What Do You Think About Faramir?

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, in Tolkien's trilogy, Faramir is described as being very close in likeness to Boromir. In the film they kind of look similar but not REALLY close. Do you think that Faramir should look a lot like Boromir to be accurate to the book or do you think it's ok for him to be pretty different?

~Ariana

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Well, I don't really care that they look a lot alike, (Early on, I was afraid they might use Sean Bean to play both parts, just changing his hair color to black) -- just close enough to credibly look like they COULD possibly be brothers. Though I DID wholely expect Farimir to be, as Tolkien said, "fairer" than Boromir. By that I took it to mean "Prettier." But I don't think David W. is really very "Pretty" (I mean, not Elijah Wood pretty) but I think instead he looks more "feminine" which is probably OK since he is supposed to be the more sensitive type of the two. But he is almost TOO feminine and fair -- not tall, dark, and hansome enough for me. I was looking for someone more like, James Caveziel, or Joseph Fiennes (sp?) or Jeremy Northam. Now THEY are they types that could win Eowyn away from Aragorn!

 

[Talimon]

Sorry, but to even suggest that Faramir would be played by Sean Bean is laughable. Not to disrespect Beans acting talents, but it wouldn't work out. I think people are not leaving room for Tolkien subtlety. That is, just because they looked similar doesn't mean they looked exactly the same. I think Bean and Wenham look similar enough, and I'm sure we'll see more similarities as we see more of his acting.

Now THEY are they types that could win Eowyn away from Aragorn!

Faramir didn't win Eowyn based on his looks, I hope you realize. In fact, thier relationship is very deep because it's not love at first sight (at least for Eowyn). It's the exact opposite, in fact. Faramir has to talk to Eowyn and win her through words, not looks. I thought thier relationship was very deep on Tolkiens part, because it killed the normal fantasy cliche of "love on first sight". It gave Middle-earth some depth, and made it much more believeable.

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I said above I would not have liked it if Sean Bean also played Faramir.

My reading of Tolkiens meaning by "fairer", was an implication about his looks, at least to the readers if not to Eowyn, as she obviously prefered the older, rugged, weather-beaten types. But for marrying and producing children with good genes, Beauty DOES come into account, yes even for females. And I think Tolkien may have had a sub-conscious, knowledge of that.

True, Grand Passions can be somewhat blind, but it would take a lot of all these things, beauty, depth, and time, to pull someone out of that kind of attachment. As for depth, perhaps that only comes after long years of marriage and knowing one another. I did not hear much depth in Faramir's attentions to Eowyn, though there was attraction, sensitivity, openness and persistance, which can be just as winning. I did feel some condescention here and there.

 

[Talimon]

I wasn't reffering to your post regarding them looking similar, I was just talking about it in general.

While I would gladly get into an arguement over what you are saying (specifically regarding "producing children with good genes"), I don't think that applies to Faramir and Eowyn. My point is, Eowyn wasn't innitially grabbed by Faramir. Go read the chapter again, "The Steward and the King". You'll see that while Faramir was immediately impressed by her, she first had to get over Aragorn. In a few pages Tolkien manages to take her through a pretty drastic change.

Then the heart of Eowyn changed, or else at last she understood it. And suddenly her winter passed, and the sun shone on her.

The way he wrote that, specifically "or else at last she understood it", goes against the normal fantasy standard put forth in many an epic beforehand. That was a bold thing for Tolkien to do, yet it fit in with his approach masterfully, and proved that love, even in myth, can be deeper then "love at first sight".

 

[DGoeij]

It would be redicilous to have Sean bean play that role.
According to Frodo they looked very similar. Pipin thought every Gondorian male looked like Boromir, and Merry nearly mistook the messenger from Gondor for Boromir. I think the Hobbits hadn't met a lot of humans yet, to be able to tell the difference easily.
The pictures I have seen show a man who looks similar enough to pass as Sean's brother. Now I only hope he did a good job.

 

[Celebthôl]

i think that when the cameras roll the bloke who acted as faramir look astonishingly like boromir at 1st i thought they were bros the onlt difference is that the faramir man was more slender

Celeb

 

[Ariana Undomiel]

I too think that having Sean Bean play Faramir would have been ridiculous. I am glad that they picked David Wenham because he looks kind of like Boromir, but he has a more peaceful face like he isn't being tormented by a secret desire for power, as Boromir was.

~Ariana

 

[Ithrynluin]

Yes,having Sean Bean play Faramir as well would have been ridiculous at best.I think the actor they chose will do just fine.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Boromir and Faramir were brothers, but Faramir was much more like Aragorn (as was Denethor in Pippin's observation) than his brother. Faramir, like Denethor was much more "Numenorean" in his appearance than Boromir whom even the Rohirrim adjudged to be more like them than like the dark, solemn men of Gondor. Therefore, I don't believe that it nessary that Faramir's appearance should be startling like Boromir's. I don't know the actor chosen, but he SHOULD have been dark, slender and with acquiline features (like Aragorn) to denote his almost pure Numenorean bloodline.

However, I am much more concerned with how his character will be portrayed than how he will look. Faramir, while a relatively small part, is pivotal in the plot. How Jackson chooses to present him will go a long way in demonstrating just how well the Director DID understand the work.

 

[Talimon]

How Jackson chooses to present him will go a long way in demonstrating just how well the Director DID understand the work.

And I'm sure our all-understanding, all-knowing, all-judging purists will be the best judges of that, wont they now?

 

[Boromir's Lady]

I LOVED Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir - but would not want him to play Faramir...I think that David Wenham was a good choice (looks wise anyway). I am eager to see how this actor will portray the character of the brother of Boromir!

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
And I'm sure our all-understanding, all-knowing, all-judging purists will be the best judges of that, wont they now?

And I'm sure our all-understanding, all-knowing, all-judging PJ fans will be the best judges of that, wont they now?

Two ridiculous sentiments on one posting........

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

As I am, I supposed, one of those dreaded purists, I would like reiterate my past sentiments: Mr. Jackson's film was most enjoyable. I enjoyed the first one and I intend to see the next two. Whatever changes he makes to the plot line, the characters and the MEANING (my particular bete noir) will not matter since I am not expecting J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. After all, I had no real business expecting that anyone, however, well motivated or gifted, would be able to reproduce the book on film. It was extremely naive on my part.

I understand (and join) those who defend the films on their cinematic excellence and entertainment quality and I understand (and join) those who counter with the argument that, good as they are, they are not the book. However, I do have a problem with those who insist that the films are, in fact, the book; that they represent in spite of the extensive changes made by the Director, an accurate and complete rendering of Tolkien's LOTR in all meaningful aspects. They don't and I have gone to great lengths (as noted by several other posters) to illustrate WHY they don't.

The time has come for those of us who have enjoyed and are enjoying BOTH the book and the films to do so without guilt and for those who, for whatever reason, do NOT enjoy the films to be able hold that opinion as well without criticism. But I really must protest when film advocates insist that the films are an ACCURATE rendering of the story when there is ample and growing proof for even the most casual viewer (especially as the other films are released) that they are nothing of the sort.

 

[Talimon]

And I'm sure our all-understanding, all-knowing, all-judging PJ fans will be the best judges of that, wont they now?

Two ridiculous sentiments on one posting........

Joxy, from what I percieve you're not much of a purist, by the traditional deffinition. You claim the movie was accurate the vast majority of the time. This goes directly against what most purists argue (Mrs. Maggot, for example). When I refer to purists, I am not reffering to you. Take that as a compliment, if you will .

But I really must protest when film advocates insist that the films are an ACCURATE rendering of the story when there is ample and growing proof for even the most casual viewer (especially as the other films are released) that they are nothing of the sort.

I am getting tired of these long posts, but you are assuming one deffinition for "ACCURATE" and I'm assuming another. No offense to you personally, but yes, most purists were, and to some extent still are, naive about the changes an adaptation makes. As I've state before, it is impossible to argue what the movie could have been. Until you show me a better fantasy adaptation, that arguement carries no weight. What I increasingly find is people comparing the movie with the "movie" that goes on in thier minds when they read the book. It is indeed naive (to put it lightly) to assume that PJ could somehow know how your movie plays out, let alone the movie of millions of other Tolkien fans. And that is completely ignoring all the viewers who have never read Tolkien to begin with. So instead of drawing compromises (like the Harry Potter movie did), he simply followed his own, personal vision for how this movie aught to be made. That gives the movie an urgency that makes it not only the best fantasy movie ever made, but in my opinion one of the best movies ever made, in general. It is apparent that we have different ideas about adaptations and perhaps even art in general, which is perfectly fine. To me it's just very commendable what PJ did.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Dear me, dear me, dear me..... I just don't seem to be able to communicate here.

I think what Mr. Jackson did was EXTREMELY COMMENDABLE! Loved the film! Enjoyed it three times and expect to enjoy the others.

I have NOT spent my time comparing the film to the books....EXCEPT... where certain film advocates insist that Mr. Jackson's excellent efforts were, in fact, AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE MEANING OF THE BOOK! To that conclusion, I took - and continue to take - exception even to the point of framing my position with a very obvious (yes, and lengthy) parable illustrating the faulty logic of that view.

If refusing to accept faulty logic leading to an equally faulty conclusion makes me a "purist" (whatever that is), so be it. I accept the title happily.

 

[Ariana Undomiel]

Proper communication is key, isn't it? Makes things so messy when we don't communicate what we really mean. Either that or we do communicate what we mean and other people take it the wrong way. *sigh*

~Ariana