Reviewing all the
Arwen debates, there are 21 seperate positions that have been put forward against this adaptation. I now present a general summary of all 21 arguments used against PJ’s treatment of Arwen, with a commentary. I do this in part because we are continually repeating ourselves: but there are some debates that are more erudite than others. But also because the sheer length of this list of complaints is instructive. One by one they have (mostly) been shot down, and it is therefore interesting to see the NPWs coming back to the fundamentalist position.
Those of you opposing PJ's interpretation: I'd be interested to know which of these you are still sticking to!
Here's that summary:
A. Arwen didn’t do these things in the book, and any change is blasphemy/a fabrication.
This is the most generalised argument. On
the one hand it is completely self-sustaining, but on the other hand it would be impossible to make a film on this basis. You cannot shoot every page of every chapter: this is totally unrealistic. ‘It never happened’ is stranger still: none of it happened – it’s all fiction. This is a fundamentalist argument, out of touch with cinematic reality. Boiled down, it says the film should never have been made. Most will adopt a softer stance:
B. This is too great a change.
This though is a statement of opinion, and needs to rest on (probably a number of) supporting claims. I will first state and discard a few of these, that don’t appear helpful to the discussion.
C. Changes that are expected in subsequent movies are unacceptable.
I discard this, because until the movie is released, this is supposition and hearsay.
D. PJ’s claims to faithfulness to the book are dishonest.
This is really a statement about something external to the film, and does not pertain specifically to the question. True or false, its irrelevant.
E. The changes are purely designed to appeal to male viewers, and thereby improve saleability. (A variant is the ‘appeasing feminists’ argument.)
Again, this is something external to the film. It is about the cause and not the effect. If for ‘bad’ motives the film was just as we all wanted, this would not be raised.
The more substantial reasons generally fall into three areas: character portrayal of Arwen, internal consistency of the film, and the impact of Arwen’s portrayal on other characters. There a few that don’t fit as well. Turning to the character portrayal first.
F. Arwen should be more passive. She should not play an active role of any kind.
This is disputed with the counter-claim that
Luthien is a precedent for an active female
elf. Arwen in the film is a composite character, taking in the roles of other characters (most notably
Glorfindel), and this is a standard adaptation device. The point of debate then moves to:
G. It is not legitimate to composite Arwen with other characters.
However, it is a relatively minor change in the context of the story. Glorfindel appears in one chapter, Arwen has a very minor appearance in FotR, and little more in RotK. Even the account of
Aragorn and Arwen in the appendix gives little depth of characterisation. One is left with no indication of Arwen’s personality, and what she does with her time. In this context, refusing to countenance composition is just a restatement of A. This is typically followed with:
H. This change is not in accord with Tolkien’s intent.
I merely note that this statement is not supported, beyond a general view that Tolkien would accept no changes to any of his characters. However, in selling the film rights unconditionally, he inevitably accepted the possibility. This theme is generally under-explored, and evidence from Tolkien’s letters would be welcome. The second argument in relation to Arwen’s characterisation runs:
I. Arwen is not like Luthien, or any elf-woman, in that she uses a sword. This makes her like Xena.
The usual point made here is that Arwen does no more than raise the sword, but it should be conceded that carrying the
weapon implies a willingness to use it. This reflects the composition of Arwen with Glorfindel: this is a Glorfindel element. It is not dominant: the (limited) healing of
Frodo, and power over the river, and her general bravery in out-riding
the nine stand out more. The argument then becomes a more general point: is it unacceptable to allow elf-woman to fight; and we have to note the female archers in
Lothlorien in the film. It seems to me that this reflective of the relative modernity of the film, and the changed perception of women’s role. Is an unwillingness to bear arms an immutable characteristic of female
elves?
J. Arwen (as a parallel of Luthien) would not lure the Nazgul into a trap.
Luthien did not lure any of
Morgoth’s servants into a trap, but devised other means to fulfil her quest. Can we be sure she would not? Glorfindel and
Elrond between them set a trap in the book, and Glorfindel drove the nine into it. At worst, this is part of the Glorfindel composite.
K. Arwen’s conduct is generally undignified.
It is probably true that anyone opposing the enemy will have less dignity than someone who sits at home at
Rivendell. Maybe pointing her sword at Aragorn went a little far, but it immediately established the intimacy of their relationship, with humour. Humour among elves is a feature of the
books: this conveyed the lighter side of the character of elves. We now turn to the effects on other characters.
L. Arwen would not have risked herself for Frodo.
Perhaps the weakest argument. The fate of the
ring-bearer, and therefore of
Middle-Earth was at stake, and any of Elrond’s House would have risked danger to help. That Luthien only risked herself for
Beren, does not mean Arwen has to be an exact copy.
M. It is a shame to lose Glorfindel.
Some people have a soft spot for Glorfindel, and would have liked to see him. As a statement of personal preference this is acceptable, but as has been argued Glorfindel makes a fleeting appearance overall, and is merely a generic elf. He is ripe for compositing.
N. Aragorn is made to look weaker, less able as a result of her role.
This argument is in two parts: that Arwen can sneak up on him in the wild; and that she ‘takes over’ looking after Aragorn. The first part perhaps has some truth, the second does not. They debate what to do as equals, and she takes Frodo because she can ride the fastest. Aragorn’s role in the film is hige, and his heroic credentials have already been firmly established at
Weathertop. It should also be noted that in the book Glorfindel leads them to Rivendell, not Aragorn.
O. Frodo is weakened because he does not confront the 9.
I think this is a very valid point. Frodo is generally portrayed as weaker throughout the film, and this scene doesn’t help. The counter-argument has typically been that there are opportunities for him to look stronger elsewhere, and he shows resilience in abundance. Next we move onto the Internal Consistency arguments.
P. Arwen finding Aragorn was too great a coincidence. There were many others sent to look.
Glorfindel meets them in the book because he is sent along the road, while others look north and south. If Arwen is sent west, she is in the right area. In the film
Sam and Aragorn are desperately looking for
athelas by torchlight at great speed. They are not concealing themselves – it is no great leap that Arwen can spot them if she is near.
Q. Elrond would have prevented Arwen from going at all; he would not have risked her life.
From the book that sounds likely, although I note that the others involved in the search are not named. Who can say for certain that Arwen wasn’t sent? But assuming she wasn’t, Arwen in the film contains Glorfindel elements. THIS Arwen is clearly very suitable for the task. Finally we move onto minor arguments, that don’t really need a response. Right or wrong, most of these are details, and not central points.
R. The incantations at the Ford are wrong. (Who knows whether Elrond used incantations to summon the flood in the book?)
S. Poor dialogue: ‘If you want him, come and claim him’ (Aragorn’s famous ‘Lets hunt some
orc’ doesn’t destroy his character)
T. Liv Tyler – someone didn’t like her. A minority position, I feel sure! And finally this:
U. Having made this adaptation, PJ under–utilised it. Arwen should have had a greater role. Wow - brave!
** VoK collapses from exhaustion, as smoke slowly rises from his fingertips **
