deep? - probably (never mind Arwen showing up). I know there are some hardcore "Tolkienistas" who were unhappy with any omission or change. But I know a lot of Tolkien fans and most of them recognise that Jackson has given us a masterpiece.
Everyone has slightly different views about individual changes or cuts from the book but I think many take my view that a full adaptation of everything was just impossible in 3 films. Jackson, Walsh and Boyens did an unbelieveable job of walking that tightrope. Perfect? - No. Practically perfect? - absolutely, yes!! I will love the films and books to my dying day. Honestly, how would you try and explain Tom Bombadil (a merry old fellow!) to a cinema audience?? An important part of JRRT's mythology, but absolutely right to cut from the films (I think).
And Arwen? I absolutely understand why her character and arc with Aragorn was built up for the films. I think that element was probably an important part in giving the films a wider appeal without breaking the spirit of the books (though I know some folk who are still sore to not to have seen Glorfindel). so I broadly agree with you here.
Where I disagree with you, is your unambiguous "representation is important" statement as that it seems to me is now being used as the thin end of a wedge to make increasingly large changes to various fantasy milieus from the way they were written - ie representation becomes the most important factor, even if it is at the expense of the story or world.
I would say rather - that "great storytelling is important" and that under that umbrella, representation both is, and is not important
We all identify with heroes and heroines in great stories, and yes sometimes even with the tragic villains (like Gollum) but do we really have to literally see "ourselves represented" in a story to make it great (or to some people - acceptable). How far do we take this? Does it mean that every story should be reinterpreted through the lens of representation and gender ideology? Do we need to explore the mental trauma of Sauron? Is the story really improved by making changes to race / gender / sexuality and placing greater emphasis on those things than the author ever did - even if it flatly contradicts the author
Yes I am a white male, and yes, as a Brit I do feel a sense of ownership of Tolkien's "English folk mythology" - but I take great joy in seeing others enjoying and loving Tolkien's world and stories. In that sense stories are always for sharing, not for possessing. Seeing the huge success of the Jackson trilogy across the world felt just marvellous. Yes, it's good to share our best!
my own view is that if we insist that "all worlds must be representative and diverse" (in the modern sense) then we move towards "nothing is diverse"- ie if the population of every fantasy city looks like the population of modern Los Angeles surely we have actually lost diversity as all of those cities will start to look drearily the same
I loved the first two Alien movies and totally rooted for and identified with Ripley (though I am not a woman) and with Blade in the Blade movies (though I am not a black man).
Can we not approach diversity and representation through this lens - ie through telling the stories of different peoples and cultures; and just appreciating existing great stories like LotR for what they are. I for one would welcome that, and love films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - even though there isn't a white man, or woman, in sight (and why should there be?). I just ask that "my" stories be treated with the same respect.
Sorry this is a long one and I hope it hasn't come over as an angry rant. It really is intended to be a considered comment from one Tolkien lover to another. I know that PT Hobbit didn't actually use the diversity/inclusion words, but these days "representation" more often than not soon leads onto that.
Bottom line - I really enjoy your content (and you) - and broadly agree with the points you make - but also needed to add some nuance to the issue of "representation"
Well said.
The Flight to the Ford chase scene absolutely put tears in my eyes. It was so well done, so dramatic, moving and inspiring. I mean, after evading the nine Nazgul with surperior horsemanship, crossing the river, she then lays down the spell to invoke the power of the river. Ah-mazing scene.
Arwen showing up to take Frodo to Rivendell was so badass. Plus Liv is so gorgeous in this role. A true epitome of an elf.
The whole idea of "elf magic", and Arwen being able to seemingly bless characters throughout the story from a distance is such an interesting aspect of her character, and I think they did an amazing job of portraying that in the movies.
Establishing her in person, in Fellowship, really set her up as a powerful and mythical character. This was somewhat lost on me until recently. I watch these movies once a year, and try to focus on different things. This time around, one character I decided to watch more carefully was Arwen, and it's interesting how unique and nuanced this character is.
I don't think she had a place in the Battle of Helm's Deep. I think her role as a distant beacon of hope was much more valuable than it would have been to have her swinging swords and flinging arrows at orcs for an hour. It was much more impactful for her whispers of hope to empower the other characters.
Arwen's portrayal in the books may or may not have a lot to do with Tolkien's relationships, as you stated. Let's be honest for a second. Every man on the battlefield - whether that battlefield is an actual one, a crap day at work, or another struggle of life - has something or someone that he thinks about, which reminds him why he gets up in the morning and tolerates the crap that the world throws at him. Arwen, as a Beacon of Hope, is simply the personification of why we even bother to get up in the morning. Just like the Hobbits thinking about the Shire. Just like Bilbo looking for a nice quiet place to finish his book. There is no need to explain Aragorn's yearning for Arwen. Everybody has someone, something, or somewhere that they yearn for. Furthermore on the point, the primary theme of The Lord of the Rings - books and movies - is Hope versus Despair.
I really like the way that Arwen is presented in the movie and whilst it's a shame that we didn't get Glorfindel (one of my favourite Elves ever, sorry Elric) I understand why he was swapped out. Her chase scene is great and she has lots of great moments throughout the three films. It was good to see her doing her thing and it made me excited to paint the miniatures for her when they came to Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game. I think PJ and the team did a great job of weaving the love story between her and Aragorn into the plot and making it mean something rather than feeling forced (sorry Tauriel...). Great video as always!
As an oldlady that first read the books when i was 17, and then read it to my children. I love your videos. My books are read so much they are worned out.
Arwen was a late addition.
The central woman is Eowyn, but Tolkien decided that she was too young for Aragorn, and so instead she meets Faramir. This romance should have gotten more screentime, instead of the mess in TTT.
Arwen is more like a part of the background. She is part of what motivates and drives Aragorn, but not visibly very active, unlike her brothers.
I deeply agree that Arwen's inclusion in the Fellowship was an improvement on the book. I had always questioned her inclusion at Helm's Deep and was glad she wasn't there - as it wasn't in the book. I was unaware of the significant backlash against the actor - and based upon your comments and the impact on to the character arc... I'm not so sure anymore. Thanks for providing a different perspective.
I really love what they did with Arwen in the 2nd and 3rd movie because it really brings the passing of the elves to the forefront.
I had read LotR three times before the movies came out. Liv Tyler in her role was so beautiful to me that I didn’t mind the role swaps they made to put her in the savior role for Frodo or any other way they wedged her in later. I hope those who made her cry have cockroaches ever infest their abode.
WHAT?! Someone made poor Liz cry? Ugh. What a bunch of assholes.
@@opticalraven1935 the backlash from her in Helm's Deep was so bad, Liv cried. She must have work really hard during her performance and to be torn down by that is so heartbreaking
I liked both versions. And truthfully, it made sense to replace Glorfindel with Arwen as she appears several times in the story, whereas Glorfindel really has only one.
Yeah but it kind of stinks because Glorfindel is in all of the Middle Earth stories.
Its kind if like taking C-3P0 out of Star Wars and giving all his lines to a cute girl instead...
@@carysageIf you only read just The Fellowship, you'd be confused. I was when I first read it. I was like "Who the fuck is Glorfindel?" I read his backstory, while badass, I am still not mad about the change, honestly.
@@carysage That comparison doesn't hold up because even if we pick one individual movie, say Attack of the Clones, C-3P0 already has more "screentime" than Glorfindel has in the entire LOTR trilogy (in the books).
If it were an adaptation about Gondolin or the Witch-King's war against Arnor it would indeed be criminal to completely cut Glorfindel, but purely in the Lord of the Rings itself he'd be little more than an MCU kind of cameo who only makes sense to fans who've read the other stories in the same setting.
@@predwin1998 More screentime is irrelevant. The only reason 3PO gets so much screentime is to provide comic relief. Both characters are in every story, both characters are vital to the plot. Which was the point I was making, therefore the comparison is completely valid
@@carysage Firstly I'd say the amount of screentime, while not the only factor, is still relevant since the more screentime a character has, the more time an audience has to "connect" with the character and the more content you have to cut or otherwise alter to be able to ommit the character.
But secondly, how is Glorfindel vital to the plot of LOTR? What he did to advance the plot was ensure that Frodo and the rest of the fellowship arrived safely in Rivendel which is indeed a vital goal to accomplish, but I wouldn't call Glorfindel specifically vital since he's not the only one who could've accomplished those goals.
When we look back the only thing he did that truly changed the fate of Middle Earth (during LOTR) was giving Frodo a very good horse. After that it was Asfaloth who got Frodo to the fords of the river Bruinen, and Elrond (with a flex by Gandalf) who flushed away the Nazgûl. Glorfindel went on foot to guide and protect the rest of the fellowship, but that part seemingly turned out to be unnecessary since the threat of the Nazgûl was flushed downstream and Aragorn presumably could've navigated them through the wilderness and past the more common threats just fine without him.
Therefore I'd argue that the only vital aspects of Glorfindel's part were a way to get Frodo on the horse and a prompt for the Bruinen to flood the Nazgûl, both of which could be achieved without Glorfindel himself.
As for appearing in "every story", I might've been more conflicted if Glorfindel played a part in The Hobbit, but as it stands Glorfindel plays a huge part in the extensive history that makes Tolkien's world feel so alive, but not quite as much in the "main" stories themselves.
It's hard to compare him to a Star Wars character because of how differently the two settings were created and evolved, but I might try comparing him to Grand Moff Tarkin. Seemingly a fairly big player in the greater lore, but just watching the movies I never even remembered his name (is his name actually mentioned on-screen?), and I could feasibly see his part usurped by someone else without it really hurting the overall story.
I think making Arwen more of a character was the right call and necessary. What i never liked is at the ford she takes Frodos part in defying the ringwraiths. I know you mention something similar in your Frodo video but all the small changes in the surrounding cast really shift his character.
hateful attitudes towards actors for their roles is a stupid thing in general, however I do think that making Arwen fight in Helms deep would have been a step too far. I understand the desire to make her a more impactful character, but I didn't like the scenes between her and Elrond or the whole "her fate is tied to the ring" thing at all, I would've had Aragorn simply remember times he spent with her either in his dreams or in a calm scene in a way that fleshes her out while still keeping her remote and someone to long for from afar.
Yeah, I'm really torn, because I feel like Helm's Deep may have felt like a bit much, and I don't like the waffling about that they went with instead, but I also don't have a better idea than either of those, haha. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The portrayal of Arwen in the novels, and elves in general, is overlooked in many adaptations and portrayals of elves. Elves are wise, most people know that but few understand it. Arwen is a good example. She likes Aragorn because he’s wise for a man, and you see that Aragorn is wiser than every other man in the novels. Arwen herself is wise. She knows to send him a banner for Gondor, for example. She’s very practical because that is wise under the circumstances. Likewise Galadriel is ridiculously wise, which makes sense for someone 6000+ years old. The male elves are also wise of course, except Legolas - but that’s his character. His father and everyone else thinks he’s reckless.
In the movie it makes little sense for Arwen to risk herself. The Ringwraiths would consider killing Arwen almost as big a prize as seizing the Ring. This is why Glorfindel is there in the movie because Ringwraiths are going to fear him, and he’s not going to fear them.
I am so incredibly grateful to hear someone analyze Arwen in the books through the context of the author.
I hear so many people bash Tolkien, as if he were a modern man with constant and abounding access to women.
It's ignorant and arrogant to hold someone accountable to modern standards without considering if they had the opportunity and means to experience your perspective
Jackson dodged a bullet by keeping Arwen from Helm's Deep. I've got a friend that is a huge Lord of the Rings fan, but, to this day, just loathes the Battle of Helm's Deep in the film. She can't stand that the elves showed up fight, and I can't imaging what she would say if Arwen was there too.
The Elves showing at Helm's Deep makes no sense.
@@jessecerasus9621 So, I will actually defend of the Elves at Helm's Deep, in the context of a film Trilogy. In Fellowship, the Elves are depicted as super human beings able to use magic and defend against some of the darkest creatures Sauron has in his army, but we are told their strength is failing. Their presence and subsequent failure at Helm's Deep, in Two Towers, is the proof of this. Ultimately, it is the strength of Men that wins the battle of Helm's Deep, proving the Elves so unessential, no one questions their absence at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in Return off the King.
I understand why people don't like their inclusion, but I can also see why it happens.
@@DrTimes99 I understand your point, but Elves simply have no reasons to die for MIddle-Earth in the 3rd Ages instead of leaving it to Aman !
@@jessecerasus9621 How about empathy? Not being selfish cowards? Those feel like good enough reasons for me.
@@mousinge Well, Tolkien never believed it was pertinent.
Your content is amazing. It's a breath of fresh air compared to all of the drama we see IRL and on other channels
I liked the choice to emphasize the love story, but her character in the movies always confused me-- the Arwen who saves Frodo seems different from the Arwen in the later films. I had no idea they had had to pivot like that. I honestly feel like they could have made it work to have her at Helm's Deep, although it definitely would have pushed it much farther from the book version. It would be so interesting to see how he intended to do it!
War marched on her own lands. Read the book. Gimli regrets his wish for a hair from Galadriels hair and wishes he’d asked for his kinfolk. Legolas replies that war has come to their own lands!
@@simonmorris4226 Rivendell was never attacked.
I never said it was but how do you know?@@squamish4244
I liked what they did with Arwen. They upgraded her markedly from the books.
And if we are thinking ‘realistically’ about Arwen from a Middle Earth point of view, she definitely would have had more agency and influence. She may not have had a direct relationship with the Fellowship but she would have been working in the background of the world doing what she could alongside Elrond to forestall the advance of Sauron. Everyone had their part, and the Fellowship DEFINITELY was not the only thing thwarting Sauron, despite them being the focus of the books.
Weaving her throughout the events of the movie was tasteful and it allowed the moviemakers to communicate aspects of the books that would have been lost in a more typical movie, such as her willingly giving up immortality and the communication of various themes of the book, such as hope and not giving into despair. It also, as you said, humanized her and made her a compelling character, other than just simply an intriguing character as in the books.
I love Arwen, both in the books and the movies. Her character is very different, but it is not possible to turn a book into a movie without making any changes and the decisions they made for the movies are justified and perfect in my eyes. She is a strong character and the movies portraied her as such. I would like to see her in Helms Deep, because I think they would have done well on this storyline as well. Arwen is the evenstar of her people and of the story of the lord of the rings. She is a shining light on the pages as well as on screen and the movies have made her a character with depth and who is relatable. She has changed my life and my view on beauty and strength as well!
Very well said! I would love to know what they would have done with her Helm's Deep plotline
I really prefer the BOOK version - she is in Rivendell... then we see her at The Wedding .
I enjoy hearing you read from the books. I enjoy hearing your narrative. I first came across the books in 1974 and read all four in one week. When I got back home I was telling the family about them and they begged me to read for them. ( we had no tv ). I would read to them for an hour or so stopping at a cliff hanger. Since then I have read them again for myself. I have watched the movies and have the cd’s . Thank you for your blog . I am now tempted to reread them again.
Eliminating Glorfindel was fine but the whole "Aragorn falls off a cliff and magic Arwen reminder because it's a modern audience and they are too stupid to remember anything if it isn't mentioned for a movie" really bogged down the two towers. I agree that the banner being delivered would have been better than giant CGI battle and extreme elf elephont boarding.
Well, she probably coun't make the banner in the movies, because she was ill... even if not so long before she was shown to be as powerful as Elrond. Apparently, "Arwen's fate was tide to the fate of the Ring" somehow. Why? There is no why. Trying to modify something so complex that took Tolkien decades to write is not such a great idea to begin with.
Anyways, changing Arwen from "total badass warrior and mage" to "most fragile maiden in the world" inside the same trilogy wasn't the greatest decision.
Totally agree about the scene of Aragorn falling off a cliff. There were much better options to make Arwen appear more. The simplest one would be for Aragorn to simply remember her, or Arwen to remember him. Also, is the public supposed to believe that Aragorn could simply die in such a meaningless way at that point? Come on... Every modification in such a novel would require a lot of thought, or risk introducing something that feels totally out of place.
The elefant riding was pretty dope still.
You are so very right, I quite think the same way: why these two additional action scenes in the movie: Aragorn almost
dying fallig down the cliff, and this single Legolas- vs- Oliphant- thing. They don´t make the movie better, it´s wasted
film time; better much better would to include Bombadil in the film!!
@@mathiaskrauss1184 I have to disagree Bombadil is just a detour with almost no effect on the story as a whole. Aside from the dagger Merry gets that is a weapon forged in ancient times to fight the witch king and is why he was able to stab the Lord of the Nazgul at all.
Thank you for not suggesting Tolkien hated women. I'm so tired of hipsters trying to say he was a biggot.
The way I've always read it, that flight from the Nazgûl wasn't Frodo, it was entirely Asfaloth's doing. Frodo wasn't riding the horse, he was simply Asfaloth's passenger.
Well spoken. I learned a lot from this video. Your channel really stands out to me in a youtube ocean of nerdy Tolkien lore. Thanks for your well researched and thought out assessments and opinions. You’ve earned my subscription and I’m looking forward to more videos like this.
One of your best videos! I loved Arwen in the books but I was not at all disappointed by the movies.
Arwen's part in the horse chase was extraordinarily well done IMO. You don't understand what she's saying to the horse but the vibe is clearly "I know you're tired and scared but please just a little more". Which is a very elf thing to do.
In LOTR the Aragorn/Arwen romance is an explicit echo of the Beren/Luthien story from the Silmarillion (and the reuniting of the two half elven lines). As other commenters have noted Luthien is positively kick-ass, even as far as directly confronting Morgoth, so there’s a clear precedent for increasing Arwen’s agency in the film, though having her at Helms Deep may have been a step too far…..
So she can stand against the nine but she can't fight regular orcs?
if the parallel is directly confronting Morgoth, how would fighting at Helms Deep be a step too far?
@@HenriqueErzinger Hi Henrique, placing Arwen at Helm’s Deep would have caused difficulties with the Aragorn/Eowen/Arwen triangle, so better to keep them well apart.
Was sitting here smoking my evening pipe of old toby ran across your video fun to watch not only a interesting perspective of character and with it a fun and carefree presentation thank you much 🤗 made my night
I would have loved to see more Arwen, and Helms Deep would have been interesting. I don't understand the gatekeeping that keeps those sorts of things from happening. Your observations about Tolkien and his personal experiences was really interesting!
00:05, As an utter die-hard fan of the books, I can attest that this is indeed accurate. Also I agree with pretty much everything you say here.
Listen talk about things that altered my brain chemistry, Arwen cheekily putting a sword to Aragorn’s throat and teasing him and the way he looks up at her- whew
While I am a die-hard Glorfindel fan for his scenes in the book, I think switching him out for Arwen was totally the right call for the movies. I agree they fumbled her later plot stuff, and I’m actually kind of devastated to learn how mean people were to Liv Tyler. I’m not sure how I feel about Arwen being at Helm’s Deep, but if that was the timeline we lived in, I would probably have loved it. I’m weak for a good battle couple.
So many strong points in a row. Especially about all of the reasons to change her just for the sake of move production and plot momentum/clarity.
Glorfindel was something of a throw-away character in the books, so I very much enjoyed Arwen's presence and direct challenge of the Nazgul. As you mentioned, it was great giving her power and agency. I think among the most heinous things Jackson did was add doubt and uncertainty to characters that had none. Arwen, Aragorn, and Elrond were unwavering in their intentions and plans (marrying Aragorn, retaking the throne of Gondor, and restoring his brother's bloodline to their proper place, respectively). It's true they had little depth in that manner and very little opportunity for character development, but that was because they weren't the focus of the story. The hobbits (and kin) were the real main characters, and all the development centers around Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Gollum. The growth of friendship between Gimli and Legolas is one of my favorite parts, but even that development is fairly shallow in comparison.
When the Fellowship of the Ring came out, it had been a while since I had read LOTR and I forgot about Glorfindel. I thought the scene where Arwen and Frodo being chased by the nine was a great scene. It was very tense. The overhead shot of the nine almost catch up to Arwen was an awesome shot. It's a shame about the backlash toward the actress.
What backlashes towards her? I was young when the movies came out to know.
@@axelNodvon2047 … From what I understand, Some came out against Liv Tyler because they thought she was playing a female warrior elf. The movie production seems to have had some scenes of her at the battle of Helm’s Deep fighting Orcs and some in the fandom didn’t like the change in character and were vocal about it … some in an extreme manner. I don’t remember the amount of backlash, but I do seem to recall people not liking the change in Arwen’s character. From what I understand, the movie changed directions for the second and third movie due to the backlash and made Arwen and Aragorn have a psychic link verses a face to face meeting.
@@axelNodvon2047 Typical online misogyny stuff.
In movies they focus on a limited nr. of characters, so leaving out Glorfindel, Radagast, Tom Bombadil etc., though very hard on LotR fans, is understandable, they served no further plot purposes.
Making Arwen more girlpower is also fine, even if she's not a warrior she is still a 2700 year old Elf, meaning highly skilled, knowledgeable and with power against the undead (Ringwraiths). Fighting at Helm's Deep however would be a bridge too far for me. Then you make her a military leader or a super hero, and that detracts from her other strengths and internal struggles. Besides, large scale battles are messy, and Arwen would be way too important to risk her being slain by a stray arrow in some Rohan castle. If Arwen showed up at Helm's Deep, Aragorn would have to go all macho and forbid her to fight and make her stay with Theoden.
Thank goodness she didn’t fight at Helm’s Deep. I loved how fierce she was is her intro scene, and that fierceness was EXACTLY what was needed in the face of the Nazgûl. Helm’s Deep was an entirely different fight.
I stumbled on you in the algorithm, you are up there with Nerd of the Rings. Obviously he has an insane production value but you really are putting out quality, palatable, Tolkien content. Cheers.
I like your insights - thank you for them. I just watched your Faramir video before this one, and in my reply also mentioned a little of the treatment of Arwen. Sorry for watching them out of order, but I have just subscribed to you, so that shouldn't happen again. Thank you for your view on this.
I've found your channel just now. It's lovely! Cheers from Italy!
I loved your side comment (something like) "Why doesn't anyone say that when I walk in the room?"
I thought your comments about how Arwen's horse riding in the beginning in which she saves Frodo made such an important and positive impression on you were really interesting. Thank you for that perspective - I'm certain that many other young women may have felt that way. The part about that scene that stuck with me most was, after the Nazgul were washed down river and Frodo collapses and appears to be dying, Arwen takes him in her arms and requests something like (its been a while so please forgive the paraphrase) whatever grace she has to please pass it on to Frodo - I wish I remembered better what she said. The acting was also terrific, she was in tears and it was all so moving. Beautiful scene. It also showed her tremendous love, empathy, kindness - all the most wonderful aspects that one might find in a descendent of Melian and her daughter Luthian Tinuviel.
Love the horse chance scene, powerful, and Liv was so hot in this movie. It made her character strong but believably strong. Thanks for another great video.
19:14 When I first watched Return of the King and Elrond said that, I assumed that she tied herself to Frodo back on the riverbank with the ''What grace is given me, let it pass to him'' bit...and as the Ring took it's toll, they would both get weaker, just like the Black Breath affecting Eowyn and Merry, but they never explained it properly in both cases.
In the book, One of Arwen's most significant actions is when, after the wedding, she gives Frodo the gem which helps him when he is suffering from the physical and mental aftermath of his quest (PTSD). Unfortunately, Tolkein doesn't give any background about either Arwen or the stone which would account for it's magic. One of T's few mistakes, in my opinion (along with having Strider fighting the forces of evil in the wild armed only with a broken sword).
The elves appearance at Helms Deep was the only thing I don't like in The Two Towers movie. Moving away from canon they turn up, shoot a few orcs, get killed and then are never mentioned again. It takes away from the drama and accomplishments of the human race and this is supposed to be the time of the humans, where they stand on their own. It also makes you wonder why Legolas is so good, as none of the other elves are anywhere near as accomplished as him.
I'm not sure what Arwen would have added to this, but her turning up and meeting Eowyn would have been #awkward just before an important battle.
With respect to comparing yourself to Arwen, They may not say it when you walk into a room, but believe me, lots of us think it when you arrive on our screens! Wonderful series, very thoughtfully put together!
I think it's very telling that, in that first description, she's not just described as beautiful but as queenly and knowledgeable. As well as being beautiful to look at, she gives the impression of a wise leader at first glance
I like how they gave her more to do than just be something Aragorn longs for, I enjoy the change and it allows us to see more of her. Helms deep would've been interesting but it wasn't necessary to me she was strong in her own right without having to intrude in main battles.
"If you want him, come and claim him." At that moment I had an instant crush. I have always admired strong women... and that was bold and brave and everything I admire.
My major complaint about both Jackson's and the Rankin bass adaptations of the lord of the rings is the replacement of Glorfindel with either Legolas or a girl boss. Admittedly, Glorfindel is super powerful and could cause some problems with viewers not getting why he's not in the fellowship but Tolkien explains that he (Glorfindel) is making sure that the Nazgul are not anymore an immediate threat to the quest.
I didn't know about the plan to have Arwen at Helm's Deep but I'm VERY VERY glad they did not include her there.
Also, there is a lot I want to say but it's tough to say it only in a brief thread posting. But as a man I want to unpack things from my perspective, and that's not something that's really allowed these days. At least not without making myself a huge target. But I think you might be someone who will at least try to understand.
There are many reasons not to make a female character into a "girl boss". But one reason is that it does not resonate with men. One of the things men want to do in life is protect the women in their lives, and provide safe haven for them. Taking them on the road to war is exactly 180 degrees the opposite of that, so no way would that make sense from either Aragorn's or Elrond's perspective, or anyone else's perspective (except Eowyn's, but the way she was denied largely comes from the reason I stated above). That would be anathema to them. This would also include Tolkien's perspective, and he lived through the horror of World War One. To suggest that he should even consider taking his wife or daughter into that, or letting it happen, would be to completely ignore him and his experience.
For men, women are, among many other things, muses, and men tend to put women up on pedestals. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. But reality is they tend to do that, and that's pretty much what Arwen was: a muse and a pedestal dweller. As men always do with the ones they love, Aragorn carried Arwen in his heart and mind as he went on his many perilous journeys, including his climactic trial of the war of the ring. It's reasonable to assume that he did what he did as much for her as for the Free People's of Middle-earth.
Another thing is that Arwen was a living echo of Luthien, a sort of second coming of her. And the elves in general, and Aragorn and Elrond in particular, possibly Galadriel and Celeborn too, would have considered her the most important or treasured person in the world.
So with that perspective in mind maybe it makes more sense that she is who she is in the books and that she should have been kept out of the fighting and out of reach of the Darkness. I'm OK with her taking the role of helping Aragorn to get Frodo to Rivendell, and that was a great scene in the movies, though it puts her perilously close to the most dangerous agents of that Darkness. But I think Tolkien handled her in a more realistic, though less modern-friendly way. This is, after all, a war story. If you made it this far, thanks for your time.
As a woman, I love your comment.
@@grossepointemichigan Thanks for reading, and for your kind reply.
@@jimmyboy131 In one of Tolkien's letters (can't remember which one), he explains why there were so few women characters. It's because LOTR is a story about war, and that women (in his time) did not go to war to fight (with Éowyn as the exception in the book).
The idea that Jackson and company originally wanted Arwen at Helm's Deep makes me sick to even think about. At least he responded to the backlash in time and edited her out of that sequence.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis on the characters! I really enjoy these videos. Never fails to give me something to think about.
Presonally, I enjoyed the changes they made to the character. I remember the first time I read LOTR I was confused as to why Aragon was blowing Eowyn off and then was surprised when Arwen shows up at the end of the book to marry him. I totally missed or forgot that they were romantically linked. I also don't enjoy characters whose only purpose is to be in love with or be loved by a main character and isn't meaningfully developed.
I like that she's present in the Flight to the Ford (great substitution for Glorfindel), and then present Aragorn's coronation/wedding. In between, we only get flashbacks, visions and conversations, which, in the end, makes the payoff better, and helps the audience understand the magnitude of Aragorn/Arwen. It's sad WHY they likely cut her from Helm's Deep, but again, I like that she's only present in the story at Rivendell and then Minas Tirith much later. Definition by absence, as you said.
By the way, you do fantastic work! This Tolkien nerd is thrilled to have stumbled upon your channel!
That is an excellent analysis of Arwen and her roots in Tolkien's life/resulting psyche.
This video is an excellent breakdown/analysis of Arwen's adaptation. Mad kudos.
To answer your questions, I'd say yes--replacing Glorfindel with Arwen was an excellent choice since (for the reasons you explained, plus), as the 1978 LOTR animated film shows us, it's vital that Aragorn and the hobbits meet an *elf* at that point in the story--but it doesn't matter too much *which* elf they meet (in the animated, it's Legolas, and that works just fine).
I admit, as much as I loved her in FOTR--and as disgusted as I am at how Liv Tyler was treated bc of the leaked videos--I have to say I agree with their not having her in an official batlle scene. It was a stretch (albeit a logical one) to change her character/role enough for her to be one of the riders sent to look for Aragorn (et al).
But having her participate in an actual battle would have been beyond the pale of suspension of disbelief.
The filmmakers were in a tight spot, and I think they did an excellent job of balancing what liberties they could take (re changing times, and representation) and what boundaries there were to respect (Tolkien would have pirouetteted in his grave had Arwen gone to battle).
I love a good girlboss myself, and would have LOVED to have seen *women* elves at Helm's Deep.
However.
It would have felt forced (a lá Endgame's cringey attempt at a girl power scene) to have Arwen specifically in battle.
I seem to recall hearing that the Arwen at Helm's Deep material was filmed when they thought they were going to have to tell the story in two parts? This is me kicking dust off of probably faulty 20 year plus old memories here.
I just discovered this channel and now I'm binging all the videos because they're just so darn good! Please forgive me for commenting multiple times over the course of a few days, but I know comments help the algorithm and get more attention for the creator, so sorry if I'm coming across as a little weird. *lol*
As Galadriel's granddaughter, Arwen was far too important to be riding around like an Elven Zena. Unlike Glorfindel, she was simply not expendable.
I sort of like the ethereal earthly balance they got with Arwen,
Arwen is so old she is living, but does not truly live... yet with an ancient magic brings things to pass... She is much as a force of nature, a force of good, she is there, because she is there by fate, and because she must be there...
indeed this is contrasted to Eowyn, the Roharrim, the embodiment of Action and of Doing... who is the traditional & noble lady, but also, the vessel of the timeless energy of her people (or one that her people forgot)
to have Arwen fight and kill, would not be right for her as a character, indeed, action of the world does not suit her as a nature, but to do, at the moment when something changes in the universe... her action is magic itself... in all, she is calmness, she is the air & water....
maybe, to embody Aragorn as her avatar in action, but always, she must remain on a different plane of the doings of the world... what she does, is done in a higher way....
She literally weaves his kingdom together through her name, legitimizes him on a metaphysical level, by the understanding of the things which are the true, through her oath, making him a true King.
and she is part of fate, drawing the pattern, weaving that's new Gondor
that, in the end, by taking her as Queen, Aragorn, though he indeed loves her does not marry her
per-say, but marries Gondor to the Eternal and the High... marries the city of Men to the Elderin', making it whole
this is the will of Arwen, but, how right or wrong remains in question, for in her transformation, she makes the land of Gondor, and the Tower of The Sun (it's center), in part also share in her death, for it becomes the place of their joint ghost.
(which is what Elrond warns her of, & why he is, wisely, hesitant to let her deal with the era of Man)
in the movie,
Elrond is made overtly the "obstinate bureaucrat" character... a force of tradition that is a hurdle to overcome... I am not sure if I like that at all... but I can see how they read it that way...
My favorite Arwen scene from the movie is when she's confronting Elrond with her vision of Aragorn and their son, telling him that she's made up her mind and won't leave her true love. This is critical for the plot since it's the reason for Elrond forging and later presenting Aragorn with Anduril giving him hope and the ability to summon the dead men of Dunharrow.
Very eloquent Jess! Great video!
I do like it when Arwen sneaks up on Aragon and calls him out. Something romantic about holding a sword against the neck of the one love.
Arwen and Aragorn's book Romance is subtle and understated, in the in the time Tolkien kind was writing people just didn't talk about it as much. Uncovering this Romance with multiple readings was one of the gifts the legendarium gives us.
The movie version did Justice to this thread, albeit non too subtle. Elves are "ethereal and remote" and if you accept this quality as akin to Magic movie Arwen is an excellent example of that. Magic used for good in the legendarium is rarely overt. It seems to me her skills as an equestrian are magical.
So insightful! I love the way you handled this topic, and I'd love to see a more general video about women in Tolkien's works as well!
TBH, Arwen is on the list of characters I feel like Jackson's movies kind of messed up (although you're right, different audiences required a different character). Faramir and Elrond are also on the list, lol. P.S. 3:17, I'll bet there's some who say that when you walk in the room! 🙂
I think I'm in agreement with you about increasing the role of Arwen in the movies. Her relationship with Aragorn is extremely important and the third union of Elf and Man. She's also Aragorn's distant cousin, but those things happen. Arwen is Eärendil's granddaughter and Aragorn is his great (okay, a whole lot of greats, maybe 50 or 60 or so) grandson. Random stuff that blows into my brain... They can both trace their lineages to both Beren and Luthien as well as Idril and Tuor. Anyway, to my mind, that relationship is a much bigger deal that it is made out to be in the books, but I think you expressed why it was represented that way by Tolkien very well.
I intensely disliked the elves showing up at Helm's Deep. The Rohirrim and Galadhrim were not on good terms and it just made no sense to me.
Honestly, I think presenting Arwen in more significant role made sense for the movies. Just like having those massive quite long battle scenes that books basically lacked. Ultimately having these elements propped up in movie medium made LotR more interesting. And some romantic drama in movies is always pretty interesting.
I think giving Glorfindel's role to Arwen in the movies was a good choice, cuz we meet Glorfindel like twice in the books, however, because of that there's a weird dissonance there, when we first meet her, she's this badass battle maiden, but later she's a fragile little bird whom a breath might wither... life is leaving her, she shall fade away if evil wins, meanwhile in the first movie, girl battled the Nazgûl...
Fellowship of the Ring treatment: "Great! Awesome! 'Come and claim him!' Badass!"
Two Towers treatment: "Hell no! What are you doing, Jackson?"
Return of the King treatment: "Great. You partially cleaned up the mess. I'm still mad at you."
When I saw the movie I found Arwen and Aragon's romance cute and idyllic. When I read the books my first thought was "wait, aren't those two related? Aragon's great ancestor is basically Arwen's uncle"
Technically yes, but on Aragorn's side there are 62 generations between him and Elrond's brother. So he's probably just as closely related to every other human in Middle Earth by that point as well (in the real world you only have to go back about 20 generations before mathematics says you should have at least one common ancestor with everyone else from the same continent as you, and by the time you get to 100 generations there's a non-zero chance that the entire human race - even including the most remote and isolated communities - has a common ancestor.)
I am like you, I love both the books and the movies. The only thing which I wish Peter Jackson left in was the actual return of the Hobbits to the Shire. Per JRR Tolkien their return is the most important part of the whole story, but Jackson left it all out. There are other items which I wished Jackson had left in, such as how the Hobbits left the Shire and how Frodo left Hobbiton, how Sam met Rosie, how the other three Hobbits got their swords, just to name a few. I will also admit since I did not read the Appendices, I actually got Arwen and Eowyn mixed up, thinking Eowyn and Aragorn got married.
I think this video lacks Eowyn. To me it's hard to talk about the Arwen arc without including Eowyn because they are intrinsically intertwined. I have always thought of them like Rowena and Rebecca from Ivanhoe. In that story, Rebecca was the more noble and played a larger part in the plot; Rowena was more distant and not as strong, but Ivanhoe chooses his childhood love of Rowena over the heroine that Rebecca is. There are other similarities with parents and orphans and stuff, and Aragorn/Ivanhoe hiding identities. I kind of feel we we only get half the story here.
I am with you on Arwen's introduction, then fading into a love story, but that is Tolkien-esque. Eowyn kills the Witch King, then gives up her warrior ways and becomes a healer in her love of Farimir. Very similar.
One elf I missed in the movies is Gildor Inglorien of the House of Finrod. He was fabulous in the books and the introduction of Elves. But movies are a different beast and a shame to lose the best line in the novel, but necessary.
Your reasoning for wanting to be Arwen after watching the movie trilogy almost made me cry - movie Arwen made me feel the same way, I was terribly proud of her at that moment of the ride, and for that alone I would also say thanks to PJ (even though there’s still a lot that I can’t agree with in his vision).
So this is why The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen exists in Appendix A in The Return of the King. Tolkien realized there was no way to include that in the body of the main story, even though it was essential to understanding Aragorn's motivation.
Yeah, it would have to be done as a flashback and it's awfully long for a flashback. Similar to the scene in which Gandalf explains why he set up the whole reataking-the-mountain expedition. I think that ended up in Unfinished Tales.
He didn't include it in the main story because it was not part of the main story, which is about the hobbits' rol in the war Aragorn is not the main character of the book; the hobbits are. As for Aragorn's motivation, he wants to be king; that's all the motivation he needs.
Have you read “The History of the Lord of the Rings?” It shows *how* the story grew in the telling. Glorfindel was under consideration by Tolkien to be one of Frodo’s companions in the Fellowship. I think Tolkien realized that he would be much too powerful and would overshadow the other characters. So for me, Arwen replacing Glorfindel in the FOTR movie didn’t bother me too much. But in the later movies, Arwen’s storyline becomes convoluted and ridiculous. The idea that her very life was tied up with the Ring. And once again, Jackson and writer Philippa Boyens defended these plot choices by saying they were necessary in a movie adaptation. They kept using the term “filmic” as if that forgave their puzzling and sometimes infuriating changes. Now I didn’t object to all the changes - or they grew on me as I rewatched the movies on DVD. Anyway, as time passes, I think much less about the movies and have gone back to the actual works of Tolkien. For a while I was confused, thinking that some things that happened in the movie also happened in the books. Thankfully, my brain cells have begun to be cleansed of memories of the movie.
The movie version of Arwen was very well done. The Lord of the Rings was written at a different time in Western Culture with much more emphasis on male characters which was typical for most of human history. At first thought, the inclusion of Arwen as a girlboss was just too PC for me at first. However, after thinking it over and raising a daughter, my interpretation really changed. It was done very well and made the underlying story more relatable for both men and women without negatively affecting the story. I was very surprised when Liv Tyler was casted as I had seen some of her previous movies, as I was an Aerosmith fan, I'm 56. I remember Steven Tyler admitting being her father, long story there can check her Wikipedia page. I was amazed at what a great actress she became and I think she nailed the Arwen part well.
Overall, the movie Arwen elevated to a true character, was very well done and added to the movies success.
While she isn't mentioned directly, Aragorn does refer to her in Lothlorien: "Lady, you know all my desire, and long held in keeping he only treasure that I seek. Yet it is not yours to give me, even if you would; and only through darkness shall I come to it." Then Galadriel even more slyly refers to her: "This stone I gave to Celebrían my daughter, and she to hers." It's like there's some kind of embargo on mentioning her name in Lorien.
The Flight to the Ford is a great scene in the movie. I don't mind Arwen having more of a role in the movie, by taking Glorfindel's role to command the river water, but Arwen taking Frodo's moment at the Ford in the standoff versus the Nazgul makes him less of a worthy ringbearer and less someone the the Three Hunters later decide is up to the task of continuing to Mount Doom. The Frodo that leaves the Fellowship in the movie to strike out on his own is not the Frodo who has proved himself to be competent like in the books. I thought that the Arwen-Aragorn dream connection was interesting, but it should have been in dreams, where it linked into the existing plot without the Warg scene. The movie also ignores the reason for Aragorn seeking the Crown of Gondor: it being set by Elrond as the minimum requirements for marrying his daughter. The Elves should have never been at Helm's Deep, because it's supposed to be about humans standing on their own in the Age of Man, without the old alliance.
Remember that one time in the movies when that one character falls off a cliff and everyone thinks he is dead but but he isn't actually dead?
The pushmepullyu nature of Arwen's dilemma comes not from any change to her, but from the change to Aragorn. He isn't the lantern-jawed, yes I know my destiny kinda guy he was in the books. Since he's full of doubt about his heritage, it follows that he's full of doubt about his ability to be a fitting husband for Arwen. That brings about all the uncertainty, not anything that Arwen herself is feeling. On the contrary, she is the certain one, never wavering in her belief in their union. She's firm and resolute, even to declaring herself to death in his absence, while he quavers and hesitates. The change isn't hers, it's his.
Yes. Arwen aside, I really didn't like Jackson making Aragorn a swithering character. In the books, his character was patient and focused at all times on his goal. He never once exhibited any doubt about what his goal was-to take his rightful place as King and defeat Sauron-and then be in a position to marry the love of his life, Arwen Evenstar, and be worthy of the sacrifice of immortality she was willing to make for his sake. The sword that was broken LAY broken at Rivendell until the time was right to begin to wield it, but Aragorn never- at any time -indicated that he didn't want it to be re-forged. In the book there were a few times when he seemed discouraged and not sure whether he would eventually win, but he never swithered about his determination to keep at it.
I guess I'm not a fan at any time of swithering characters ...it usually indicates to me that neither option is optimal. Like if a person can't make up their mind between two lovers ...my take on this is that probably neither choice is right. When the right one comes along, out of the blue- you KNOW.
I think it's down to the excellent acting of Viggo Mortensen that the character of Aragorn didn't diminish in the movie because of Jackson's choice in this matter. It could easily have done.
@@jannertfol Not sure what you mean by "swithering", but I get why Jackson made the changes he did. I don't like that he felt he had to make them, but he has a point - books are not the same as movies (not at ALL), and audiences are not the same now as they were when Tolkien wrote his books. The kind of Aragorn he wrote looks grand on the page but would come off as unbearably annoying on the screen.
Take Boromir, for example. He was only tolerable onscreen because Sean Bean knew how to give him moments of _doubt._ That one little scene in Lothlorien made him vulnerable, which made him believable. Otherwise he would have spent the whole film hotheaded, intractable, and resentful. (Not to mention bigoted.) He would not have had our sympathy. It's the same with Aragorn. Characters with no doubt are fine as fiction on the page, but when they are embodied by actors (especially good actors), they can't remain that way, because _no one but a sociopath is like that in real life._ Everyone has doubts, everyone has troubles. (Hell, even comic book movies are admit that.) Take that away and the character stops being human.