[varialectio]

Hi.

I love the LOTR films, but I must confess that one aspect of them seems to be a little strange.

In the films, every (and I mean EVERY) character who is evil is also odd or downright hideous in appearance. With some characters (the Orcs, the Balrog, the Fell Beasts), this is to be expected, because that's the way that Tolkien described them. But other characters, such as Grima Wormtongue and the Mouth of Sauron, receive only minimal descriptions. The ugliness or beauty of their features is left to the reader's imagination.

In the movies, however, Grima is no ordinary-looking man. He's filthy, unwashed, with lank black hair dripping with grease, pasty skin, warts, and a possible cataract. The books describe him as having a 'wizened figure', a 'pale wise face' and 'dark, heavy-lidded eyes'.

The Mouth of Sauron is likewise left to the reader's imagination, and to an even larger extent than Grima. Beyond his clothing and his horse, his appearance is given no description. But in the EE of the third film, he will be portrayed as hideous in appearance, with most of his face (including his eyes, so he is technically blind) covered by a black helmet that leaves only his pale, wrinkled lips exposed.

Not that I am an especially politically correct person, but is this depiction of 'ugly' evil in the films a somewhat hackneyed one? In the recent "Passion of the Christ" film, Satan is depicted as a beautiful creature who is nonetheless unsettling. Evil is also depicted as ugly in some portions of the "Passion", but its main villain Satan is beautiful, in an unearthly sort of way.

Is the depiction of 'ugly evil' borne out in Tolkien's own writings? What about Frodo's quote that servants of the Enemy would look fairer, and feel fouler? I personally like Brad Dourif's portrayal of Grima, and I love Bruce Spence, so I'm not saying that their portrayals or appearances are exactly wrong, but I question the need to make every single bad guy into 'teh ugly'. Which do you think is more interesting, 'Fair Yet Foul' or 'Foul And Foul'?

[Thuriniel]

'Fair yet Foul' is definitely more interesting than 'Foul yet Foul.' Coming from Catholic tradition to me is only natural that evil should be ugly ... that's the image they put in you since you're young; the devil with horns and bat wings and goat feet. Maybe Tolkien was influenced by this as well.

But as you look at the Bible, then you know that Satan was, indeed, beautiful: 'Fair yet Foul.' There is a song by The Rolling Stones called "Sympathy for the Devil" and it says:

"Please allow me to introduce myself,
I'm a man of wealth and taste."

A man of wealth and taste and probably very handsome ... if you're going to be tempted ... that would be the way to go ! If you're presented with something/someone ugly, you're probably not going to find it so tempting/alluring. That's why the 'Fair yet Foul' idea is so much more interesting ... do you have what it takes to resist ?

[Ania]

I can see what you mean varialectio, but I don't find Saruman that unattractive, I mean yes he is an old man and they don't often win high points in the prettiest face competiton as some might (eg. elves) but I don't think that Saruman's particularly ugly in presentation within the films...

But this question of 'fair yet foul' or 'foul and foul' is an interesting one, I find that when I consider it quite interesting at times when the enemy is fair, it usually rgours deception and ften adds an intersting twist to the tale. When all the enemies are 'foul and foul', it's often fairly evident which direction a tale is going to take.

Although I agree with you about Brad Dourif's performance of Grima, I think that it could be judged fair by Peter Jackson's choice in his presentation of Grima is justified, because if you think about it, Grima is under the power of Saruman and isn't a powerful wizard, yet does the Dark Lord's work, I think he's justified in presenting him ni this way, given who his master is.

But this is a fascinating question, I never really considered it before...

[varialectio]

[Andreth]

Nope, ugly doesn't equal evil, that just seems to be an easy way out for storytellers to depict an evil personality than to actually rely on the characterization of the individual to relay that information.

Sauron was said to be very beautiful in his form as Annatar, but also when he first approached the Elves in Eregion he had good intentions - to help repair the damage caused by his and Morgoth's actions in the First Age. Yet later on when his pride takes over and his impatience led to a desire to make those changes with all haste, and his intentions were perverted, his form didn't change. It was still beautiful - beautiful enough to fool the Numenoreans. (Although in reality, Ar-Pharazon was conceited enough that it wouldn't have taken much.)

That's another point people forget in relation to characters like Denethor and the Mouth of Sauron - the beauty of the Numenorean people. They were said to be equal to the Elves in all things, except immortality. Tolkien compares Denethor's appearance to being that of the Numenoreans of old, which meant that even though he was prematurely aged by his use of the palantir, Denethor still would have been a damn good looking guy.

The Mouth of Sauron was said to have been a Black Numenorean, which would have also meant he was a pretty attractive guy, whether or not he served a good master or a supposedly evil one. Of course, we can't say how well he aged or if his long-lived state affected him the way it did the Ringwraiths. But in all reality, he is said to be in an actual body of a man which to me signifies that he still had his Numenorean body.

Tolkien didn't need to use physical unattractiveness to depict evil - he relied on characterization and even then he enjoyed blurring the line between good and evil. Sauron was a much more complex character than the evil one people see him becoming in the Third Age, and Tolkien pointed out that even the Elves weren't meant to be 'good'. That they made their mistakes and had their Fall from grace as well. Two, in fact.

Tolkien said that he didn't deal in Absolute Evil, that he didn't believe there was such a thing, and that he didn't think any 'rational being' was wholly evil. He used Denethor, Boromir and Saruman as examples of characters where the line between right and wrong was blurred - of good people doing things of questionable moral nature.

So basically, I think that for one to find the good and evil in Tolkien's stories, one has to venture much further than just skin deep.


Anna

[varialectio]

[Andreth]

[varialectio]

Yes, please. I don't own a copy of Morgoth's Ring, and I would love to get some of the more apochryphal info out of it (Herumor, Fuinur, the purported 'early drafts' of LOTR where, I have heard, Treebeard is evil and so is Farmer Maggot). Those, I gotta see. And I have a plot bunny for a fic about 'the first orc' and so that quote would be useful. Thanks a lot!

[BittenBuggy]

*Just bought her own copy of Morgoth's Ring on eBay*

Everyone clap and cheer for me! I'm so happy...

[varialectio]

[varialectio]

[BittenBuggy]

The dark-skinned one with the pursy-lips is Fingolfin. The paler, angrier looking one is Fingon. They are my perma-muses

[varialectio]

[BittenBuggy]

Nope, they are very real men, hard to believe isnt it? *Drools* Wheres the bucket?

Anyhoo, I have no idea who they are, if thats what you're asking.. but when I find out, I will kidnapp them and chain them to my bed

[varialectio]