the case for Jackson's Faramir
Feb. 23rd, 2003 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyWent to see That Movie again last night. Have gone insane and will now defend Jackson's most outrageous and indefensible alteration of the original. (Sorry, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
papersky and jess79. The cut tag is for you.)
[ETA: a caveat
My rhetoric in making this argument outstripped my actual feelings. I really like book-Faramir; he's a good person, and it is a relief to find somebody in Gondor with their head on straight. When I said I find Faramir uninteresting in the book, I think I was speaking a little more from a writer-type perspective than I realized at the time. Book-Faramir is static; he gets wounded and grieves and all the rest of it, but at the end of RotK he's still very much the same person he was when Frodo and Sam meet him in TTT. So no matter how wonderful a character he is, there's this level for me on which he's just boring. This is not the only level on which to think about Faramir, and I apologize for framing my argument as if it were. Mea maxima culpa. So the thing that won me over to Jackson's version is the fact that he's clearly dynamic. That's what I love.]
But first, a confession. Faramir in the books is a character whom I like, because he's noble, honorable, loyal, good, handsome, etc. ("this grave young man, whose words seemed so wise and fair" (TTT 280)), but find fundamentally uninteresting--because he's noble, honorable, loyal, good, handsome, etc. I always feel like poor Eowyn is ending up with the consolation prize: no, you can't marry the heroic King of Gondor, but here! you can have the almost-as-heroic Prince of Ithilien instead, and he'll be loving and thoughtful and never complain when you cry out Aragorn's name in bed. Faramir is Perfect and (faithful readers of this LJ can sing along here) therefore boring.
Somebody else points out somewhere (and, mea culpa, I'm sorry that I can't remember who you are or where I read your insightful point) that Faramir's behavior in the books is actually rather, er, convenient for Frodo and Sam. He shelters them, feeds them, gives them advice and provisions, and--oh yes--validates their courage and nobility and the rightness of their actions. He's a deus ex machina, who further provides the useful plot point of alienating Gollum from Frodo again. He's not a character; he's a cardboard cutout labeled Good Guy.
And that pretty much sums him up for The Return of the King as well. The most interesting things that happen to Faramir all happen while he's out of his head with fever. And the "love story" between Eowyn and Faramir is beautifully written and elegiac and talks very movingly about recovering (or not) from the influence of the Nazgul--as later passages about Frodo will also do--but Tolkien fundamentally was not interested in exploring relationships between men and women, and that lack of interest shows. "The Steward and the King" tidies Eowyn away nicely and gives Faramir a bride, but it's not even as convincing or moving a love story as "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" in Appendix A (RotK 337-44).
So Tolkien's Faramir can be pigeonholed neatly as Not Boromir and left alone.
Whatever you can say about Jackson's Faramir, that ain't it.
Yes, the Osgiliath thing is weird. I don't know if it's a mistake or not (RotK will tell for sure), but I'm not denying it's a weird choice. (Although I adore unreservedly the way in which Faramir gets the truth out of Gollum--furthering the development of Gollum's dyadic personality--instead of the lame-ass way Sam blurts it out in the book.) However, at this point, Jackson is telling a story which is different from Tolkien's in some small but crucial ways, principally the effect of the Ring. Tolkien is subtle, and he has interiority to work with; the hold the Ring gains over Frodo gathers very slowly in the books, and its effect on other people even more so. Jackson makes what I think is a very wise decision and plays up the effect of the Ring from the moment the first movie starts. So that by the time we get to Faramir, we've seen Boromir driven crazy, we've seen Aragorn sorely tempted, Gandalf frightened, Galadriel gone postal, Frodo himself getting creepier by the minute (and I know I've mentioned before how much Elijah Wood impresses me in TTT, but I need to say it again: I am totally blown away by his performance) ... so that the book-Faramir's reaction, "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway" (TTT 280), would leave us all going, like, so who died and made you Captain America? It's simply not realistic for Faramir to remain utterly untempted by this thing that everybody else in the freaking story is jonesing for. (Actually, *ahem*, that goes for the books, too.)
So Jackson's playing fair; by the rules of the narrative he's set up, the Ring has to affect Faramir just like everybody else. He's not holding a Get Out of Jail Free card. And, yet (and this is where I think Jackson hasn't lost his marbles or traduced the material), notice that Faramir doesn't want the Ring for himself. He's intent on taking it back to Dear Old Dad, which is (a.) consistent with Boromir's remarks about his father to Aragorn in Lothlorien, (b.) consistent with Faramir's Daddy Issues in the book (his only hint of genuine characterization), and (c.) beautiful set-up for Denethor's entrance in RotK.
Jackson's Faramir is also, quite realistically, a harried commander with too many things to think about at once. I was quite struck, this viewing, by how every single time he tries to stop and talk to the hobbits, there's that damn minion nattering on about Osgiliath again. This Faramir may not have his head on straight, but that's partly because he never gets a chance to think things through. And his grief for his brother is, again v. realistically, shot through with anger, so that the fact that he's making bad decisions arises entirely plausibly from the situation he's in.
I further think that Faramir's partial succumbing to the Ring makes his renunciation of it all the more powerful. There's really something at stake for him in Osgiliath when he decides to let Frodo and Sam go; he's felt the Ring's power, and he's seen what it can do. And the repercussions are literally breathing down his neck, in the shape of that same obsessive little minion. Tolkien's Faramir has an air of simply putting aside all these trivial matters because he knows what the Right Thing To Do is, and I like the fact that Jackson's Faramir is really having to make a decision and genuinely having to go against what he thinks he ought to be doing.
I also like the way David Wenham plays him, very quiet, but able to pull out the menacing like a rabbit out of a hat--and with an undercurrent of bitterness that makes him three-dimensional.
I can believe that Miranda Otto's Eowyn and David Wenham's Faramir will fall in love after the death of Theoden, the death of Denethor, the catastrophic defeat of the Witch-King of Angmar. I want to see this love story between two bitter, fallible, but still striving people. I think there's going to be some power behind it.
December's gonna be a long time coming.
---
WORKS CITED
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Return of the King. The Lord of the Rings 3. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965.
---. The Two Towers. The Lord of the Rings 2. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965.
papersky and jess79. The cut tag is for you.)[ETA: a caveat
My rhetoric in making this argument outstripped my actual feelings. I really like book-Faramir; he's a good person, and it is a relief to find somebody in Gondor with their head on straight. When I said I find Faramir uninteresting in the book, I think I was speaking a little more from a writer-type perspective than I realized at the time. Book-Faramir is static; he gets wounded and grieves and all the rest of it, but at the end of RotK he's still very much the same person he was when Frodo and Sam meet him in TTT. So no matter how wonderful a character he is, there's this level for me on which he's just boring. This is not the only level on which to think about Faramir, and I apologize for framing my argument as if it were. Mea maxima culpa. So the thing that won me over to Jackson's version is the fact that he's clearly dynamic. That's what I love.]
But first, a confession. Faramir in the books is a character whom I like, because he's noble, honorable, loyal, good, handsome, etc. ("this grave young man, whose words seemed so wise and fair" (TTT 280)), but find fundamentally uninteresting--because he's noble, honorable, loyal, good, handsome, etc. I always feel like poor Eowyn is ending up with the consolation prize: no, you can't marry the heroic King of Gondor, but here! you can have the almost-as-heroic Prince of Ithilien instead, and he'll be loving and thoughtful and never complain when you cry out Aragorn's name in bed. Faramir is Perfect and (faithful readers of this LJ can sing along here) therefore boring.
Somebody else points out somewhere (and, mea culpa, I'm sorry that I can't remember who you are or where I read your insightful point) that Faramir's behavior in the books is actually rather, er, convenient for Frodo and Sam. He shelters them, feeds them, gives them advice and provisions, and--oh yes--validates their courage and nobility and the rightness of their actions. He's a deus ex machina, who further provides the useful plot point of alienating Gollum from Frodo again. He's not a character; he's a cardboard cutout labeled Good Guy.
And that pretty much sums him up for The Return of the King as well. The most interesting things that happen to Faramir all happen while he's out of his head with fever. And the "love story" between Eowyn and Faramir is beautifully written and elegiac and talks very movingly about recovering (or not) from the influence of the Nazgul--as later passages about Frodo will also do--but Tolkien fundamentally was not interested in exploring relationships between men and women, and that lack of interest shows. "The Steward and the King" tidies Eowyn away nicely and gives Faramir a bride, but it's not even as convincing or moving a love story as "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" in Appendix A (RotK 337-44).
So Tolkien's Faramir can be pigeonholed neatly as Not Boromir and left alone.
Whatever you can say about Jackson's Faramir, that ain't it.
Yes, the Osgiliath thing is weird. I don't know if it's a mistake or not (RotK will tell for sure), but I'm not denying it's a weird choice. (Although I adore unreservedly the way in which Faramir gets the truth out of Gollum--furthering the development of Gollum's dyadic personality--instead of the lame-ass way Sam blurts it out in the book.) However, at this point, Jackson is telling a story which is different from Tolkien's in some small but crucial ways, principally the effect of the Ring. Tolkien is subtle, and he has interiority to work with; the hold the Ring gains over Frodo gathers very slowly in the books, and its effect on other people even more so. Jackson makes what I think is a very wise decision and plays up the effect of the Ring from the moment the first movie starts. So that by the time we get to Faramir, we've seen Boromir driven crazy, we've seen Aragorn sorely tempted, Gandalf frightened, Galadriel gone postal, Frodo himself getting creepier by the minute (and I know I've mentioned before how much Elijah Wood impresses me in TTT, but I need to say it again: I am totally blown away by his performance) ... so that the book-Faramir's reaction, "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway" (TTT 280), would leave us all going, like, so who died and made you Captain America? It's simply not realistic for Faramir to remain utterly untempted by this thing that everybody else in the freaking story is jonesing for. (Actually, *ahem*, that goes for the books, too.)
So Jackson's playing fair; by the rules of the narrative he's set up, the Ring has to affect Faramir just like everybody else. He's not holding a Get Out of Jail Free card. And, yet (and this is where I think Jackson hasn't lost his marbles or traduced the material), notice that Faramir doesn't want the Ring for himself. He's intent on taking it back to Dear Old Dad, which is (a.) consistent with Boromir's remarks about his father to Aragorn in Lothlorien, (b.) consistent with Faramir's Daddy Issues in the book (his only hint of genuine characterization), and (c.) beautiful set-up for Denethor's entrance in RotK.
Jackson's Faramir is also, quite realistically, a harried commander with too many things to think about at once. I was quite struck, this viewing, by how every single time he tries to stop and talk to the hobbits, there's that damn minion nattering on about Osgiliath again. This Faramir may not have his head on straight, but that's partly because he never gets a chance to think things through. And his grief for his brother is, again v. realistically, shot through with anger, so that the fact that he's making bad decisions arises entirely plausibly from the situation he's in.
I further think that Faramir's partial succumbing to the Ring makes his renunciation of it all the more powerful. There's really something at stake for him in Osgiliath when he decides to let Frodo and Sam go; he's felt the Ring's power, and he's seen what it can do. And the repercussions are literally breathing down his neck, in the shape of that same obsessive little minion. Tolkien's Faramir has an air of simply putting aside all these trivial matters because he knows what the Right Thing To Do is, and I like the fact that Jackson's Faramir is really having to make a decision and genuinely having to go against what he thinks he ought to be doing.
I also like the way David Wenham plays him, very quiet, but able to pull out the menacing like a rabbit out of a hat--and with an undercurrent of bitterness that makes him three-dimensional.
I can believe that Miranda Otto's Eowyn and David Wenham's Faramir will fall in love after the death of Theoden, the death of Denethor, the catastrophic defeat of the Witch-King of Angmar. I want to see this love story between two bitter, fallible, but still striving people. I think there's going to be some power behind it.
December's gonna be a long time coming.
---
WORKS CITED
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Return of the King. The Lord of the Rings 3. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965.
---. The Two Towers. The Lord of the Rings 2. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 09:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 11:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 10:10 am (UTC)I think you're selling the book's Faramir short, though. He is in fact tempted by the Ring, he's just not very dramatic about it. He's not very dramatic period, unlike Boromir, who is always striding and emoting all over the landscape. I've always been tremendously fond of the scenes in Ithilien because of the way a complex slackening and increasing of tension, depending on who you are and exactly what the situation of the moment is, causes everybody except Frodo to say more than he ought. I think of Sam's revelation as parallel to Faramir's opening his mind to Frodo, and both are driven partly by their reactions to what Frodo is becoming, or part of what he is becoming. I like the book's depiction of the effect of the Ring on Frodo better than the movies, though I agree that Elijah Wood does a wonderful job, and it was probably overall the right choice for cinema. But in the book Frodo is getting both more and less creepy at once.
Enough rambling; sorry.
Pamela
no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 11:18 am (UTC)I tend to like my characters more emotional than that, so that while I love, admire, and eternally adore Tolkien, I am easily swayed over to the Jacksonian view, in which the characters act like people instead of epic heroes. So, yes, my down on book-Faramir is partly based on a personal preference for a little less decorum in my literature.
OTOH, it's also true that my flippant and insensitive analysis of book-Faramir is an accurate rendition of how he'd come across on screen. So it stands, if not as a cogent and unbiased analysis of the book, then at least as a reason why the character had to be changed for the movie.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 09:08 pm (UTC)Tolkien's characters are always restrained, noble, thoughtful ... they know they're in an epic and act accordingly.
I was working on a theory that the hobbits are the only race that display what I can only call human-sized behaviors: their concern for comfort, plenty of meals, the state of the hobbitweed crop can seem petty. The long-lived elves are beyond mundane concerns, and all the humans are epic heroes or villains too noble or debased for the merely daily.
Alas, Michele suggested mildy that since almost the only humans we see are warriors or wizards, their professional demeanor is going to be disciplined, focused, and heroic. The non-warrior, non-wizard humans we see (such as Butterburr the innkeeper) do display ordinary traits.
But I have a new theory. The elves and humans are characters from an epic. The hobbits are characters from a novel. The LOTR is what happens when the forms clash -- or, more clearly, what happens when a character who belongs in the pages of a novel gets caught in an epic.
I'm going to post more about this and my personal reactions over in my own LJ, so as not to clutter yours with some raw personal stuff.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 10:11 pm (UTC)Essentially, my take on it (which I developed when taking a class on the generics of lyric poetry) boils down to:
hobbits--Spenserian pastoral (i.e., The Shepherds' Calendar)
Elves--classical pastoral (i.e., Theokritos & Vergil)
Men--Epic; the Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxon, and Gondor is Arthurian, more or less, with some Vergilian thrown in
Ents--actually kind of with the nineteenth century transcendentalists like Thoreau; the Entwives are georgic, which is close to Spenserian pastoral, which is why Treebeard thinks the Entwives would like the Shire
Mordor and Isengard and especially Saruman after his fall from power--the modern novel. "The Scouring of the Shire" is intensely Dickensian to me, and the orcs, particularly the Uruk-Hai and Shagrat and Gorbag, are the most modern in speech of any group
So LotR is a war of genres, in which epic defeats all comers, although we know it's only beaten back the novel temporarily. Thus the strong sense of elegy, as pastoral fades into the West.
I think you can really associate hobbits with any "homey" genre you like, but for me the Dickensian elements of what Sharkey & Co. do to the Shire are so strong that I can't help seeing the novel as Tolkien's Ultimate Evil.
I'll definitely check out what you have to say on the subject.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-23 10:10 pm (UTC)Thank you. You've just softened some of my rage about the movie-Faramir. I think you're right. And I think there are fewer epic characters being written or filmed these days (
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 06:19 am (UTC)I think the word "epic" gets bandied around far too freely these days, and I blame the fantasy publishing industry. Reviewers and blurb-writers and copy-writers use the word "epic" when what they mean is "really freaking long." I think Tolkien is one of the few people who has ever truly written an epic fantasy (although I'm certainly not saying there aren't others).
"Epic," when used properly as a descriptor, implies certain things about the narrative. It implies a particular decorum (which, as I said upthread, I'm not necessarily a big fan of); it implies a certain lack of interiority. Tolkien's epic characters (i.e., Men) are fairly lacking in interior life. (One of the reasons I love Viggo Mortensen is because he took the stuffy stick that Aragorn is in the books and made him human. The snarl of effort he gets on his face in fight scenes says volumes all by itself.) That's also why Tolkien's viewpoint characters are mostly the literal "little people": the hobbits and Gimli. They have the non-epic viewpoint; we can be relatively comfortable inside their heads.
"Epic" implies that the characters will be of a certain stature (god, I can't get away from the height puns). Again, all the Men are princes and kings, and there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a commoner elf. The hobbits are merely landed gentry; again, epic is not their genre.
"Epic" does not necessarily mean we have to visit every country on the map; The Iliad is about a siege; nobody goes noplace. Beowulf has traveling in it, but that's not what it's about (also, like Homer's epics, Beowulf takes place in a world where traveling is really difficult, and that shows). The Odyssey and the Aeneid accustomed us to the idea that "epic" means "travelogue"; I wish somebody would write a fantasy Iliad, both because it would be really cool and because that's the other piece of Tolkien's use of epic that the trash-fantasy writers have glommed onto like grim death (as Diana Wynne Jones points out at length and with hysterical accuracy in The Tough Guide to Fantasyland).
I want "epic" to be rehabilitated as a word. If people mean "this is a book you could use to bludgeon burglars, and the characters spend more time on the road than Jack Kerouac," then that's what they should say.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-13 03:45 am (UTC)Gee, warn a girl, will ya?? Almost spilled my Darjeeling all over the keyboard.
Truepenny, you *really* rock.
Love your analyses, love your insights and all the witty comments. Way to go.
May I friend you???
& :-)
Mona
no subject
Date: 2003-03-13 05:37 am (UTC)Certainly. Glad you like.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 10:12 am (UTC)Pamela
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 11:25 am (UTC)(When I was searching out the quotes I wanted, I realized just how out of synch I am with Tolkien's mode/mood right at the moment. And that makes it easier, I think, to see the flaws instead of the wonder and delight. Probably the next time I reread LotR, I'll end up posting about how much I love Faramir. ... Although I still think he's Eowyn's consolation prize.)
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 04:54 pm (UTC)There are other scenes like that too. But it would have to be a completely different theater where you could have plausible special effects. Liavekan theater, maybe.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Pamela
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 06:59 pm (UTC)Well, okay, also the Ents. Because you can't do that whole sequence via Merry and Pippin. Hmmph. But the Mines of Moria would be really cool in a theater, because the actors could use the whole auditorium, and all of it in the dark.
And the Palantir crashing down onto the stage/steps of Isengard would be really effective.
Okay, I'm stopping now. I swear.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 10:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 11:20 am (UTC)I'm more pleased than I can say that this insane little jeremiad is actually helping other people. I feel shiny.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 07:36 pm (UTC)Almost.
I agree that he would and should be tempted. I just think it should have ended when he drew his sword on Frodo.
Yes, he's harried and he's losing, and he's grieving for his brother, and he's thinking, "What would Boromir do?" because he worshipped his older brother and has always been the less-loved son.
And yes, he never tries to take the Ring for himself, which shows more intestinal fortitude than anyone else who's been tempted - he's not doing it for himself, he's doing it for his father.
But still, there were other things that bugged me - his strange, cruel smile when they captured Gollum. The way he let his men treat Gollum. This is not the quiet, studious man who trailed after Gandalf and has the air of Numenor about him.
I admit, I was leery going in, as Wenham looks nothing like book!Faramir, though he does resemble Sean Bean enough for me to buy them as brothers in the movie.
Nice job, though. After four viewings, I still can't help but cringe whenever he says "The Ring goes to Gondor" and "Tell my father I have sent him a mighty gift", but I'm more reconciled to it than I was.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 08:01 pm (UTC)In the book, Faramir is someone who has already found his center, his honor. He can't be shaken from his own grasp on the Good because he has it. This movie version seems to me like someone who is struggling to find that sense of honor and certainty, who's still so much in the shadow of his father (and brother) that he has a hard time listening to his own inner convictions against what he's been told he ought to feel. The movie-Faramir doesn't seem to have the backstory with Gandalf, and there's been no mention of Numenorean blood in any of the movies, so he doesn't have that advantage, either. (And, doubtless, RotK will leave me with egg on my face by playing up both those elements. But from where I'm standing now, that's how it looks.) They don't have any reason for Faramir to be more noble than Boromir, and so he isn't. Which explains, although it does not excuse, his flashes of cruelty.
(Also, perhaps, they're offering a foil for Frodo's ability to feel pity for Gollum? Gollum is repulsive and horrible; Sam and Faramir are both cruel to him. I think that emphasizes the weird link between Frodo and Gollum. But I'm totally making shit up here, and it may be way too much of a stretch.)
But because Faramir is smarter than Boromir and is more self-aware, he has an inner sense of rightness, even if he doesn't yet know how to listen to it. So that while Boromir never stops to consider his actions until it's too late, Faramir is able to stop his downward progression towards his brother's obsession. He has the empathy to recognize Frodo's suffering.
Also, and this just occurred to me, the movie version of Faramir is going to be able to be a dynamic character instead of a static one. And really, for the purposes of the movie trilogy Jackson's making, that's a good thing.
I don't think Peter Jackson's perfect. There are things in FotR that I hate in the way that many people hate Faramir in TTT. The ludicrously soppy quasi-mystical moment at the Ford of Bruiren is other; Galadriel is another. I admire Cate Blanchett, and I love her voice-over for the Prologue, but every moment Galadriel is on screen, my teeth are on edge. And that's not even anything as dramatic as Faramir; it's just a series of tiny choices that add up to something completely counter to my sense of Galadriel. I especially hate Galadriel's temptation speech. Every time I get to that bit in FotR, I cringe. So I totally empathize with you, and if this way of thinking about Faramir helps at all, I'm glad.
Erratum
Date: 2003-02-24 08:03 pm (UTC)Christ, Truepenny, get a grip.
Faramir/Galadriel
Date: 2003-02-26 07:31 am (UTC)And here I thought I was the only one who had that reaction: I *loved* Voiceover!Galadriel, but found CB (of whom I am a big fan) somewhat mannered and OTT in the Lothlorien scenes. And while I thought the tempatation *effect* was cool, I too wasn't very fond of the way she played the speech itself.
Anyway, back to the main subject: thanks for your comments re: poor, reviled Movie!Faramir. I was as horrified as everyone else at PJ's changes, but I always appreciate reading a good devil's-advocate-style argument for the defense.
*
Wow!
Date: 2003-04-26 12:50 pm (UTC)/I always feel like poor Eowyn is ending up with the consolation prize: no, you can't marry the heroic King of Gondor, but here! you can have the almost-as-heroic Prince of Ithilien instead/
Ditto. In the original draft of LotR, Eowyn *did* end up with Aragorn and I've always hated her ending up with Faramir instead. She should have ended up with Aragorn or no one because her character just didn't work being 'given' to Faramir. *pauses* Look at me, here I go again, my favourite anti-Arwen rant is looming up so I'll stop now...
Anyway, I love the way you put across your POV so persuasively and you've actually found an extremely valid reason for movie-Faramir. *applauds* Well done!
Clo
Re: Wow!
Date: 2003-04-26 01:30 pm (UTC)As I said, I am very much looking forward to Otto and Wenham in RotK, because I think they may be able to make me believe in that relationship. I'm hoping, anyway. Because Wenham's Faramir doesn't feel like a consolation prize; he's much too prickly. And besides, the more screen-time Miranda Otto gets, the better.
Oh thank God
Date: 2003-11-29 02:24 pm (UTC)I was afraid Jackson was going to mess with their love story a little...go for the more Hollywood ending...not that he's proven himself that kind of cad before but still...thanks...
no subject
Date: 2004-01-01 12:19 pm (UTC)Eowyn and Faramir
Date: 2004-01-10 07:33 am (UTC)