RE: [mythsoc] Frodo's age
- I kind of agree on the Frodo-age thing (and the olfactory sense thing, and
the visuals-have-an-impact thing), but of course I have to argue. And my
argument is that movies always make the stars look younger and cuter. It's
a movie thing. Sometimes it's not a bad idea, because in some cases one
might not be able to stomach a drama with a dull- or even repulsive-seeming
protagonist. It's unfortunate that we place so much value on these
impressions, but it's probably programmed into us for a reason.
I don't really see the resemblance between Frodo and Harry, aside from dark
hair/light eyes and clean facial lines. Could be there I suppose. I was
also not boggled by the Matrix overlap, although it did explain why he
looked familiar (all I could think of was Steve Austin's boss from Six
Million Dollar Man, and I knew that wasn't right). What got me were the
similarities between the animated and PJs work... especially Elrond.
The thing that bugs me about the movie world is finding out that so many
cute young male stars turn out to be short-tempered jerks. At least I
don't think that will be true for Mr. Wood or Mr. Bloom. Let them be airy
or fluffy, as many celebs are, but I'd prefer they not be
girlfriend-beaters or foul-mouthed (cf. Jan-Michael Vincent, Jean-Claude
Van Damme, Sean Penn, et alia). And, to be fair, Zsa Zsa is probably not
the only nasty girl star.
The equivalent in the literary world is when one reads up on a favorite
writer and starts feeling that one would consider them rather a boor as
well. We all have our gifts, and being gifted in one area, I suppose, does
not make one exempt from idiocies in others.
Elizabeth Apgar Triano
amor vincit omnia
... snipped ...
Perhaps he's 33 at the party at the beginning of the movie,
> but that's probably more like 21 in human years. Unlike the Frodo of
> the book--Tolkien's Frodo, that would be--Jackson's Frodo undertakes
> his adventures immediately, at approximately age 21 or 22, in human
> years. His cousins and Sam are clearly not as much younger as the book
> equivalents, but the decision to give these adventures to teen-agers
> (or tween-agers) is one that perhaps explains some of the other
> peculiar decisions in the adapting of the original story to Jackson's
> motion picture. In other words, I don't think this is Elijah Wood
> playing a 50 year old Frodo (equivalent to a 30-35 year old human, I
> suppose), but playing a 33-34 year-old Frodo (equivalent to a 21-22
> year-old human). Was Wood even that old at the beginning of this
> filming? I have supervised a library circulation desk for many years,
> now, staffed largely by undergraduates, some of whom are in their
> mid-twenties. The behavior of the hobbits is pretty believable, based
> upon my experience. (Even if I couldn't remember my own and my
> contemporaries' behaviors of years past).
> I don't think this was necessarily a bad decision for making the movie.
> For one thing, you may need young protagonists to appeal to various
> audiences, I suppose. I'd argue that, having made the decision to do
> this, a lot of artistically bad decisions were made along the way in
> implementing the necessary changes.