An EE Scene that Bothered Me

[qos]

I'm likely to be on an LOTR kick for a few days -- just to warn you. . .



Some of you are probably already aware that the Mouth of Sauron appears in the extended edition, emerging just after the Black Gate opens. He taunts the Companions with a description of Frodo being tortured, and throws the mithril shirt at Gandalf as supposed proof of the truth of his tale.

Everyone gets very upset -- completely forgetting, it seems, Aragorn's observation during The Last Debate that "if Sauron had the Ring, we would know."

Aragorn rides closer to the Mouth, who taunts him. "And who is this? Isildur's heir? It takes more than a broken elvish blade to make a king."

And then Aragorn draws his sword and cuts off the Mouth's head.

Ok. I know the Mouth is evil. And I know that there was no formal truce in place, no white flag of parley. But it still really bugs me that this choice was made. Especially since when Aragorn draws his sword is slightly behind the Mouth. A hero is not supposed to strike his enemy during a parley, and he certainly doesn't strike from behind.

I know that there were few things that would have upset Aragorn more than the thought of Frodo being tortured to death. . . . but still. . . I remember, in contrast, the line from the tv series Firefly in which Malcom Reynolds, who is something of a tarnished hero, tells someone, "If I ever try to kill you, you will be awake, and facing me, and have a weapon in your hand." I would expect at least as much of Aragorn as I do of Mal.

Just to check, I looked up the scene in the novel. There, the Mouth retreats, alive, after the verbal confrontation. This was purely a Peter Jackson & Co. decision. And it diminishes Aragorn.

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Just as well it was cut from the theatrical release.

Is there a faint echo of Bush-era ethics here- these guys are so evil that we can suspend the Geneva Conventions in our dealings with them?

[qos.livejournal.com]

Is there a faint echo of Bush-era ethics here- these guys are so evil that we can suspend the Geneva Conventions in our dealings with them?

I think one of the reasons this incident surprised and shocked me as much as it did is that it seems so counter to the overall tone of the rest of the movie. There is no mercy in the battle sequences: no quarter asked or given by either side (as Aragorn explicitly declares at Helm's Deep) -- but this is in contrast to Gandalf affirming Bilbo's mercy in sparing Gollum, and his reluctance to harm Saruman beyond breaking his staff (in the EE), and Aragorn preventing Theoden from killing Grima in TT. Of course, both Gollum and Grima live to be of benefit to the Good Guys.

I see your point about the reference to Bush-era ethics, but it's hard for me to make that the motivating influence, given that Peter Jackson is such a Kiwi, and Viggo Mortensen has been so outspoken against Bush.

Actually, now that I think about it, one of the things I learned from the behind-the-scenes material is that in the original script, Frodo pushes Gollum into the volcano. It was only during the last days of shooting the pick-up scenes that everyone decided that it didn't work to make Frodo a murderer, even under the influence of the Ring. I sense that this scene with Aragorn is another relic of a less-heroic shadow in the screenwriters' minds.

[athenian-abroad.livejournal.com]

Is there a faint echo of Bush-era ethics here

If so, it's surely coincidental. Remember that principal photography for all three films was completed at once, and that FOTR was released in December 2001. Given the amount of post-production that must have gone into the film, the scene was likely shot before Bush was even inaugurated, and almost certainly pre-dates Sept 11.

(Of course the decision to add the scene back into the EE is another matter. But are we sure this wasn't in the release version? The scene certainly sounds familiar to me!)

Personally, I think it's just another example of re-fitting the LOTR story to meet the conventions of modern heroic/action film. The violent f*** y***, delivered to the taunting villain is, for better or worse, a modern classic. Thank the Gubernator.

[saskia139.livejournal.com]

I think you've just convinced me that I don't need to spend my money on the EEs of the trilogy as a whole. I've seen each movie twice now, once in the theatre and once at home; from now on, I'll just re-read the book.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Good point about the timing. You're probably right that it has more to do with the more general tone of the culture.

It's just too bad that PJ succumbed in this instance.