tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415815443006499013.post6059715858929512083..comments2023-04-27T04:14:30.583-07:00Comments on Straight from the Heart: Peter Jackson: Film-maker and TheologianDonna Farleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11884647995104136193noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415815443006499013.post-46770138274580893412013-01-05T11:01:43.251-08:002013-01-05T11:01:43.251-08:00Excellent point about Bilbo's violent heroics ...Excellent point about Bilbo's violent heroics in the current film.<br /><br />I would come to at least a partial defense of Frodo's violence against Gollum in the previous trilogy, though. Well, not to a defense of the violence, per se, but to a defense of the fact that Jackson added that particular tweak to the movie.<br /><br />Put simply, Frodo acts against Gollum out of the same lust for the Ring that Gollum had throughout the entire trilogy -- and Frodo's fight-to-the-death with Gollum explicitly evokes the fight-to-the-death between Smeagol and his brother at the very beginning of the film, before the Ring turned Smeagol into Gollum. So whether it is Gollum falling accidentally into the volcano by himself, or Frodo and Gollum falling off the cliff because they are fighting for possession of the same dark object, Tolkien's basic point -- that evil destroys itself -- remains, I would argue.<br /><br />What's more, if you view all three films in one sitting, it's striking how Sam's "Don't you let go" to Frodo at the end of the third film echoes and reverses Gandalf's "Let it go" to Bilbo at the beginning of the first film. Gandalf, of course, was telling Bilbo to let go of the Ring, while Sam is telling Frodo to hold on to *him* (and, by extension, to their friendship and all it represents).<br /><br />So that particular tweak to the original trilogy had its benefits, I would argue, and didn't do too much violence, so to speak, to Tolkien's story.Peter T Chattawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395937367596387523noreply@blogger.com