Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Boromir

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Lord of the Rings > Boromir   [1] [2] >>
Was Boromir pretty close to [i:3b3zfhr9]Book [/i:3b3zfhr9]Boromir as [i:3b3zfhr9]Movie[/i:3b3zfhr9] Boromir? I'll risk committing myself by saying he was close to spot on.:ugeek:
I agree, I think he was one of the better (if not best) adapted characters, and my favourite in the films by far. In fact, he is one of the two characters I actually prefer the film versions of to the book versions (the other one being Sam). *Braces for angry Purists* :mrgreen:
With the Rushock Bog Bankses pretty much banished to the Howdy Thread nowadays (thanks to a certain forumer who seems to have taken over hereabouts, I shan't name him), Petty would seem to be the only Purist left! You must stand up to him if he comes here! If need be, we can join forces against him and give him a thorough metaphorical thrashing if need be. Boromir was very close to my picture of book Boromir - PJ just managed to bring him into better focus for me, just as I mentioned earlier (on another Thread as you know, before propriety made me bring this discussion here). It's funny how they took a solid Tolkienish approach on Boromir while taking a weak one on Faramir. Why? It seems absurd. As to Sam - I have really mixed feelings about him. There are some excellent scenes with him in them, but I have never sat back and thought about how accurate book-wise he was depicted in the movies.
I'm glad that they cast Boromir in a sympathetic way. They could have easily turned him into some sort of enemy within the group, who only has eyes for the ring. I liked that fact that while he craved the ring, he only wanted it to help is own people ,(Yes- I know what would have happened!) not to aid himself. PJ gave the character depth, lots of it. For example he calls the hobbits "the little people", a tender sign to show is not? It always brings me close to tears watching his death.
I'm not sure they added depth to him, but I did note how good a character he was in the book when I reread it. What I mean is they did a respectful adaptation of his character - and Sean Bean helped by being excellent in the role.
He wasn't [i:1137uvl7]exactly[/i:1137uvl7] like book Boromir. Book Boromir was a lot more childish- he would argue about the right course of action- and he agrees to come along- and then adds a bit of sarcasm for good measure. Then he always goes on about how he is going to Minas Tirith to help his people, and says I will go alone, if my heroic deeds don't warrent any company (not an exact quote there). Talk about making everybody feel guilty there, or what?!
Their approach on Faramir is explained on The Two Towers EE extras, Balin <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Agree with Ally that Boromir's care for the hobbits is portrayed very well in the film. And the things about book Boromir that you mention, Jolly, are the reasons why I prefer the film version <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Love Boromir in the book too, but he sometimes comes off as too much of a prick there, in my opinion. The film version is definitely more likeable. A topic for Sam too, perhaps? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
[quote="Ringdrotten":zcda3e7t]Their approach on Faramir is explained on The Two Towers EE extras, Balin [/quote:zcda3e7t] I've watched the Appendixes more than the movies and know what you're talking about, Ringdrotten - I just think book Faramir was far superior (Wenham's acting wasn't at fault, the role he was given was what went wrong). [quote="Ringdrotten":zcda3e7t]Love Boromir in the book too, but he sometimes comes off as too much of a prick there, in my opinion. The film version is definitely more likeable.[/quote:zcda3e7t] Not to me he didn't. I know there was some sub-creation, Ringdrotten, but the sense of who Boromir was, was handled pretty well the same in the book as it was in the movie. Boromir was just single minded, but up until he actually fell into temporary insanity over the Ring at Rauros, he was loyal to his comrades and good to the hobbits. PJ brought this out visually and dramatically, but it's in the book, I feel. [quote="Ringdrotten":zcda3e7t]A topic for Sam too, perhaps? [/quote:zcda3e7t] Indeed! But maybe later! We've only just started on Boromir! :lol: (Mind you, if you feel you mst, Ringdrotten, you [i:zcda3e7t]must[/i:zcda3e7t]!)
[quote="Jolly Cotton":2t46oxat]He wasn't exactly like book Boromir. Book Boromir was a lot more childish- he would argue about the right course of action- and he agrees to come along- and then adds a bit of sarcasm for good measure. Then he always goes on about how he is going to Minas Tirith to help his people, and says I will go alone, if my heroic deeds don't warrent any company (not an exact quote there). Talk about making everybody feel guilty there, or what?! [/quote:2t46oxat] Childish? No, I don't agree, just single minded, as I said to Ringdrotten. I don't think he was trying to make them all feel guilty either, he was just trying to persuade them to take the Ring to a place of strength. Yes, so it could be used against the Enemy.
[quote="Balin Banks":1v92pf4h]but it's in the book, I feel. [/quote:1v92pf4h] It's definitely there, but I just think Boromir could have been a little nicer in the book, that's all <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Wow! It's like stumbling upon a competition for village idiots! Right if I'm to be the only voice of Tolkien reasonableness left so be it! Boromir is far better in the book, of course he is, he has much more time compared to what PJ can give him on screen. So PJ does what he does, he reduces the character to a series of bullet points then emphasis and hammers away at the audience with them. Take the scene outside Moria where Gandlaf says "Evil will be drawn to the Ring from outside and (cue Boromir) inside the party". Its not subtle. "was a lot more childish- he would argue about the right course of action- and he agrees to come along- and then adds a bit of sarcasm for good measure"- Jolly Cotton I don't see where you get childish from. Boromir is a very serious man in many ways, and especially when it comes to his duty as the future leader of his people. Its the sense of responsibility and the weight of future duty which leads him to succumb to the Ring. As to sarcasm I like Boromir's sarcasm, I find him humorous. Take this example from when they get snowed under on Caradhras; "What do you say to fire? The choice seems near now between fire and death, Gandalf. Doubtless we shall be hidden from all unfriendly eyes when the snow has covered us, but that will not help us." Sarky? Oh yes but with a point. "They could have easily turned him into some sort of enemy within the group, who only has eyes for the ring."-Ally PJ does this! The worst offender is the scene outside Moria but its not alone. The scene on the slopes of Caradhras when he picks up the fallen Ring is not exactly subtle either (although it at least benefits from some -misplaced- genuine Tolkien dialogue, rare enough in PJ's adaptation.) "For example he calls the hobbits "the little people", a tender sign to show is not?" -Ally As he does in the book so not sure the point here. "Was Boromir pretty close to Book Boromir as Movie Boromir? I'll risk committing myself by saying he was close to spot on"- Balin Banks I sometimes wonder if anyone else actually reads the book! Spot on! I don't think so. Better than the butchering PJ did on most of the others? Definitely yes, but that's a different matter. Having said all this, despite the obvious lack of subtly in all of the characters as PJ represents them Boromir is one of his better attempts. This is in no small part thanks to Sean Bean putting in a sterling performance and getting a stirring death scene, which even I thought was excellently done from a narrative and a cinematic stand point. But better, or as well written, or as complex as the book version? You are having a laugh.
[quote:23609ff5]"For example he calls the hobbits "the little people", a tender sign to show is not?" -Ally As he does in the book so not sure the point here. [/quote:23609ff5] I was always sympathetic for Boromir, and I think that's what most people who saw the film, felt for him. That kind of sweet talk, provokes even more sympathy from me. It was just one of the reasons, why I saw film Boromir as I did- it's always good to back up your view, with a few examples! [quote:23609ff5]"They could have easily turned him into some sort of enemy within the group, who only has eyes for the ring."-Ally PJ does this! The worst offender is the scene outside Moria but its not alone. The scene on the slopes of Caradhras when he picks up the fallen Ring is not exactly subtle either (although it at least benefits from some -misplaced- genuine Tolkien dialogue, rare enough in PJ's adaptation.)[/quote:23609ff5] That scene is actually very clever. In one scene it shows the lure of the ring, the danger of the ring, the weakness of men, and the strength of men. I don't see how PJ turned Boromir into an enemy of the fellowship- he practices sword play with Merry and Pippin- and you can always tell that he isn't bad. The film Boromir showed his desire for the ring to help his people, but also his gentler side, as well as his brave warrior side. I don't think there is one point in the films, where he is seen as an enemy to the fellowship. (Even at the end of FOTR, Frodo knows it's not really Boromir talking, he knows the power of the ring)
"it's always good to back up your view, with a few examples!"- Ally I don't have time to go on a book hunt but off the top of my head he refers to them this way on Carardhras before he takes Pippi on his back and wades to safety with him through the snow. The difference between the way PJ shows Boromir (with regards the scene you mention) is out of balance. If you don't realize by Moria that Boromir is going to try and take the Ring you'd have to be very unobservant indeed, PJ makes it that obvious. He draws from the book to be sure but he lays it on to thick and because of things absent from the films it lacks any proper counter balance. By Moria in the book Boromir has already proven his strength and character on Caradhras and against the wargs. PJ over emphasis the desire for the Ring so it does not grow and come to realization the way it does in the book. It is only after his encounter with Galadriel that Boromir even admits to himself what he really wants. PJ's version makes it obvious long before that. Its for this reason (although I hate the Denethor knowing about the Ring stuff) that I like the flashback scene in Osgiliath with Boromir and Faramir, for me that scene was the closest to book Boromir in character and was a welcome relief to the version of Boromir thus far portrayed. And the cinematic release is the poorer for lacking it.
I should add for the record that I do like Boromir in the films. Out of the Fellowship characters, as portrayed by PJ, only Gandalf and Boromir I think had any justice to done to them at all. Legolas becomes increasingly unlikely and unlikable. Gimil is quite literally a joke. Merry and Pippin bare little resemblance to their book counterparts. Sam is hit and miss and Frodo weakly portrayed. And Aragorn gets lost as the films progress and moves further and further from source.
Sticking to BOROMIR, I think the EE's flesh out Boromir's character, and I do think make him a more sympathetic character than he sometimes comes off as in the Book version. [b:3qxw76gb]GB[/b:3qxw76gb]
The EE's do flesh him out better GB. But there is nothing PJ adds to the character that is not present in the book, so I fail to see how he can be more sympathetic than in book form. Book Boromir was always one of my favourite characters because he is a flawed but not bad in any way, on the contrary he is heroic, selfless at need. Yes he's opinionated, he's next in line for the Stewardship of Gondor, he is a man used to having his say and to it being accepted. In the Fellowship he is at best third ranked in terms of leadership and Tolkien conveys this perfectly in how Boromir interacts with the rest of the fellowship. He is a proud man and with that sort of pride comes a certain level of bloody mindedness. PJ does to his credit try to convey this, far more successfully than he does with the rest of them, but I still think he lays it on a bit thick at times regards Boromir wanting the Ring.
I think Boromir was the best dressed of the nine members of the film. His wardrobe was commendable. I had my tailor make one up for me and wear it on nights out.
:lol: :lol:
[quote="pettytyrant101":25sz8ows]The EE's do flesh him out better GB. But there is nothing PJ adds to the character that is not present in the book, so I fail to see how he can be more sympathetic than in book form. Book Boromir was always one of my favourite characters because he is a flawed but not bad in any way, on the contrary he is heroic, selfless at need. Yes he's opinionated, he's next in line for the Stewardship of Gondor, he is a man used to having his say and to it being accepted. In the Fellowship he is at best third ranked in terms of leadership and Tolkien conveys this perfectly in how Boromir interacts with the rest of the fellowship. He is a proud man and with that sort of pride comes a certain level of bloody mindedness. PJ does to his credit try to convey this, far more successfully than he does with the rest of them, but I still think he lays it on a bit thick at times regards Boromir wanting the Ring.[/quote:25sz8ows] Well Book Boromir does come off as a bit arrogant and a little bullying, and what you say seems to confirm that. I think Jackson does a commendable job by demonstrating that his attitude has a sympathetic basis: he wants to protect his homeland, and he sees the Ring as a potential asset, not for himself, but to save his people (which the Ring easily exploits, making Boromir one of the more corruptible characters). He is shown as actually becoming fairly close to the Hobbits. And in the EEs his Nobility is even more demonstrated, in his relationships with his father and brother, who he sticks up for. So I wouldn't want to overstate my case, but i do think the films actually make more readily apparent that he is a character one can sympathise with, but can be readily exploited. It is in the books, but it's not quite as clear. I don't want to stray to far from the topic of Boromir, but I feel Jackson's films accurately capture the essentials of his familial relationships. I NEVER liked Book Denethor. Every time I read the books I get nothing but a bad vibe from his character, even before he goes nuts; I get NO sense that he has any real Nobility, and his blatant Favouritism is quite apparent in the books. So the portrayal of their relationships and characterizations, plays out in the films much as I see them in the books. And I know this isn't the Faramir thread, but other than some rather ill-treatment of Smeagol (which I do think was overplayed), I think the Nobility of his character was handled quite well (I know you disagree vehemently). In the film he is shown as reluctant to take the Ring, and only captures the Hobbit out of a sense of duty, which seems to trouble him. And though the film has a different arc, in which he takes Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol to Osgiliath, he never actually tries to take the Ring for himself, but rather he is shown to have misgivings, and that he feels it should be up to his father to decide. And, in the end, his Valor wins out, he sees the truth of the Ring's corrupting power, and makes an Executive decision--his father be damned--to allow Frodo to continue his journey. So, in the end, again, like other characters for whom Jackson has developed a more realistic character arc--considering the extreme corrupting power of the Ring--and he ends up with the same Noble, and incorruptible character traits that Tolkien wrote for him. Unlike Boromir, he is shown to be even less corruptible (he will not take the Ring), but not as incorruptible as Aragorn. I think this was done to demonstrate Aragorn's greater Purity of Purpose and show that he of all the humans was least corruptible, and most deserving of King-ship. I'm sure you'll see plenty to argue about, but I'm just calling it how I see it. I think it's a HUGE overstatement to suggest that Faramir's character is fundamentally different from the books. [b:25sz8ows]GB[/b:25sz8ows]
My argument with Faramir is not that he is fundementally different from the books, although he is different, but that the corrupting power of the Ring would have 'got' him if he had made that decision. It is exactly the same as Boromir, he accepts correction at the Council of Elrond but in his heart does not. This grows in his mind, the justifications start to build up as he journeys and finally it overthrows him. The same would happen to Faramir if he too made the decision to keep the Ring that close for so long. And worse to my mind the decision to release Frodo doesn't to me make any sense. Faramir watches Frodo try to give the Ring to the Nazgul, which if he had been successful and Sam hadn't been there would have condemned all Faramirs people to death and servitude. An odd thing to make you decide letting this crazy hobbit go is a good idea. For me its another time where PJ goes for the overly dramtic over the well thought out.
I've always thought that Faramir takes the ring to Osgiliath to prove to his father that he too is a worthy son, capable of doing something right. The way I see it, he doesn't take them to Osgiliath because he feels it's his duty, but more because he sees it as an opportunity to better his relationship with his father. I do, however, agree that Faramir, in his last scene of TTT and in RotK, comes pretty close to the book version. And Petty, I don't think Boromir was better written or as complex as in the books, but that Jackson took a different approach to him than the book did, resulting in a more sympathetic and likeable Boromir (in my opinion). I do like the book Boromir very much too, I think he's (mostly) a great character, it's just that, in this case, I prefer the film version to the book's.
I don't really see Ringdrotten this different approach. One of the reasons I don't mind film Boromir is because he is one of the few characters PJ [i:25l82388]doesn't [/i:25l82388]rewrite. Unlike say Aragorn, or Faramir or Denethor PJ does nothing to Boromirs characater that does not have a source in the books. His fathers favouritsm of him, his bravery and courage, his liking of the hobbits they are all in the book. I think both showing his death and how well well its its filmed go a long way to making him more memorable for those things than the book did and perhaps that is what gives people more sympathy for him than they do for the book version where is death happens 'off stage'.
You are right that they don't rewrite Boromir, but they don't include everything either. The parts where you see Boromir as an arrogant prick are mostly not included, and that results in a nicer Boromir. Perhaps not a very different approach, but different enough to give (me) another opinion of him.
There is less of his arrogance and less of his sarcasm in the films, but I always liked Boromir because of those traits, they made him seem more real for me. He is a noble and as high up the social chain as you can get (excepting his father) so it seemed natural to me that Bormoir would have attidudes like this. I think PJ ditches most of this but he replaces it with over emphasisng Boromir wanting the Ring. I like the argumentive Bormoir of the book who doesn't just blindly accept Gandlaf or Aragorn as being right or the best people to make decisions. He's not used to that, he's used to making his own decisions and people following them. That doesn't come across in the films.
Boromir is definitely the character who represents humans as we know them, far from perfect, but caring and with good intentions (well, most humans). That makes him more real than any of the others. And I like him for that too, I think book Boromir is a great character. I still prefer the film version though, but that's a matter of subjectivity I guess <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Maybe I need to slightly modify what I was saying about Boromir. There are some differences I agree between book and movie Boromir, but I do think in essence he (along with Gandalf) is the closest movie character to his book version. As to the scene in the snow with Frodo and the ring, I don't mind it as sub-creation because it does give a hint both of the insidious "calling" of the Ring and of Boromir's internal battle.
The scene in the snow is a very strange one for me. On one level I really like it. I think Sean Bean is superb, pitch perfect in it. Its well shot and it benefits from some actual Tolkien dialogue (from elsewhere granted but it is at least the genuine stuff!). But there is something about the image of Boromir actually holding the Ring (even if it is by its chain) that doesn't sit right with me when I see it. It just feels wrong. (A Purists instincts!) And I also think its too revealing to earlier but that's a lesser issue for me and it pails into insignificance next to the outside Moria scene for clumsiness.
I can see your point, Petty. I would not have done it that way myself - but I think it is a strong scene nonetheless. On another point, I don't imagine Sean Bean really as looking like Boromir - but Sean was excellent for all that, true adaptation or not. I also stick to my view that he was closer to his book character than nearly every other character save Gandalf. (Maybe Theoden was pretty good too! I liked Theoden!)
Boromir is by far one of the better realized characters in the film, no argument there. As tends to be proved by PJ's films where they are at their best they are closest to the source and where they are at their worse they are furthest. Hopefully a lesson learned (but I doubt it) for TH. Theoden is ok. Good performance but partly ruined for me by the clumsy possessed by Saruman stuff and he seemed a bit young.
[quote="pettytyrant101":3tqc53sz] Good performance but partly ruined for me by the clumsy possessed by Saruman stuff and he seemed a bit young.[/quote:3tqc53sz] He did seem a bit young, but could you explain how the possessed by Saruman stuff, as you put it, was clumsy? I'll admit I thought it was done quite nicely myself. They sort of overdid it a bit, the "make-over" was a bit drastic, but clumsy?
Visually its either clumsily or a tribute to special effects of the 1970's. But that's a side issue. In the book Theoden's mind has been undermined by the slow subtle administration of poisons (although this is only hinted at never defined-hinted strongly though) and by the 'whisperings of Wormtongue'. Wormtongue, in conjunction with his administrations, has been pouring the propaganda of Saruman into Theoden's ear. He's been making the King feel old, confused. Politically Wormtongue has been setting Theoden's son against Eomer, making Eomer out to seem arrogant, disrespectful and overly ambitious. PJ reduces this to a pantomime villain scene with a literally possessed Theoden barely capable of speech and Wormtongue exiling Eomer. I suggest you reread the scene where Gandlaf et all arrive in the Golden Hall, you will find an aged, weak minded Theoden, but nothing like the zombie like person in the films. He is quite capable of speaking for himself and even of wit. The way PJ represents Theoden at the start is a typical over dramatization and oversimplification, which is common in the latter two films whenever faced with a complex character( he does the same with Denethor-reducing the elements to cartoon proportions).
Hmm hmm, I'll reread it, but I still don't mind how possessed Theoden was done, even if that too differs from the book :mrgreen:
I found the Theoden thing a little overdone, but not so badly that I did not think it was good. I guess this boils down to my view that the films lacked subtlety a lot of the time. It is a dramatic scene in the book, it did not really need to be as grand as PJ made it, in fact it suffered for it. PJ treated the books like pulp fiction a lot. Tolkien is a far more subtle and intelligent writer (mostly) than PJ gave him credit for. A lot or moviemakers underestimate their audiences ability to be arrested by a solid story rather than obviously painted pathos and drama.
I think PJ's overall problem is that he's a big events man. He is only interested in that big dramatic moment. If a scene doesn't have a grand enough one he will artificially create one. If you watch films and dramas from before the mid-80's most of the interesting stuff happens in between the big moments, since the blockbusters of the 80's the 'big moment' has become more and more what its all about and the bits in between increasingly have become just something to get you to the next big moment (its also the difference between the original and the new Star Wars films imo). And this is how I see PJ's film making.
As you will know from Odo, Petty, the little bits and asides, the occasional splash of color not directly involved in the action, are the things at the heart of a well realized and interesting story. The main "point" of the story is the rhythm and melody, but the harmonies and the off-beats, obligatos and even the counter-melodies that almost don't belong, are the things that make the story shine. PJ sticks with the story proper and cranks up the base, rythym guitar and drums, which is fine to a point, but without all the seemingly unimportant hints and nuances, the story is just a story - indeed only ever ONE of the - what is it? - five stories ever told. The best songs have them, the best books have them, and surely the best movies have them; while, of course, turning down the volume of the rhythym section to more subtle (and respectable) levels. The sophists would have no idea what I'm talking about, but sophisticated people like you would know exactly! :ugeek:
Like Balin said, a bit overdone, but still good <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> Liking what I've seen (read) of Balin Banks so far <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
I might need to clarify something. When I talk about Quisy sticking to the story proper, I was referring specifically to to the Theoden scene under discussion. Of course, Quisy often adds to and drifts from the story proper in other places in the story (the hyena scene is a glaring case in point). I did not express myself clearly above: and just so I am clear (at least to myself :lol: ) I think Quisy stuck pretty close to the story proper in the Theoden scene - even if it was a bit too overdone. Clear as mud? Hope not!
The Theoden scene was excellent, Odo. Are you trying to express something worthwhile, by the way, because your thread above about "nuances"and "obligatos" was very airy-fairy. I thought for a second I had walked through the Looking Glass. It makes little or no sense. Ringrotten, I agree I don't mind "Balin" so much as Odo's other inventions - it's an improvement, granted - but it remains to be seen how much of one. I would prefer it if he ceased with the worst excesses of his silliness altogether, and cut out the "airy-fairy" stuff as well. What is trying to prove anyway? What? That he can be metaphysical like GB? GB is intelligent and sincere. I doubt at least one of these things in Odo.
I don't know what you're smoking buddy but it sure blinds you to certain realities. Had you noticed I've moved thpse Bankses you dislike so much off shore - to placate people like you - in fact, basically you. What do you want? You don't want me here at all? As to what I said above, I stick to it. I don't ask you to agree with me, nor do I expect you to comprehend anything I've said. As to my "intelligence" and "genuiness", make up your own mind. I could make cheap shots too. Maybe we can start a cheap shots thread. Frankly you can make whatever dark hints you like. You don't know me and surely never will. As to my above views - would you like me to draw you a picture? In crayons, perhaps? :ugeek:
It doesn't really matter Balin or GP what you say cause your both wrong. The Theoden scene is yet another example of PJ assuming his audience are idiots and over simplifying everything.
I think that was my point pretty much, Petty, though I am not as strident as you, of course. So how exactly can I be wrong then - unless you're wrong too, and that can't be right, surely??? :? For what it is, it's still not too bad a scene - but yes, I share the usual misgivings! (GP is wrong, yes, wrong all round!)
"it's still not too bad a scene"- Balin If that's the same as "its not a good scene" then we agree.
Oh [i:257y7km4]you[/i:257y7km4]!
Back onto the subject of Boromir, I just thought of something that made me stop my endless tide of schoolwork to come back and write. Pitty I've been gone for so long! (Well, it's long for me.) Anyway, to me, it seemed that Boromir represented the average man. Just a man like you and me. He was raised in a priveledged home where he was the "golden child" but he was pretty level headed. Boromir is the ideal peson. He's strong, stubborn, "well-bred", honorable, and valiant. I feel that in the story, Boromir reprsented the best of US, the actual human being. He had no special blood lines or mystical power, he was just the best of the everyday man. And yet, in this story of great, heroic people and fantastic beings, we (being Boromir) fell short. We were corrupted, we were seduced by power, and in one last effort to prove ourselves, we die. I'm not sure whether this was intended or applied by myself (see the fabulous quote below) but I find it interesting. What does that mean? Does it mean in a time of immense struggle against darkness that man needs help from something else? Perhaps like Jesus defeating death? Or demigods defeating the darkest creatures. I'm not sure whether this is a bunch of babble, and my thoughts aren't clearly expressed, but I feel that there has to be SOMETHING said in this connection. Help?
"He had no special blood lines or mystical power"- Tin Interesting point on the bloodline bit. Gandalf mentions somewhere that the blood of Numenor ran almost true in Denethor and Faramir but not in Boromir. Denethor, despite this, fell into despair and eventual collapse of mind and suicide. Faramir rose above it all, much like Aragorn, both of whom only needed to reject the Ring outright once and never seem to have been troubled by it again afterward. Perhaps Boromir not having the blood of Numenor was Tolkiens way to make him more everyday, more one of us as you suggest Tin, despite the privileged upbringing (although it doesn't explain Denthor-maybe nobody could have held out using the palantir). Tolkien clearly doesn't think humans are doomed. For much of the opening of the book Aragorn and Boromir give us a take on men. Aragorn is all the best of humanity and Boromir it seems is what is corruptible in us, but even Boromir redeems himself before death. I don't think he needs a higher power for that. He redeems himself by understanding his own fall and then choosing to defend the hobbits to the death. Self awareness, compassion, bravery and sacrifice is what he ends up displaying. You could argue that those are Christian traits if you believe in a Christian god. As I don't I see them as some of the best human traits which come from understanding not a God. More interesting perhaps is to speculate on a Boromir with the Ring. That Boromir I suspect would not have been a nice man. Boromir is also prideful, arrogant and self-important. And all those traits the Ring would have worked on. Perhaps then the message is its better to die in some circumstances than to live on and fall. Well that ended up longer than I meant. See what happens Tin when you go around casually making interesting posts out the blue!
[quote="Tinuviel":1o5h3tyb]Back onto the subject of Boromir, I just thought of something that made me stop my endless tide of schoolwork to come back and write. Pitty I've been gone for so long! (Well, it's long for me.) Anyway, to me, it seemed that Boromir represented the average man. Just a man like you and me. He was raised in a priveledged home where he was the "golden child" but he was pretty level headed. Boromir is the ideal peson. He's strong, stubborn, "well-bred", honorable, and valiant. I feel that in the story, Boromir reprsented the best of US, the actual human being. He had no special blood lines or mystical power, he was just the best of the everyday man. And yet, in this story of great, heroic people and fantastic beings, we (being Boromir) fell short. We were corrupted, we were seduced by power, and in one last effort to prove ourselves, we die. I'm not sure whether this was intended or applied by myself (see the fabulous quote below) but I find it interesting. What does that mean? Does it mean in a time of immense struggle against darkness that man needs help from something else? Perhaps like Jesus defeating death? Or demigods defeating the darkest creatures. I'm not sure whether this is a bunch of babble, and my thoughts aren't clearly expressed, but I feel that there has to be SOMETHING said in this connection. Help?[/quote:1o5h3tyb] I would not see him as being like Jesus in that Jesus withstood temptation and did not give into it for a moment. I could possibly see him being like the disciple Peter after he had denied Christ when the cock had crowed three times or a bit like King David when he wrote the Psalm saying create in me a clean heart oh God and renew a right spirit within me. This Psalm writing was in relation to him having an affair with Bathsheeba and having her husband killed to cover up his sin. A real strong black mark on an otherwise amazing reign. There is a definite image of Boromir redeeming his previous bad actions. It is in this giving into temptation, then redeeming yourself that this strong Archetype becomes visible.
"A real strong black mark on an otherwise amazing reign."- Noom A strong black mark? Adultery and murder, I'll say. He doesn't half pick 'em your God.
Actually redemption is interesting in LotR- Boromir redeems himself but Gollum never does. Frodo can't redeem himself because he thinks he failed, in his case it does take divine intervention in allowing a time in the Undying Lands to heal.
I never meant to say that Boromir was like Jesus. I feel if I were to make that ananlogy, Aragorn would be Jesus, and Boromir Simon Peter. Does that make more sense? I just feel that Boromir is like the ancor that keeps LOTR from being too fantastic. There's a person in the story that is an average human being. So I guess I take back what I said before, maybe Boromir shows hope for man in a world way over our heads. And interesting what you said about redemption petty, I never thought that Frodo would feel like he failed. That never occured to me! :oops: Now the last part of ROTK starts to make more sense...
I agree what you say about Boromir being sort of an anchor, nice description <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Don't know enough about Christianity to know whether Boromir would fit the description of Simon Peter though
  [1] [2] >>