@@maudyg_22 Funny how one tiny editing decision can change the entire moral of a story. Goes to show how collaborative the filmmaking process really is.
I always knew that was the case becuase it's not spelled out like that in the book. As a kid I found it slightly annoying to see the departure, but I understood where they were going with it. One of those changes made in adapting the books that I can get down with.
The moral is: Don’t accept cool and expensive looking rings from a good looking supernatural chad with ambitions of becoming the god-dictator of all creation.
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us” always struck me as a central theme. Obligation and responsibility to do right, even if it seems overwhelming or actually fatal.
Love your analysis. The story for me has never been about if Frodo can destroy the ring, it’s if he can come home. In this we get another layer as he physically comes home and yet mentally he does not. Return is a big theme in LOTR. Gandalf returns stronger, Aragorn returns to be king, Theoden returns to his old self, and of course, the hobbits return home. Tolkien clearly had the idea that things were not as they should be and they must be returned to their proper state to bring peace. This, for me, is why Frodo is tragic. He does not truly return and must instead continue on to a new thing to find rest.
I agree, the books focus much more on the idea of "restoring" something lost - even Middle Earth itself is a character in that sense. Thanks for watching!
Keep making more videos. This is one of the best analysis I have ever seen. I have never noticed the thing with the hands, but since beginning i felt the real climax was when Frodo didn't let go. When reading other comments I also think that LOTR has many submorals (like it has many subplots) which are also really important.
The biggest moral take away for me has always been "Even the most ordinary of people, can do the most extraordinary of things." That is just one though ;). Love your videos m8!
Concur with your conclusion about the climax being Frodo grabbing Sam's hand. When I first realized how important this was I then remembered the scene from FOTR where it is Sam's hand being grabbed by Frodo (to save Sam.) Then I concluded that PJ is a brilliant movie maker.
I just finished reading LOTR this year and the heroes journey came across more strongly in the books. Without the Hobbits reclaiming the shire, the main arc of the story is unfulfilled. Gandalf declining to assist the Hobbits/the heroes returning home symbolizes the dawn of a new age. Where the children have grown into adults and must take charge of their time
Yep! The books are VERY different than the movies. Both are amazing in their own ways though. Only qualm I have with the movies is the attack if the undead at Pelenor fields. Takes away a lot from the sacrifices made…
This definitely makes sense, taking into account other parts of the trilogy's climax. Aragorn's speech to the army of Men, saying that they will not break their bonds of fellowship, but will stand. Gimli and Legolas being happy to die side by side with a friend. Aragorn's charge being made in Frodo's name. And Sam bearing Frodo's burden by literally carrying him. Along with other big events in the last movie, like Rohan coming to Gondor's aid, Aragorn convincing the traitor ghosts to hold to their oaths of assistance made in life, and Gandalf and Pippin's attempts to help the folk of Minas Tirith resist by reminding them they're not alone. This is contrasted by things like Saruman being literally stabbed in the back by Wormtongue, in the extended edition. It all fits that theme.
As I went into this I already had my opinion formed on what the moral of the story is. That is: You should always try to do what's right no matter how hopeless are or incapable you feel. I think this is best captured at the battle at the black gate, where the men of the west our tricked into thinking Souron has the Ring, but they still stand and fight even though there seems to be no hope. In the movie Marry and Pippin are also the first to fallow Aragon in the charge even though they appear to be the least capable, but they do what's right. Just my slightly different opinion. Great video!
I think this is correct and a point missing from this video's analysis. The moral position is essential in determining the bonds of friendship; blind friendship could be problematic. In LOTR, this moral position is guaranteed because we follow the good protagonists, but what if you applied the same approach to Saruman and Wormtongue? Imagine, for instance, that the Sam/Frodo dynamic was carried over to them, but their intentions were unjust--is the friendship position still a positive moral if they do terrible things? Do intentions matter? Or, is friendship the end in itself? I think this point is missing in the initial hypothesis. Think about Sam calling out Frodo about the ring, or Aragorn and Boromir, or Gandalf and Saruman, or Aragorn and Theodin? These are all instances of reminding another about doing the right thing. Friendships are challenged at these moments because of the right moral imperative, not because they are friends.
@@kurtespersen-peters9648 That's a good point, and certainly makes you think about the deeper moral implications of the story. As we all know, sometimes friendship means challenging friends - as you point out. So maybe blind loyalty is not the pure virtue we sometimes think it is. Maybe this is why Frodo technically "fails" to destroy the ring. Tolkien clearly didn't want such a straightforward conclusion to the complex morals at play in his story.
There is also the parallel of Frodo saying, "Sam, I'm glad you're with me / I'm glad to be with you, Samwise Gamgee," both of those lines occurring after they save one another. It's a neat touch and, extended editions aside, a fitting narrative bookend for how Frodo truly appreciates Sam as a companion. If I was in a war-torn hellscape and only had my one good guy to back me up, I would want it to be Samwise. Sam is duty and honor, his intentions are always pure and he does his absolute to protect Frodo. Samwise directs the emotional narrative of the Frodo/Gollum storyline. The films validate Sam's moral character, and that's the payoff.
I remember I didn't like Sam's hate towards Gollum. Because I feel like a broken creature who came back to life I deeply sympathise with all other broken creatures, even the evil ones. It so so easy to take a wrong decision in bad times. It may have been pure luck (or it could have been strenght but one will never know). I often keep in my mind that I could have been them. So I like Frodo's attitude. But then in Tolkien's world no one is perfect, everyone, even the best heroes have some faults or take bad decisions. Even Sam.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen this trilogy and I’ve never put it together that the shot of Sam grabbing Frodo in ROTK matches the shot of Frodo grabbing Sam in FOTR 🤯
In my opinion, the climax of the books is when Samwise thinks Frodo has died and makes he decision to keep pushing forward because he basically receives a message from the one God. The ring then tries to temp him with all the gardens he could ever want but he decided that his own garden was more than enough. The scene neatly wraps up all of LOTRs main themes into one scene: the strength of average man who wants nothing more than to have his own simple life, the inability of power to corrupt those who have no interest in it, and the power of Devine intervention.
A great interpretation, and makes total sense. It supports the long-held theory that Sam is the "real protagonist", especially of Tolkien's original story.
Great video. I've never noticed that about Frodo grabbing Sam's hand when he's drowning and then it being reversed at the end. Pretty powerful stuff. Thanks man.
Thanks for the great video. Regarding you take that the movies see the destruction of the ring as the destruction of evil, I disagree. As you see, when the tower of Sauron explodes and the orcs are swallowed up by the collapsing of Mordor, many of the orcs escape on the other side of the army of men. I always interpreted the ring as “a great evil” instead of all evil. As an example, if you were to take down a human trafficking ring of dozens of people, you have toppled a great evil, but not evil itself. Anyway, really enjoyed your take. Thanks.
That's a good point. Those orcs gotta go somewhere. It's almost like they "abandon" Sauron as soon as he loses his power, but that doesn't mean all evil is destroyed. Thanks for watching, and for sharing your thoughts.
I agree with your assessment. Well done, video essay! I've seen these movies dozens of times. And the phrase I think of the most often is "What can man do against such reckless hate?" "Ride out and meet them." I think this goes along with other quotes like "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for" and "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." The point being, that in spite of insurmountable odds, we must do our part and fight. We can't give up. And when we step out in faith, the miraculous shows up and beats the odds. (As a Christian, I feel this idea came from Tolkien's faith, even if only subconsciously.) The heroes of this story chose to leave the comforts of home in order to fight evil. (Also on his mind from what he saw in WWI).
I loved you pointing out how the ring's dissolution is tied to Frodo's decision. I was thinking for a lot of the video that you would say the climax was Aragorn saying "For Frodo", but I did always value the big battles more than Frodo and Sam's story
There ARE a couple other moments that feel climactic in that way, and "For Frodo" has got to be second in line for me. I'd say it's the climax of ARAGORN's arc for sure, and even of "the rest" of the Fellowship. It's certainly one of the most badass parts of the movie, and certainly makes me emotional every time. Especially cause he says it quietly, and it almost feels directed at the viewer.
The moral is power invites corruption. Those least interested in seeking it are typically better suited to having it. Those most interested in seeking it are less suited to having it.
@@benjaminkenney3706In the books Aragorn keeps in mind that he is to be king and during all his life he is learning and preparing to be him. Although it is only another form of humility - and also responsibility.
What amazes me about literature and why I love it so much is that it endures through time and generations upon generations of people can look back on it and get something out of it.
Before I’ve watched the the video further, I’ll say what I think is the moral theme of the films: I believe it is best expressed in Gandalfs conversation with Frodo regarding destiny. The theme is: some situations are good and some are bad, but your power is to decide what to do with that have of cards. Further, that there are greater powers at work in this world than evil. Powers that help supply us with the grace to do the right thing and fulfill our destiny.
Gandalf's words are definitely intended to signal to the viewer the moral - especially the bit you mention about "forced other than the will of evil", referencing Gollum's role, and how Frodo's pity might ultimately save Middle Earth.
🤦🏽♂️ Oh my God, I’m so dumb. It wasn’t until he mentioned how Tolkien fought in WW1 that I realized… the Fellowship of the Ring is a military unit. The way a military unit bonds and gets close during war. That loyalty, that bond, is all they have to get through the horrors of war, just like the Fellowship, and just like Frodo and Sam. That’s why there was one more battle with Saruman. Because it was a reflection of Tolkien’s experience and that of his squad coming back from war. The Lord of the Rings is the fantasy version of Saving Private Ryan!
It's one of the most interesting things about reading Tolkien. On one hand, there seem to be a lot of parallels. On the other hand, he was adamant that he wasn't trying to make metaphors. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Makes you wonder about how stories "emerge" from an author's experience, even if that's not the intention.
@@theartofstorytelling1 It is quite common way - you can best describe things that you understand. Everyone brings their own experiences in their writing - in a way. It is not allegory, it is using your knowledge. But I once experienced the opposite. I stood in a small flat in a city in Slovakia and listened to an old man telling me and his wife that his older son should have lived and the younger one should have died instead of him. I felt like I was standing in Minas Tirith and couldn't believe it was really happening.
'I wish it not have happened in my time,' said Frodo. "And so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.." *Gandalf* "But where shall I find courage?" asked Frodo. "That is what I chiefly need." "'Courage is found in unlikely places," *Gildor*
Great quotes. There's really no shortage of wisdom to be found in the character dialogue. "Treason has ever been our enemy" is one of my faves from Gandalf.
In this sense the Moral is what I would call the Central Theme. The length of the literary or cinematic treatment merely shows the many ways of discussing and examining the theme. A Trilogy has a lot of room to address and set up the theme. A three movie adaptation in someways offers more (visually and audibly) but not philosophically. People who complain about adaptations are merely complaining that their favorite aspect was not brought out., or that the adapter added an aspect that wasn't in the original. My take on this story is that it takes everyone even the ordinary person to triumph over evil but also that the ordinary people suffer the most from evil.
You're right that "theme" and "moral" have a lot of overlap. I like your interpretation that "it takes everyone" - that the shadow in the east will reach even the shire.
I think you absolutely nailed it. I noticed the foreshadowing with the shot of the hands and I noticed the fact that the ring didnt melt until frodo made the choice to grab Sam's hand. But i had connected the dots and placed them as significant to the central theme of the story. I also think this video is brilliant because it showcases the difference between moral and theme. The comments are filled with different themes that the story absolutely does contain and are intentional. But none of them are the moral of the story that you put so succinctly. This was cathartic. I think this is all further evidenced by tolkein himself saying that Sam was the hero of the story.
I have the original books first and foremost in my mind when I watch the films. I therefore saw the films as an imperfect reflection of the books and not a work in their own right. That they have a different moral was a complete surprise to me, and thank you for that! The moral of LOTR? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and wise people know that. Also for me the climax in the books is when Sam and Frodo awake in the Fields of Cormallen and the host cry ‘Long live the Halflings! Praise them with great praise!’ I always have tears in my eyes at that point.
To me the moral of the story is that any one, no matter how small or unlikely, can make the greatest difference. Their loyalty and love were always stronger than evil.
I really like your discussion about Tom Bombadil. I love Tolkien's inclusion of him as an element to the story that doesn't seem to fit into the narrative and morality structure being explored. He shows how much bigger and more complex the world is than stories can convey. That there will always be elements that don't fit. If LotR was a story about a good versus evil war, Tom would be a pacifist who gets a brief mention and highlights that maybe there are other perspectives being overlooked.
I agree - Tom Bom raises a lot of fascinating questions about Middle Earth and its cosmic order. Apparently he will be in Rings Of Power, so I wonder what they'll do with him ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As Sam is the protagonist, I wonder if you could argue that the pivotal test of "friendship triumphs over evil" would be when Gollum's plan to frame Sam succeeds, and Frodo disowns Sam... yet Sam still chooses goes back for Frodo, he triumphs over evil (Shelob) and ultimately rescues Frodo.
I'm pretty sure the moral is "Don't try to take over the world." With the secondary morals being; "Go to parties." "Hang out with Friends." "Don't let anyone try to take over the world." "People with Big Houses should have people stay over for months at a time."
One moral left out was mercy. Without the mercy Bilbo and Frodo had for gollum, things would have gone very differently. This was brought up in the chapter “ The Shadow of the Past” by Gandalf. It is a very Christian theme since God had mercy on us because of his love for us. We deserved death like Gollum but have a second chance if we accept his mercy. Another Christian theme is the sovereignty of God. Bilbo and Frodo were meant to have the ring. We see Iluvatar’s hand in it all even though he is never mentioned in LOTR, he is in the Silmarillion. He uses the love of Middle Earth’s inhabitants to bring about the eucatastrophe, the great last minute turn of events that was his final say as in Romans8:28. We see this also in the making of Middle Earth in The Sillmarillian when Iluvatar takes Morgoth’s disharmony and turns it into a beautiful melody. I think both were brought out in the movie.
I’d argue that Jackson genuinely missed the point of the books. The true climactic moment in terms of Good v Evil is actually when the Mouth of Sauron rejects the terms of the King. The way it’s framed in the book as a distraction technique blinds you to the point it is making: the King is there by Divine appointment, Sauron is defying the final demands of God to atone for his actions. Therefore the Ring can go in the lava, end of Sauron. Instead, Jackson has Aragorn lose patience, slice off the Messenger’s head without any answer given, before leading everyone to their certain deaths. It is simply a repeat of the Rohan charge outside Minas Tirith, undermining Aragorn’s credibility as the worthy Returning King. Literally anyone could have done what Aragorn did. There was nothing ordained or special about it at all. Sure we all like to see a baddie get his dues, but that glorification of violence is totally opposite to the books.
That reminds me of the scene where Gandalf whacks Denethor over the head, which Philippa Boyens disagreed with, saying that Tolkien would never approve. PJ put it in anyway, arguing that it was a good filmic moment. The Mouth Of Sauron getting decapitated was probably a similar conversation. Thanks for sharing your interpretation of the book's moral. I'll go back and re-read that chapter.
@@theartofstorytelling1 Yea, that was a bit of a cheeky inclusion, though not as bad as the Mouth of Sauron moment! My theory - which has proved quite unpopular when I’ve expressed it elsewhere 😆 - is that you have to acknowledge Frodo actually failed: he didn’t destroy the Ring. Gollum did. But also: he was never meant to! Check in the Council of Elrond and they very carefully avoid explicitly stating he must destroy it. He is Ring Bearer. So his failure is BECAUSE he tries to destroy it. He overstepped his role and authority. That sounds like a stupid theory right? Well, take a step back for a moment and look at the wider picture: We have an evil, angry deity - Sauron We have an innocent man - Frodo. We are going to send an innocent man into a volcano, most likely to his death, to get rid of said God figure. What?! That’s not a good message to send! Lol This plan canNOT be allowed to work! We can’t have our Wisest and most powerful representatives sacrificing men into volcanoes to get rid of Evil. By telling us it’s all about Magic and Power and Evil contained in the Ring, Tolkien flips the emphasis of the drama so that we don’t even notice the implications of what we think we want to happen. We all want Frodo to do the job, be the little Hero who triumphs. But really we are cheering him on to his death. And worse, we are saying that our Chosen individual who represents all the best of humanity, is inferior to ‘Magic’. In other words: Magic and Evil are stronger than moral Virtue. Again, totally wrong Message. The real plan has to be one that is morally right. So that’s where Aragorn’s part comes into it: his path is the true and correct plan. He is the morally incorruptible leader, and he is going to present even the most (maybe second-most) evil entity to ever exist, the last chance to repent. It doesn’t matter that we all know Sauron has no intention of doing so. The important thing is to offer Sauron the choice. Just as Bilbo and Frodo gave Mercy to Gollum and, during the Scouring of the Shire, Frodo granted to fallen Saruman. Destroying such an Evil requires an even greater display of Virtue. It can’t be equal, because then no one would win right? And that is why the chapter ‘The Black Gate Opens’ and the meeting with the Mouth of Sauron is - morally - the most significant event. Once you see those distinctions you wonder: why even bother with Frodo? Well, Aragorn can’t be in two places at once right? He can’t confront the Mouth of Sauron and be up at the Cracks holding the Ring over the flames at the same time. Frodo’s job is to sneak up behind Sauron and be the knife at his throat. Aragorn’s is to issue the final summons. When Frodo fails it is because he doesn’t realise the problem he is making. He is trying to ‘kill’ Sauron without Mercy, and it is not in his authority to choose such a thing. It would suggest he is above the authority of the King himself. That acting outside of the law is somehow morally acceptable. That’s something a modern reader may well agree with when facing near-absolute Evil, but it comes with its own connotations - if Frodo is allowed to kill as he sees fit, why not anyone? Why not you or me? Evil is evil, big or small; why can’t we just kill who we think is evil and be done with it? As I say, it raises him above the law and has no definite boundaries. So really the only solution to defeat Evil is with a Righteous King acting within the bounds of Law. And now we might be tempted to apply a little bit of allegory. Sauron = evil fallen deity/angel. So… sort of Lucifer/ the Devil. Aragorn = Righteous King of All Men So… sort of …. Jesus? In other words, the only way to truly defeat Evil is through Jesus! There’s still plenty to debate about this theory but I feel it really does come close to something fundamental that Tolkien himself would genuinely be trying to tell us.
@@David.Bowman. Thanks for sharing this. It all seems logical to me, though it does make you wonder whether we should view Aragorn as the protagonist of the story. Or even taking a step further back, whether Tolkien even wants us to think in those analytical terms at all. As for the Christian symbolism, I was thinking about making a video about religious symbols in the story. I think that would require a lot of research, cause there's probably a lot already written about it.
@@theartofstorytelling1 Your welcome, hard to find someone willing to take it seriously, so far it’s been soundly rejected lol Christian symbolism isn’t something I know too much about with certainty but maybe enough to make this interpretation. It is kind of hard to pinpoint a single protagonist but maybe that’s the point: it could be considered an emergent property of the unfolding events. A bit like Sam rising from Frodo’s friend/servant to becoming the ‘chief’ hero.
The Shire is saved by Sam for his children. his replanting of the party tree is a huge moment. The march of the Ents is a huge moment. the forest encompassing the enemy and " consuming them" is a bigger moment than most realize. these are things that were largely passed over in the movies.
It's true. We will probably always debate whether Jackson made the right calls in the things he deleted. Makes you wonder what another director would bring to a different adaptation. Thanks for watching!
I always thought that it's Galadriel's words, that the smallest things can shape the world, and that's love, sincerity, hope etc, small but most significant things, for example, faith and hope won more wars than any military strength, the urge for life the instinct to survive, the battle for freedom.
This is fascinating, and a brilliant analysis of that final cathartic moment. My theory about Tom Bombadil is that he is such a different kind of being than Sauron had ever encountered (so not a Maia or Vala), that he was just not accounted for in Sauron's magical formulas and spells. So the ring, to Bombadil, is just an object of little interest.
I always thought LOTR had many echoes of WW1 and the experiences Tolkien had - mateship, doing the right thing even when it seems hopeless, honour. I’d never thought about the scouring of the Shire being based on Tolkien’s return from war- I imagine that’d be obvious to anyone who lived through that time (especially those who fought in it)
Good point! That whole speech from Gandalf about Gollum having "some part to play" and "the pity of Bilbo" really does suggest that Jackson had that moral in mind.
There is also a difference between film and book. In the book, at Gollum's first ambush on Mount Doom, Frodo as the master of the ring (Sam has a crazy vision there with Frodo as white figure with a wheel of fire) says something like 'if you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom'. There was also a similar scene at the black gate. And so it happens, the ring makes Gollum tumble into the fire, hence evil destroys itself. In the film there is only the 'I swear on the precious' scene in TT that alludes to this theme, but it's explored no more.
I guess the fact that I read the books a couple of times before the movies came out made the timing of Frodo grabbing Sam's hand and the ring finally melting much less significant to me. I expected the ring to melt whether or not Frodo grabbed Sam's hand. Jackson might have been trying to hint at the connection, but I was already set in my mind about it. In fact, if Frodo had fallen in and died, the story still would have largely been the same for me. He destroyed the ring at great cost to himself, only the cost is a little larger in that case. So, the climax to me was Gollum falling in.
I've always wondered about whether it would be a more powerful story if Frodo died at the end. Or worse, Sam! I don't even want to imagine it. But it would be powerful.
An interesting question, and yet Tolkien’s own words: “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. … Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” He didn’t care about a moral, he just wanted to create a captivating history.
Good quote. And I completely understand why he insists upon this. One thing I wonder is whether a story can be said to have a moral, even if the author specifically says it does not. Isn't it, after all, in the mind of the reader?
@@theartofstorytelling1 Without a doubt. And I also have to say on a personal note that your analysis is actually quite compelling and I've happily favorited your video! Writer John Green also talks about how once a book is released, it no longer belongs to the author, and they don't have the say anymore. So, indeed!
for me the scene that sums it up is Mines of Moria when Gandalf says "That is not for us to choose. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us”" its always about making the right moral choice, not based in fear but in allowing the best possible outcome a chance to come. side note on Tom i dont think its strength or power that gives him immunity to the ring he just doesn't have the mental aspects it works on , the hobbits dont want any power thats why they are so resistant. tom is just further along that way.
As a long-time Tolkien book fan, I've always been somewhat critical of the films. I do love them, but I would never personally call them masterpieces. More like excellent 3-star films. At least I think some of the deviations from the book could have been handled better. But I have to credit you for this great video; you've made me think of the films more deeply! (Maybe they're more like 3 and a half stars now...) What would you say is the principle theme (if you can pick only one) of the book version, as opposed to the film? (I have always considered it to be: Never, ever give in do despair.)
That's a tough question - but I'd say the main theme of the books is also "loyalty". Gandalf always talks about how "treason" has always been their enemy, and the reason why Middle Earth is - at the time of that story - a suspicious place. That said, in the books, "loyalty" doesn't "save the world" in the same way it does in the films.
Having read the book, watched the movies several times and heard a lot said about it, I really like your videos in general because of the different view, explanation of what made them particularly good. It's as true as it can get here, since I never really considered the mind-blowingly obvious parallel there is between these two rescuing. Nor have I tried to clearly formulate the moral that was bound to this story (which in my opinion would be more like "One must relentlessly fight evil and will succeed thanks to faith and friendship")
Thanks for watching, and I'm glad you're enjoying my channel. It's always good to hear feedback cause my channel is still very new. You're right that I want it to be something like "deep dives" into WHY certain things work - appreciating the artistry that sometimes goes unnoticed or unappreciated. Anyway thanks for stopping by the channel. :)
@@theartofstorytelling1 Thank you as well, it's always a pleasure discovering such qualitative content - as well as knowing you enjoy taking time to read community's feedback ;) - Keep that up !
Wow this says a lot about where the world was after the first War, it's a story rarely told and gets left behind in story books. Immortalizing it through high fantasy lets it live long enough to teach us those lessons again and again. The implications are pretty depressing though, and we definitely see parallels htroughout the decades.
After watching PJ's trilogy a couple of times, I concluded that the entire story is about this: death. Then I came across Tolkien himself saying that in a rare interview (he also wrote about it in a letter.) *LOTR is about death.* This of course is part of Tolkien's Catholicism, to accept that one will indeed die one day, and that there is more afterwards. That PJ was able to convey that in the movies without being blunt about it is a testimony to both PJ and Tolkien.
Greed is bad. Melkor was greedy. Feanor was greedy. His sons were greedy. Sauron was greedy. The Numenoreans got greedy. The three kingdoms of Arnor got greedy. Even Gondor got greedy at one point. That's the common thread.
Wow, it never occured to me, at least not consciously, that the moment of the Ring's Destruction and Frodo grabbing Sam's hand happens at the same time. It's really a minor gripe now that I am aware of it, but the movie should have reflected this better. Like the Ring/Evil theme playing more openly one last time as it floats on the Lava and/or Frodo looking down one last time before grabbing Sam's hand. What I thought until today was that Frodo was considering to let go out of shame for failing to destroy it and not for lusting after its Power still (ok, both views can be true at the same time).
Yes I think you're correct. Frodo is definitely considering letting go, and you can interpret that in many ways. Personally, I've always felt like he lost the will to live knowing the ring was gone, but then decided to live, and that is the final triumph. But I've heard many other interesting interpretations!
In Tolkien’s writings, the end doesn’t justify the means. Virtue determines the end. That’s why inserting grey morality (as seen in some adaptation) into his world doesn’t give it more depth. It kills it. There are dilemmas in Tolkien’s stories, but there’s no moral dilemmas.
We need to put LotR in context. Tolkien fought on WW1. It was the defining event of his life and its everywhere in the story. Frodo and Sam are the innocent young men who left their pleasant and willingly went into hell. Sauron is war itself. He’s not a person in the story so much as an event. He happens and everyone suffers as a result. The Orks aren’t the Germans but rather the men turned into weapons. Beings that lose all morality when controlled by all out war and will live in squalor and murder every day because that’s all they know. Gandalf is the loyal and wise leadership that was so lacking in WW1. There was a lot of intergenerational resentment after the war and Gandalf is addressing that. Gollum is wretched and mad and Tolkien would have seen a lot of that. What about the Ring, apart from being a brilliant Maguffin? It represents the hope of peace and that’s what they are essentially carrying the whole time. They hope of living in peace and normality whilst living in a daily nightmare. He may not have liked allegory, but he couldn’t avoid it.
@@etevenatkowicz9745 Ontological Evil is never ultimately destroyed, it's intrinsic to the very nature of Arda; the Ring is AN evil, not Evil itself. The purpose of Evil, and the reason why Ilúvatar permitted the marring of Arda during the Ainulindalë by Melkor is because Evil exists as a necessary MEANS to the ultimate end of creation: the possibility of TRUE Goodness; after all, what would the meaning of "the Good" have in a universe that does not permit the existence of "the bad"? As one of the more profound aspects of The Silmarillion clearly states: "Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’"
Thanks! I'm still a new channel, and still figuring out what I want it to be. I really appreciate the sub, and I'll do my best to make some content that is worth watching. Cheers.
Me knowing all or almost all of this... still crying over Samwise Gamgee and the power of friendship. I think the ring not shown to melt until Frodo grabs Sam's hand is such a powerful little visual moment easily overlooked by the casual viewer. I myself only noticed it a few years back, I think.
I don't think Tolkien or many writers write stories for the sake of imparting a moral, though it may be possible for readers to draw their own conclusions on what morals the story might contain. It seems to be about uniting together to fight evil and not giving up and the importance of friendship and sacrifice. It's also about how a happy peaceful life can also suddenly be imperilled by outside forces that can turn everything upside down. Tolkien was influenced by his experience of WWI.
I agree Tolkien probably didn't set out with a particular moral in mind, and his own comments would seem to support that. It's an interesting question for the philosophers: is the moral "there" even if the author didn't intend? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I really don't think there is just one moral theme in LOTR. Instead, there are themes. ie One must face the evil within one's self, and the evil that comes from outside one's self. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Mercy can plant the seed which ultimately overcomes evil as one sees when Bilbo, Gandalf, the elves, Frodo, and Samwise do not slay Gollum. "Oft evil will mars evil will" This is what Gandalf says. The ultimate example of this is when Gollum takes the ring from Frodo which in turn leads the ring to turn against Gollum that leads to its destruction. Saying there is one moral theme in this legendarium seems reductionistic to me. But if I had to do that, I would say it is that Love and mercy are more powerful than the destructive arrogance of evil.
Well said, and I agree that it's an exercise in futility to reduce Tolkien's stories down to one moral. Personally, I believe movies are BOUND by their format to do this, and that's why I think the adaptation of Tolkien into movies/TV shows is so fraught - but interesting to discuss!
The moral is what tolkien explicitly said it was. That God is the only being with the right to Divine worship. Or the Divine right to worship. That is what Morgoth and Sauron each wanted and failed to get.
i think you missed the biggest difference . in the books they lost frodo succumbed all came to naught , the good guys failed at the last, Frodo had taken the ring every step he could and not one further and it was not enough. in the film the hobbits kind of win , for me it totally changes the entire context and meaning of the whole thing.
To me the Ring in a way symbolizes addiction/Desire No i’m not talking about Drugs. But Like something we all really want and in a way really need. Example if someone were to give you a billion dollars but tells you its not yours. Dont spend it. However you know this is illegal money. You should take it back and get rid of it. Or maybe you just really like the taste of something but you have to fight the urge. Every single character had something they really desired.
That "climax" of the story is a Jackson contrivance. Frodo does not fall over the side and is not saved by Sam at the moment in the book. So what is the climax in the book?
I'm not sure if the books have a pinpoint climactic moments in the same way movies do. After all, the fact that they go back to the Shire and have to fight another war kind of throws a wrench into the typical dramaturgical flow. So your question is actually a hard one to answer. Possibly a future video? lol
Fun fact peter actually did not think of this up till the very end on the editing room the ring was supposed to melt right after gollum fell in it but then frodo holding on to sam wouldnt mean much since the ring already is deystroyed only then they realiesed they need to cut it this way as i remember they even had to ask for another shot of the ring on the lava for this to work
That makes sense. This would be a difficult sequence to edit, and I'll bet that was a eureka moment for PJ. Definitely feels like a very deliberate decision.
The moral for me has always been, the weight of evil must be carried by the common people (hobbits) and only the common people can help overthrow it. Not kings or the powerful, they help but can never truly bear the weight.
Everyone deserves a Sam if/when they're facing 'dangling above the fires of Mt.Doom'. We should all try to be a Sam for our friends and family whenever possible too.
The moral of the book is of course different. Tolkien was a Catholic and for him the moral of the story is that people are not strong enough to defeat evil, except with the support or grace of God: This is why Gollum destroys the ring. However your analysis of the moral of the film was excellent.
The moral of the films is action, swords, boom, good guys win. They really don't delve much deeper into Tolkiens work, besides getting a few quotes right.
i can't believe i never noticed the timing of the Ring's destruction matching Frodo's decision to reach for Sam's hand. my mind is blown right now.
You will never unsee it!
Thinking about him looking down, not seeing an ultimate doom in the lava, but in stead, in doubt about abandoning the ring, is so heavy.
The scene wasn't initially planned like that, but the editor Jamie Selkirk brought it up. He won an Oscar for it and deservedly so.
@@maudyg_22 Funny how one tiny editing decision can change the entire moral of a story. Goes to show how collaborative the filmmaking process really is.
I always knew that was the case becuase it's not spelled out like that in the book. As a kid I found it slightly annoying to see the departure, but I understood where they were going with it. One of those changes made in adapting the books that I can get down with.
The moral is: Don’t accept cool and expensive looking rings from a good looking supernatural chad with ambitions of becoming the god-dictator of all creation.
a timeless moral for all mankind.
also..be nice to your creepy, single old uncles...you'll likely be put in the will.
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us” always struck me as a central theme. Obligation and responsibility to do right, even if it seems overwhelming or actually fatal.
And the fact that Frodo has a flashback to this line at the end of Fellowship would support your thesis.
Love your analysis. The story for me has never been about if Frodo can destroy the ring, it’s if he can come home. In this we get another layer as he physically comes home and yet mentally he does not.
Return is a big theme in LOTR. Gandalf returns stronger, Aragorn returns to be king, Theoden returns to his old self, and of course, the hobbits return home. Tolkien clearly had the idea that things were not as they should be and they must be returned to their proper state to bring peace. This, for me, is why Frodo is tragic. He does not truly return and must instead continue on to a new thing to find rest.
Frodo the most tragic and heroic
I agree, the books focus much more on the idea of "restoring" something lost - even Middle Earth itself is a character in that sense. Thanks for watching!
Tolkien as a war veteran probably influenced some of that.
That there’s some good in this world, Mr Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for
Saw the thumbnail, said "duh" and came here for exactly this. Thanks.
Keep making more videos. This is one of the best analysis I have ever seen. I have never noticed the thing with the hands, but since beginning i felt the real climax was when Frodo didn't let go.
When reading other comments I also think that LOTR has many submorals (like it has many subplots) which are also really important.
The biggest moral take away for me has always been "Even the most ordinary of people, can do the most extraordinary of things." That is just one though ;). Love your videos m8!
Thanks for watching!
Concur with your conclusion about the climax being Frodo grabbing Sam's hand. When I first realized how important this was I then remembered the scene from FOTR where it is Sam's hand being grabbed by Frodo (to save Sam.) Then I concluded that PJ is a brilliant movie maker.
maybe in the movie. but not the book. id even go so far as to say that the march of the Ents is closer to the actual moral.
Well done! As a retired English teacher I love the way you present the different literary elements from the novels as well as the movies.
I just finished reading LOTR this year and the heroes journey came across more strongly in the books. Without the Hobbits reclaiming the shire, the main arc of the story is unfulfilled. Gandalf declining to assist the Hobbits/the heroes returning home symbolizes the dawn of a new age. Where the children have grown into adults and must take charge of their time
yes, that is much closer to the climax of the moral center.
Yep! The books are VERY different than the movies. Both are amazing in their own ways though. Only qualm I have with the movies is the attack if the undead at Pelenor fields. Takes away a lot from the sacrifices made…
This definitely makes sense, taking into account other parts of the trilogy's climax. Aragorn's speech to the army of Men, saying that they will not break their bonds of fellowship, but will stand. Gimli and Legolas being happy to die side by side with a friend. Aragorn's charge being made in Frodo's name. And Sam bearing Frodo's burden by literally carrying him. Along with other big events in the last movie, like Rohan coming to Gondor's aid, Aragorn convincing the traitor ghosts to hold to their oaths of assistance made in life, and Gandalf and Pippin's attempts to help the folk of Minas Tirith resist by reminding them they're not alone. This is contrasted by things like Saruman being literally stabbed in the back by Wormtongue, in the extended edition. It all fits that theme.
As I went into this I already had my opinion formed on what the moral of the story is. That is: You should always try to do what's right no matter how hopeless are or incapable you feel. I think this is best captured at the battle at the black gate, where the men of the west our tricked into thinking Souron has the Ring, but they still stand and fight even though there seems to be no hope. In the movie Marry and Pippin are also the first to fallow Aragon in the charge even though they appear to be the least capable, but they do what's right. Just my slightly different opinion. Great video!
That's definitely a big theme. The odds are always impossible. Same with Boromir continuing to fight despite being impaled by giant arrows.
I think this is correct and a point missing from this video's analysis. The moral position is essential in determining the bonds of friendship; blind friendship could be problematic. In LOTR, this moral position is guaranteed because we follow the good protagonists, but what if you applied the same approach to Saruman and Wormtongue? Imagine, for instance, that the Sam/Frodo dynamic was carried over to them, but their intentions were unjust--is the friendship position still a positive moral if they do terrible things? Do intentions matter? Or, is friendship the end in itself? I think this point is missing in the initial hypothesis. Think about Sam calling out Frodo about the ring, or Aragorn and Boromir, or Gandalf and Saruman, or Aragorn and Theodin? These are all instances of reminding another about doing the right thing. Friendships are challenged at these moments because of the right moral imperative, not because they are friends.
@@kurtespersen-peters9648 That's a good point, and certainly makes you think about the deeper moral implications of the story. As we all know, sometimes friendship means challenging friends - as you point out. So maybe blind loyalty is not the pure virtue we sometimes think it is. Maybe this is why Frodo technically "fails" to destroy the ring. Tolkien clearly didn't want such a straightforward conclusion to the complex morals at play in his story.
There is also the parallel of Frodo saying, "Sam, I'm glad you're with me / I'm glad to be with you, Samwise Gamgee," both of those lines occurring after they save one another. It's a neat touch and, extended editions aside, a fitting narrative bookend for how Frodo truly appreciates Sam as a companion. If I was in a war-torn hellscape and only had my one good guy to back me up, I would want it to be Samwise. Sam is duty and honor, his intentions are always pure and he does his absolute to protect Frodo. Samwise directs the emotional narrative of the Frodo/Gollum storyline. The films validate Sam's moral character, and that's the payoff.
I remember even before the movies came out and my dad told me to read the books, he told me "Sam's the real hero".
I remember I didn't like Sam's hate towards Gollum. Because I feel like a broken creature who came back to life I deeply sympathise with all other broken creatures, even the evil ones. It so so easy to take a wrong decision in bad times. It may have been pure luck (or it could have been strenght but one will never know). I often keep in my mind that I could have been them. So I like Frodo's attitude.
But then in Tolkien's world no one is perfect, everyone, even the best heroes have some faults or take bad decisions. Even Sam.
This is one of the best analyses of LOTR that I have ever seen. I liked and subscribed. Hope you continue to make more videos!
Thanks for the friendly comment, and thanks for the sub!
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen this trilogy and I’ve never put it together that the shot of Sam grabbing Frodo in ROTK matches the shot of Frodo grabbing Sam in FOTR 🤯
Same
In my opinion, the climax of the books is when Samwise thinks Frodo has died and makes he decision to keep pushing forward because he basically receives a message from the one God. The ring then tries to temp him with all the gardens he could ever want but he decided that his own garden was more than enough. The scene neatly wraps up all of LOTRs main themes into one scene: the strength of average man who wants nothing more than to have his own simple life, the inability of power to corrupt those who have no interest in it, and the power of Devine intervention.
A great interpretation, and makes total sense. It supports the long-held theory that Sam is the "real protagonist", especially of Tolkien's original story.
This is an incredible video!! Thank you for putting so much thought into it. It was a pleasure to watch 👍
Great video. I've never noticed that about Frodo grabbing Sam's hand when he's drowning and then it being reversed at the end. Pretty powerful stuff. Thanks man.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed. When I first noticed the hand shots my mind was blown. Had to make a video lol
Live for Eru, for what you perceive as his purpose, and not for yourself.
Thanks for the great video. Regarding you take that the movies see the destruction of the ring as the destruction of evil, I disagree. As you see, when the tower of Sauron explodes and the orcs are swallowed up by the collapsing of Mordor, many of the orcs escape on the other side of the army of men. I always interpreted the ring as “a great evil” instead of all evil. As an example, if you were to take down a human trafficking ring of dozens of people, you have toppled a great evil, but not evil itself. Anyway, really enjoyed your take. Thanks.
That's a good point. Those orcs gotta go somewhere. It's almost like they "abandon" Sauron as soon as he loses his power, but that doesn't mean all evil is destroyed. Thanks for watching, and for sharing your thoughts.
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
Excellent analysis, very well presented.
That core theme indeed shows itself at many, many points within the three films. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! It's true - there was a LOT to choose from lol
I agree with your assessment. Well done, video essay! I've seen these movies dozens of times. And the phrase I think of the most often is "What can man do against such reckless hate?" "Ride out and meet them." I think this goes along with other quotes like "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for" and "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." The point being, that in spite of insurmountable odds, we must do our part and fight. We can't give up. And when we step out in faith, the miraculous shows up and beats the odds. (As a Christian, I feel this idea came from Tolkien's faith, even if only subconsciously.) The heroes of this story chose to leave the comforts of home in order to fight evil. (Also on his mind from what he saw in WWI).
I loved you pointing out how the ring's dissolution is tied to Frodo's decision. I was thinking for a lot of the video that you would say the climax was Aragorn saying "For Frodo", but I did always value the big battles more than Frodo and Sam's story
There ARE a couple other moments that feel climactic in that way, and "For Frodo" has got to be second in line for me. I'd say it's the climax of ARAGORN's arc for sure, and even of "the rest" of the Fellowship. It's certainly one of the most badass parts of the movie, and certainly makes me emotional every time. Especially cause he says it quietly, and it almost feels directed at the viewer.
The moral is power invites corruption. Those least interested in seeking it are typically better suited to having it. Those most interested in seeking it are less suited to having it.
That’s the moral of the books. The movies is different
Yes! Exactly
We see it in real world all too often... And no Frodo or Aragorn to save us...
@@benjaminkenney3706In the books Aragorn keeps in mind that he is to be king and during all his life he is learning and preparing to be him. Although it is only another form of humility - and also responsibility.
@@sheridansherr8974That's because we are Frodo and Aragorn.
As a huge LOTR fan, I really enjoy listening to your perspectives. Keep it up. I am learning a lot from you.
Thanks for the encouragement! It's good to hear that a fan is getting something out of it. :)
How do you have this few view and subscribers? Amazing work! Keep it up and soon enough your quality work will be acknowledged!
What amazes me about literature and why I love it so much is that it endures through time and generations upon generations of people can look back on it and get something out of it.
I can't believe I never noticed the prophetic imagery with them holding hands before!
Took me a while to notice it too. Only recently!
Before I’ve watched the the video further, I’ll say what I think is the moral theme of the films:
I believe it is best expressed in Gandalfs conversation with Frodo regarding destiny. The theme is: some situations are good and some are bad, but your power is to decide what to do with that have of cards. Further, that there are greater powers at work in this world than evil. Powers that help supply us with the grace to do the right thing and fulfill our destiny.
Gandalf's words are definitely intended to signal to the viewer the moral - especially the bit you mention about "forced other than the will of evil", referencing Gollum's role, and how Frodo's pity might ultimately save Middle Earth.
Hold on. Lord of the rings PLUS hydraulic press in one video?
Grand slam home run. Bravo sir. I dont know how you have done it, but you have.
I started with the clip of the hydraulic press and thought "how can I make LOTR content from this"?
@@theartofstorytelling1 one press to rule them all! 🤣🤣
🤦🏽♂️ Oh my God, I’m so dumb. It wasn’t until he mentioned how Tolkien fought in WW1 that I realized… the Fellowship of the Ring is a military unit. The way a military unit bonds and gets close during war. That loyalty, that bond, is all they have to get through the horrors of war, just like the Fellowship, and just like Frodo and Sam. That’s why there was one more battle with Saruman. Because it was a reflection of Tolkien’s experience and that of his squad coming back from war.
The Lord of the Rings is the fantasy version of Saving Private Ryan!
It's one of the most interesting things about reading Tolkien. On one hand, there seem to be a lot of parallels. On the other hand, he was adamant that he wasn't trying to make metaphors. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Makes you wonder about how stories "emerge" from an author's experience, even if that's not the intention.
@@theartofstorytelling1 It is quite common way - you can best describe things that you understand. Everyone brings their own experiences in their writing - in a way. It is not allegory, it is using your knowledge.
But I once experienced the opposite. I stood in a small flat in a city in Slovakia and listened to an old man telling me and his wife that his older son should have lived and the younger one should have died instead of him. I felt like I was standing in Minas Tirith and couldn't believe it was really happening.
Absolutely LOVING your channel!!!!
Thanks for your kind words :)
'I wish it not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
"And so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.."
*Gandalf*
"But where shall I find courage?" asked Frodo.
"That is what I chiefly need."
"'Courage is found in unlikely places,"
*Gildor*
Great quotes. There's really no shortage of wisdom to be found in the character dialogue. "Treason has ever been our enemy" is one of my faves from Gandalf.
Do not ask elves for advice :-)
In this sense the Moral is what I would call the Central Theme. The length of the literary or cinematic treatment merely shows the many ways of discussing and examining the theme. A Trilogy has a lot of room to address and set up the theme. A three movie adaptation in someways offers more (visually and audibly) but not philosophically. People who complain about adaptations are merely complaining that their favorite aspect was not brought out., or that the adapter added an aspect that wasn't in the original. My take on this story is that it takes everyone even the ordinary person to triumph over evil but also that the ordinary people suffer the most from evil.
You're right that "theme" and "moral" have a lot of overlap. I like your interpretation that "it takes everyone" - that the shadow in the east will reach even the shire.
I think you absolutely nailed it. I noticed the foreshadowing with the shot of the hands and I noticed the fact that the ring didnt melt until frodo made the choice to grab Sam's hand. But i had connected the dots and placed them as significant to the central theme of the story.
I also think this video is brilliant because it showcases the difference between moral and theme. The comments are filled with different themes that the story absolutely does contain and are intentional. But none of them are the moral of the story that you put so succinctly. This was cathartic.
I think this is all further evidenced by tolkein himself saying that Sam was the hero of the story.
I have the original books first and foremost in my mind when I watch the films. I therefore saw the films as an imperfect reflection of the books and not a work in their own right. That they have a different moral was a complete surprise to me, and thank you for that! The moral of LOTR? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and wise people know that. Also for me the climax in the books is when Sam and Frodo awake in the Fields of Cormallen and the host cry ‘Long live the Halflings! Praise them with great praise!’ I always have tears in my eyes at that point.
To me the moral of the story is that any one, no matter how small or unlikely, can make the greatest difference. Their loyalty and love were always stronger than evil.
I really like your discussion about Tom Bombadil. I love Tolkien's inclusion of him as an element to the story that doesn't seem to fit into the narrative and morality structure being explored. He shows how much bigger and more complex the world is than stories can convey. That there will always be elements that don't fit. If LotR was a story about a good versus evil war, Tom would be a pacifist who gets a brief mention and highlights that maybe there are other perspectives being overlooked.
I agree - Tom Bom raises a lot of fascinating questions about Middle Earth and its cosmic order. Apparently he will be in Rings Of Power, so I wonder what they'll do with him ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@theartofstorytelling1I think Tom Bom represents "the other forces" from Gandalf's speech.
As Sam is the protagonist, I wonder if you could argue that the pivotal test of "friendship triumphs over evil" would be when Gollum's plan to frame Sam succeeds, and Frodo disowns Sam... yet Sam still chooses goes back for Frodo, he triumphs over evil (Shelob) and ultimately rescues Frodo.
This is excellent. Thank you so much.
I'm pretty sure the moral is "Don't try to take over the world."
With the secondary morals being; "Go to parties." "Hang out with Friends." "Don't let anyone try to take over the world." "People with Big Houses should have people stay over for months at a time."
One moral left out was mercy. Without the mercy Bilbo and Frodo had for gollum, things would have gone very differently. This was brought up in the chapter “ The Shadow of the Past” by Gandalf. It is a very Christian theme since God had mercy on us because of his love for us. We deserved death like Gollum but have a second chance if we accept his mercy. Another Christian theme is the sovereignty of God. Bilbo and Frodo were meant to have the ring. We see Iluvatar’s hand in it all even though he is never mentioned in LOTR, he is in the Silmarillion. He uses the love of Middle Earth’s inhabitants to bring about the eucatastrophe, the great last minute turn of events that was his final say as in Romans8:28. We see this also in the making of Middle Earth in The Sillmarillian when Iluvatar takes Morgoth’s disharmony and turns it into a beautiful melody. I think both were brought out in the movie.
Thanks for adding your insights. My knowledge of Tolkien's world beyond the LOTR and Hobbit books is limited, so this is interesting to hear.
I’d argue that Jackson genuinely missed the point of the books.
The true climactic moment in terms of Good v Evil is actually when the Mouth of Sauron rejects the terms of the King.
The way it’s framed in the book as a distraction technique blinds you to the point it is making: the King is there by Divine appointment, Sauron is defying the final demands of God to atone for his actions. Therefore the Ring can go in the lava, end of Sauron.
Instead, Jackson has Aragorn lose patience, slice off the Messenger’s head without any answer given, before leading everyone to their certain deaths.
It is simply a repeat of the Rohan charge outside Minas Tirith, undermining Aragorn’s credibility as the worthy Returning King. Literally anyone could have done what Aragorn did. There was nothing ordained or special about it at all.
Sure we all like to see a baddie get his dues, but that glorification of violence is totally opposite to the books.
That reminds me of the scene where Gandalf whacks Denethor over the head, which Philippa Boyens disagreed with, saying that Tolkien would never approve. PJ put it in anyway, arguing that it was a good filmic moment. The Mouth Of Sauron getting decapitated was probably a similar conversation. Thanks for sharing your interpretation of the book's moral. I'll go back and re-read that chapter.
@@theartofstorytelling1 Yea, that was a bit of a cheeky inclusion, though not as bad as the Mouth of Sauron moment!
My theory - which has proved quite unpopular when I’ve expressed it elsewhere 😆 - is that you have to acknowledge Frodo actually failed: he didn’t destroy the Ring. Gollum did.
But also: he was never meant to!
Check in the Council of Elrond and they very carefully avoid explicitly stating he must destroy it. He is Ring Bearer.
So his failure is BECAUSE he tries to destroy it. He overstepped his role and authority.
That sounds like a stupid theory right?
Well, take a step back for a moment and look at the wider picture:
We have an evil, angry deity - Sauron
We have an innocent man - Frodo.
We are going to send an innocent man into a volcano, most likely to his death, to get rid of said God figure.
What?!
That’s not a good message to send! Lol
This plan canNOT be allowed to work! We can’t have our Wisest and most powerful representatives sacrificing men into volcanoes to get rid of Evil.
By telling us it’s all about Magic and Power and Evil contained in the Ring, Tolkien flips the emphasis of the drama so that we don’t even notice the implications of what we think we want to happen.
We all want Frodo to do the job, be the little Hero who triumphs. But really we are cheering him on to his death. And worse, we are saying that our Chosen individual who represents all the best of humanity, is inferior to ‘Magic’.
In other words: Magic and Evil are stronger than moral Virtue.
Again, totally wrong Message.
The real plan has to be one that is morally right. So that’s where Aragorn’s part comes into it: his path is the true and correct plan.
He is the morally incorruptible leader, and he is going to present even the most (maybe second-most) evil entity to ever exist, the last chance to repent.
It doesn’t matter that we all know Sauron has no intention of doing so.
The important thing is to offer Sauron the choice. Just as Bilbo and Frodo gave Mercy to Gollum and, during the Scouring of the Shire, Frodo granted to fallen Saruman.
Destroying such an Evil requires an even greater display of Virtue. It can’t be equal, because then no one would win right?
And that is why the chapter ‘The Black Gate Opens’ and the meeting with the Mouth of Sauron is - morally - the most significant event.
Once you see those distinctions you wonder: why even bother with Frodo?
Well, Aragorn can’t be in two places at once right? He can’t confront the Mouth of Sauron and be up at the Cracks holding the Ring over the flames at the same time.
Frodo’s job is to sneak up behind Sauron and be the knife at his throat. Aragorn’s is to issue the final summons.
When Frodo fails it is because he doesn’t realise the problem he is making. He is trying to ‘kill’ Sauron without Mercy, and it is not in his authority to choose such a thing.
It would suggest he is above the authority of the King himself. That acting outside of the law is somehow morally acceptable.
That’s something a modern reader may well agree with when facing near-absolute Evil, but it comes with its own connotations - if Frodo is allowed to kill as he sees fit, why not anyone? Why not you or me? Evil is evil, big or small; why can’t we just kill who we think is evil and be done with it? As I say, it raises him above the law and has no definite boundaries.
So really the only solution to defeat Evil is with a Righteous King acting within the bounds of Law.
And now we might be tempted to apply a little bit of allegory.
Sauron = evil fallen deity/angel.
So… sort of Lucifer/ the Devil.
Aragorn = Righteous King of All Men
So… sort of …. Jesus?
In other words, the only way to truly defeat Evil is through Jesus!
There’s still plenty to debate about this theory but I feel it really does come close to something fundamental that Tolkien himself would genuinely be trying to tell us.
@@David.Bowman. Thanks for sharing this. It all seems logical to me, though it does make you wonder whether we should view Aragorn as the protagonist of the story. Or even taking a step further back, whether Tolkien even wants us to think in those analytical terms at all. As for the Christian symbolism, I was thinking about making a video about religious symbols in the story. I think that would require a lot of research, cause there's probably a lot already written about it.
@@theartofstorytelling1 Your welcome, hard to find someone willing to take it seriously, so far it’s been soundly rejected lol Christian symbolism isn’t something I know too much about with certainty but maybe enough to make this interpretation.
It is kind of hard to pinpoint a single protagonist but maybe that’s the point: it could be considered an emergent property of the unfolding events. A bit like Sam rising from Frodo’s friend/servant to becoming the ‘chief’ hero.
Excellent work
The Shire is saved by Sam for his children. his replanting of the party tree is a huge moment. The march of the Ents is a huge moment. the forest encompassing the enemy and " consuming them" is a bigger moment than most realize. these are things that were largely passed over in the movies.
It's true. We will probably always debate whether Jackson made the right calls in the things he deleted. Makes you wonder what another director would bring to a different adaptation. Thanks for watching!
I always thought that it's Galadriel's words, that the smallest things can shape the world, and that's love, sincerity, hope etc, small but most significant things, for example, faith and hope won more wars than any military strength, the urge for life the instinct to survive, the battle for freedom.
Definitely Galadriel's line about the smallest people is a major theme in the films, and the books.
This was an excellent analysis of a brilliant trilogy. Thank you. You have a subscriber. I look forward to your next video.
Thanks for the sub!
This is fascinating, and a brilliant analysis of that final cathartic moment. My theory about Tom Bombadil is that he is such a different kind of being than Sauron had ever encountered (so not a Maia or Vala), that he was just not accounted for in Sauron's magical formulas and spells. So the ring, to Bombadil, is just an object of little interest.
I always thought LOTR had many echoes of WW1 and the experiences Tolkien had - mateship, doing the right thing even when it seems hopeless, honour. I’d never thought about the scouring of the Shire being based on Tolkien’s return from war- I imagine that’d be obvious to anyone who lived through that time (especially those who fought in it)
The moral of the story is don't take the scenic route when there are eagles to fly you!
I cannot believe I hear this nonsense again.
As an aspiring writer, I find your videos both helpful and intriguing. Thank you!
Thanks for your kind words. A writer should never stop aspiring!
Fantastic analysis and delivery!
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching.
Be Merciful!
Remember it was Gollum who destroyed the ring!
Good point! That whole speech from Gandalf about Gollum having "some part to play" and "the pity of Bilbo" really does suggest that Jackson had that moral in mind.
There is also a difference between film and book. In the book, at Gollum's first ambush on Mount Doom, Frodo as the master of the ring (Sam has a crazy vision there with Frodo as white figure with a wheel of fire) says something like 'if you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom'. There was also a similar scene at the black gate. And so it happens, the ring makes Gollum tumble into the fire, hence evil destroys itself.
In the film there is only the 'I swear on the precious' scene in TT that alludes to this theme, but it's explored no more.
phenomenal analysis
I guess the fact that I read the books a couple of times before the movies came out made the timing of Frodo grabbing Sam's hand and the ring finally melting much less significant to me. I expected the ring to melt whether or not Frodo grabbed Sam's hand. Jackson might have been trying to hint at the connection, but I was already set in my mind about it. In fact, if Frodo had fallen in and died, the story still would have largely been the same for me. He destroyed the ring at great cost to himself, only the cost is a little larger in that case. So, the climax to me was Gollum falling in.
I've always wondered about whether it would be a more powerful story if Frodo died at the end. Or worse, Sam! I don't even want to imagine it. But it would be powerful.
Gasp. Beautifully worded.
An interesting question, and yet Tolkien’s own words:
“As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. …
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
He didn’t care about a moral, he just wanted to create a captivating history.
Good quote. And I completely understand why he insists upon this. One thing I wonder is whether a story can be said to have a moral, even if the author specifically says it does not. Isn't it, after all, in the mind of the reader?
@@theartofstorytelling1 Without a doubt. And I also have to say on a personal note that your analysis is actually quite compelling and I've happily favorited your video! Writer John Green also talks about how once a book is released, it no longer belongs to the author, and they don't have the say anymore. So, indeed!
for me the scene that sums it up is Mines of Moria when Gandalf says "That is not for us to choose. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us”"
its always about making the right moral choice, not based in fear but in allowing the best possible outcome a chance to come.
side note on Tom i dont think its strength or power that gives him immunity to the ring he just doesn't have the mental aspects it works on , the hobbits dont want any power thats why they are so resistant. tom is just further along that way.
The moral is: don’t let a trillion dollar corporation buy the rights to the stories from the dead author’s family and ruin it
As a long-time Tolkien book fan, I've always been somewhat critical of the films. I do love them, but I would never personally call them masterpieces. More like excellent 3-star films. At least I think some of the deviations from the book could have been handled better. But I have to credit you for this great video; you've made me think of the films more deeply! (Maybe they're more like 3 and a half stars now...)
What would you say is the principle theme (if you can pick only one) of the book version, as opposed to the film? (I have always considered it to be: Never, ever give in do despair.)
That's a tough question - but I'd say the main theme of the books is also "loyalty". Gandalf always talks about how "treason" has always been their enemy, and the reason why Middle Earth is - at the time of that story - a suspicious place. That said, in the books, "loyalty" doesn't "save the world" in the same way it does in the films.
Yes, agreed.
Both Saruman and Denothir fell because they lost hope.
Avoiding isolation - sticking with friends is a safeguard against despair
Great video!
Wow brilliant insights.
Thank you
Having read the book, watched the movies several times and heard a lot said about it, I really like your videos in general because of the different view, explanation of what made them particularly good.
It's as true as it can get here, since I never really considered the mind-blowingly obvious parallel there is between these two rescuing. Nor have I tried to clearly formulate the moral that was bound to this story (which in my opinion would be more like "One must relentlessly fight evil and will succeed thanks to faith and friendship")
Thanks for watching, and I'm glad you're enjoying my channel. It's always good to hear feedback cause my channel is still very new. You're right that I want it to be something like "deep dives" into WHY certain things work - appreciating the artistry that sometimes goes unnoticed or unappreciated. Anyway thanks for stopping by the channel. :)
@@theartofstorytelling1 Thank you as well, it's always a pleasure discovering such qualitative content - as well as knowing you enjoy taking time to read community's feedback ;) -
Keep that up !
Wow this says a lot about where the world was after the first War, it's a story rarely told and gets left behind in story books. Immortalizing it through high fantasy lets it live long enough to teach us those lessons again and again. The implications are pretty depressing though, and we definitely see parallels htroughout the decades.
There is no single moral. But there almost indefinite moral exams. 'Its like one of the great tales, Mr Frodo...'
After watching PJ's trilogy a couple of times, I concluded that the entire story is about this: death. Then I came across Tolkien himself saying that in a rare interview (he also wrote about it in a letter.) *LOTR is about death.* This of course is part of Tolkien's Catholicism, to accept that one will indeed die one day, and that there is more afterwards. That PJ was able to convey that in the movies without being blunt about it is a testimony to both PJ and Tolkien.
The "white shores" scene with Gandalf and Pippin comes to mind
Dude! You! Let me tell you about you! I’m gonna listen to your ramblings all day while I work bro!
Greed is bad. Melkor was greedy. Feanor was greedy. His sons were greedy. Sauron was greedy. The Numenoreans got greedy. The three kingdoms of Arnor got greedy. Even Gondor got greedy at one point. That's the common thread.
Good point, and that definitely comes across in Tolkien's writing. The ring is, of course, the perfect symbol for that. Isildur was also greedy, etc.
Wow, it never occured to me, at least not consciously, that the moment of the Ring's Destruction and Frodo grabbing Sam's hand happens at the same time.
It's really a minor gripe now that I am aware of it, but the movie should have reflected this better.
Like the Ring/Evil theme playing more openly one last time as it floats on the Lava and/or Frodo looking down one last time before grabbing Sam's hand.
What I thought until today was that Frodo was considering to let go out of shame for failing to destroy it and not for lusting after its Power still (ok, both views can be true at the same time).
Yes I think you're correct. Frodo is definitely considering letting go, and you can interpret that in many ways. Personally, I've always felt like he lost the will to live knowing the ring was gone, but then decided to live, and that is the final triumph. But I've heard many other interesting interpretations!
Nice when the concept of chatarsis is explained right after the chatarsis of your video
Yesss thank you for noticing that haha
In Tolkien’s writings, the end doesn’t justify the means. Virtue determines the end. That’s why inserting grey morality (as seen in some adaptation) into his world doesn’t give it more depth. It kills it. There are dilemmas in Tolkien’s stories, but there’s no moral dilemmas.
Never give up even when you think the outcome is certain.
Its whatever you may imagine
My mind has been blown
Subbed
This is what it's all about! Thanks for the sub.
We need to put LotR in context. Tolkien fought on WW1. It was the defining event of his life and its everywhere in the story.
Frodo and Sam are the innocent young men who left their pleasant and willingly went into hell.
Sauron is war itself. He’s not a person in the story so much as an event. He happens and everyone suffers as a result.
The Orks aren’t the Germans but rather the men turned into weapons. Beings that lose all morality when controlled by all out war and will live in squalor and murder every day because that’s all they know.
Gandalf is the loyal and wise leadership that was so lacking in WW1. There was a lot of intergenerational resentment after the war and Gandalf is addressing that.
Gollum is wretched and mad and Tolkien would have seen a lot of that.
What about the Ring, apart from being a brilliant Maguffin? It represents the hope of peace and that’s what they are essentially carrying the whole time. They hope of living in peace and normality whilst living in a daily nightmare.
He may not have liked allegory, but he couldn’t avoid it.
Evil is self-destroying. Profound, true, and simple.
If i recall correctly, it actually took a lot of effort from a lot of people to destroy evil
@@etevenatkowicz9745 Ontological Evil is never ultimately destroyed, it's intrinsic to the very nature of Arda; the Ring is AN evil, not Evil itself. The purpose of Evil, and the reason why Ilúvatar permitted the marring of Arda during the Ainulindalë by Melkor is because Evil exists as a necessary MEANS to the ultimate end of creation: the possibility of TRUE Goodness; after all, what would the meaning of "the Good" have in a universe that does not permit the existence of "the bad"?
As one of the more profound aspects of The Silmarillion clearly states:
"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’"
Friendship helps you hold on.
Well put.
Fantastic video. Can't believe you have fewer than 2k subs. Well, you have another!
Thanks! I'm still a new channel, and still figuring out what I want it to be. I really appreciate the sub, and I'll do my best to make some content that is worth watching. Cheers.
Me knowing all or almost all of this... still crying over Samwise Gamgee and the power of friendship. I think the ring not shown to melt until Frodo grabs Sam's hand is such a powerful little visual moment easily overlooked by the casual viewer. I myself only noticed it a few years back, I think.
Same, I only noticed it recently. And thought it deserved it's own video lol. Such a simple thing, but so effective. Thanks for watching.
I don't think Tolkien or many writers write stories for the sake of imparting a moral, though it may be possible for readers to draw their own conclusions on what morals the story might contain. It seems to be about uniting together to fight evil and not giving up and the importance of friendship and sacrifice. It's also about how a happy peaceful life can also suddenly be imperilled by outside forces that can turn everything upside down. Tolkien was influenced by his experience of WWI.
I agree Tolkien probably didn't set out with a particular moral in mind, and his own comments would seem to support that. It's an interesting question for the philosophers: is the moral "there" even if the author didn't intend? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I really don't think there is just one moral theme in LOTR. Instead, there are themes. ie One must face the evil within one's self, and the evil that comes from outside one's self. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Mercy can plant the seed which ultimately overcomes evil as one sees when Bilbo, Gandalf, the elves, Frodo, and Samwise do not slay Gollum. "Oft evil will mars evil will" This is what Gandalf says. The ultimate example of this is when Gollum takes the ring from Frodo which in turn leads the ring to turn against Gollum that leads to its destruction. Saying there is one moral theme in this legendarium seems reductionistic to me. But if I had to do that, I would say it is that Love and mercy are more powerful than the destructive arrogance of evil.
Well said, and I agree that it's an exercise in futility to reduce Tolkien's stories down to one moral. Personally, I believe movies are BOUND by their format to do this, and that's why I think the adaptation of Tolkien into movies/TV shows is so fraught - but interesting to discuss!
The moral is what tolkien explicitly said it was. That God is the only being with the right to Divine worship. Or the Divine right to worship. That is what Morgoth and Sauron each wanted and failed to get.
i think you missed the biggest difference . in the books they lost frodo succumbed all came to naught , the good guys failed at the last, Frodo had taken the ring every step he could and not one further and it was not enough. in the film the hobbits kind of win , for me it totally changes the entire context and meaning of the whole thing.
To me the Ring in a way symbolizes addiction/Desire No i’m not talking about Drugs. But Like something we all really want and in a way really need. Example if someone were to give you a billion dollars but tells you its not yours. Dont spend it. However you know this is illegal money. You should take it back and get rid of it. Or maybe you just really like the taste of something but you have to fight the urge. Every single character had something they really desired.
I never noticed the bit about the ring being destroyed
I love this, thank you.
You are welcome, and thanks for watching.
That "climax" of the story is a Jackson contrivance. Frodo does not fall over the side and is not saved by Sam at the moment in the book. So what is the climax in the book?
I'm not sure if the books have a pinpoint climactic moments in the same way movies do. After all, the fact that they go back to the Shire and have to fight another war kind of throws a wrench into the typical dramaturgical flow. So your question is actually a hard one to answer. Possibly a future video? lol
Fun fact peter actually did not think of this up till the very end on the editing room the ring was supposed to melt right after gollum fell in it but then frodo holding on to sam wouldnt mean much since the ring already is deystroyed only then they realiesed they need to cut it this way as i remember they even had to ask for another shot of the ring on the lava for this to work
That makes sense. This would be a difficult sequence to edit, and I'll bet that was a eureka moment for PJ. Definitely feels like a very deliberate decision.
Fantastic video!!
When an individual gathers power for their own reason, that is the root of evil. When everyone gathers together to disperse power, that is good.
The moral for me has always been, the weight of evil must be carried by the common people (hobbits) and only the common people can help overthrow it. Not kings or the powerful, they help but can never truly bear the weight.
Everyone deserves a Sam if/when they're facing 'dangling above the fires of Mt.Doom'. We should all try to be a Sam for our friends and family whenever possible too.
Deserves?
I think we should just be very thankful for loyal friends.
And do our best to remain loyal
And we should always keep some cast iron cookware on hand, just in case.
The moral of the book is of course different. Tolkien was a Catholic and for him the moral of the story is that people are not strong enough to defeat evil, except with the support or grace of God: This is why Gollum destroys the ring. However your analysis of the moral of the film was excellent.
Better to hitch a ride with the Eagles, than to walk among enemies to get to your destinstion.
The moral of the films is action, swords, boom, good guys win. They really don't delve much deeper into Tolkiens work, besides getting a few quotes right.
A valid criticism. The more I revisit the books, the more I realize that action and battles are really not the focus.
Respect the short kings.
The short kings of old. My kin.
Power corrupts.
The moral is: Where was Gondor?
Moral is: they’re taking the hobbits to Isengard.
well done