For the record, the film adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s books are fantastic. They are visually stunning, well acted and well paced (especially for such long movies). The defects of the theatrical releases were largely remedied in the extended DVD releases, which feature much need character development and several plot developments. Despite their excellence, however, they are not above criticism. If the movies falter, they do so where they have departed from the books.
One of the most egregious changes from the book occurs in the character of Faramir. Tolkien deliberately contrasts him with his brash older brother, Boromir who was destroyed by the rings temptation. Faramir, on the other hand, resists the ring. His noble character echoes that of the great kings of Gondor, from whom he is distantly and indirectly descended. His character exemplifies the wisdom and nobility of character which is so strong a theme in the story.
His rejection of the ring involved not only resisting the extraordinary personal temptation to power which destroyed Boromir and his father, Denathor. It was also, as we learn later, an explicit act of treason. His father, Lord Denathor, the Steward of Gondor, had ordered him to bring the ring to Gondor if he could.
This example of steadfast courage and wisdom is almost completely undercut in the movie. The following FAQ was listed on the IMDB page for Tale of Two Towers:
Q: Why is Faramir so different from the book, and why does he take Frodo, Sam and Gollum to Osgiliath?
A: Several reasons. First of all, with no Shelob in this film, Frodo and Sam’s journey needed a different climax. Secondly, in the book, Faramir is able to easily resist the lure of the Ring. The filmmakers felt this would contradict their central premise, that no one can resist the Ring. The filmmakers realized that the encounter with Faramir, the only human they encounter in their journey, was the only opportunity they had to make the Ring a major issue in the middle film.
What is most troubling in this explanation is their central premise, “that no one can resist the Ring.” Note that this is the filmmakers premise – not Tolkien’s. The ring represents power and corruption, pure evil. To say that it cannot be resisted is to have a view of humanity quite different from that portrayed by Tolkien. Humanity is weak, divided, and often confused to be sure, but there is still nobility. If the filmmakers’ premise is true and no one can reject evil, symbolized by the ring, then humanity has also lost its freedom and any possibility for goodness.
Fortunately, the filmmakers’ premise is not true. It cannot be true or else the whole story falls apart. At key moments, Aragorn, Galadriel, Galdalf and Elrond all explicitly refuse the ring. Bilbo is able to give up the ring (though he is unaware of its true nature) and Frodo offers to give it away several times. Sam become the ring bearer for a time and freely gives it back to Frodo. All of these are essential plot developments. If none of them could refuse the ring, the story would have been much shorter and had a much different ending! Further, though they were never offered the ring, the other members of the Fellowship, Gimli, Legolas, Merry and Pippin, must have felt some of the same temptation that destroyed Boromir, and yet they resisted it.
In that list of characters, however, there are only two men – Aragorn and Gandalf. The rest are elves, dwarves and hobbits. Further, Aragorn is partially descended from the elves, and Gandalf is a rather mysterious wizard who seems as much elven as man. Indeed, we learn at the end of the books that he the bearer of one of three elvish rings of power, and he leaves middle earth with the elves.
Faramir stood as the single example of a “normal” man who had the strength of character to resist the ring when it was within his power to take it. To change his character so completely undercuts the one of the central themes of the story, which is strength and nobility in the face of overwhelming adversity. Faramir is no longer a contrast to Boromir. They are more similar than not. In losing that contrast, the range of human possibility depicted in the film is consequently constrained.
