An Argument for the Use of Fantasy in The Two Towers

In Monday night’s discussion there was, for the most part, a general agreement that the Two Towers is a better film and story than some of the other movies we watched in the last few weeks, like First Knight and King Arthur. I’d like to argue that one of the reasons that is the case is the element of fantasy throughout Tolkien’s work, and within Peter Jackson’s portrayal of The Two Towers.

We determined Monday night that The Two Towers, while it is not placed in a real historical setting, contains many medieval elements within the fictional world of Middle Earth. From what I’ve observed throughout this class, medievalisms seem to be most effective in a fantastical setting, where the constraints and biases of history don’t get in the way of the themes that writers and directors try to convey. I thought The Buried Giant, for example, was very successful in creating a commentary on war crimes and memory through using the magical elements of the mist and the dragon that caused it within an Arthurian setting. The magic in this instance made the abstract and difficult concept of the memory of war crimes in a recovering society more tangible and believable than it would be in some real-life situations.

First Knight and King Arthur eliminated the magical elements of the Arthurian legends in an attempt to make the stories more believable and accessible. In my opinion though, the opposite is the case.  By putting the story in an historical setting and trying to incorporate realism, historical anachronisms get in the way of the medieval themes and their purposes. In that sense the medievalisms in The Two Towers are more believable than in First Knight and King Arthur, as the question of historical accuracy is irrelevant within a fictional world.

Magic and fantasy allow for a complex story without the barriers of historical settings. An audience is more likely to consider environmental destruction, for instance, when trees can walk, talk, and fight. The same is true for some of the movie’s more medieval elements, like Anglo-Saxon influences in depictions of camaraderie and loyalty throughout The Two Towers. Pritha Kundu describes in her article “The Anglo-Saxon War Culture and The Lord of the Rings” how Sam and Frodo’s relationship is similar to Wiglaf and Beowulf’s homosocial bond in Beowulf. Kundu mentions how Sam’s willingness to physically carry the ring for Frodo later in The Lord of the Rings proves Sam’s moral heroism. I would also say that the magical element of the ring’s emotional burden on Frodo further shows the less tangible support that Sam offers him–the emotional support and bond of loyalty and friendship. Thus the element of fantasy within The Two Towers and other works containing medievalisms is an effective tool in conveying layers of meaning. To remove fantasy, like in King Arthur and First Knight, also removes an element that makes the works more accessible for its audience.  

4 thoughts on “An Argument for the Use of Fantasy in The Two Towers

  1. I definitely agree that adding an element of fantasy gives the director more freedom and allows the audience to engage with the movie more thoroughly. This abstraction from reality allows an audience to sit back and enjoy a film without having to worry about its realism. However, I do not think that the Lord of the Rings is solely more enjoyable than First Knight because the Lord of the Rings is a fantasy move, as the tale of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round table is still a compelling fantasy story, even without Merlin. I think that what actually differentiates these two is the Lord of the Rings attention to detail, specifically where it comes to costuming, set pieces, and music. In all of these categories, I feel like the Lord of the Rings significantly outclasses First Knight, the Lord of the Rings armor, battles, and tone setting music are all better than First Knight’s. This creates a more believable and engaging experience that glues your eyes to the screen, which is what makes the Lord of the Rings such a great film and separates it from average medieval movies like First Knight.

    Like

  2. I’m interested in the start of your fourth paragraph and I’d like to delve into something you started to touch on there. You gave the example of the trees who walk/talk/fight and how they are an effective way to get the audience to consider environmental destruction. What I’m wondering is, do you think that fantasy is a better or more effective medium than historical fiction for conveying a message about prevalent issues in our society/world today? Does fantasy allow audiences to better understand these types of issues, since it is not constrained by historical/realistic accuracy?
    I would argue that, in many ways, it does. For someone who doesn’t care or hasn’t thought very much about environmental damage, I imagine it would be jarring to see a tree cut down after it was speaking a moment earlier, while simply seeing images of deforestation may not bring out the same emotional response. However, this raises another question. Do we as a society need to anthropomorphize other beings or inanimate objects just to understand why harming them may be wrong?

    Like

    • These are some really interesting questions! I definitely agree too that fantasy seems to be a more effective way to help people understand current issues. There are a lot of very complicated problems in the world today, and many of them are intangible and invisible for people living in certain areas of the world in certain conditions. To remove these problems from the realm of reality and place them in a fantasy setting gives people a clearer understanding of their own these problems without the biases of their real environment. As for your question on anthropomorphizing other beings and objects to understand them, I do think that it is a part of human nature to personify something or someone into a context that is immediately more familiar and understandable. With the mythology of ancient civilizations, for instance, phenomenon like the wind or lightning were given names and described as human-like gods or spirits. Back then people didn’t have the scientific tools available to them to interpret what creates wind or lightning. Personifying a dangerous occurrence like lightning into the wrath of a god made it more understandable for why people should avoid it.

      Like

  3. The question of Fantasy vs. Reality is a good one, but I think that the difference between to the two films goes beyond these themes to where the truth of the film is rooted. When comparing “First Knight” with “The Two Towers”, I find them easiest to understand by observing what people tend to take away after viewing them. With the “First” (haha, joke) there is a bit of satisfaction due to the success of the hero, and the love story. Besides that, there is confusion at plot-holes and for those who have read any of the source texts, a lousy aftertaste of historical inaccuracy. When one finishes “The Two Towers,” heroism is imbued upon the watcher, versus just observed as the characters seem less like cookie cutter images of what you expect. They have their flaws, and their flaws are relatable to a modern crowd.
    I believe that these two takeaways can be related to the depths of each film, and then also to the theme of Fantasy vs. Reality. “The Two Towers” uses its flexibility within the world of magic in order to create moral and metaphorical comparisons. Gollum, for example, serves as both a foil and a parallel to Frodo, warning the audience of how greed and obsession can shape ones life. Gandalf serves as a character reborn, risen from the tomb, so-to-speak, after defeating the manifestation of the sins of the dwarves (the Balrog). Magic is metaphor for morality in this movie.
    On the other hand, with “First Knight” you are strictly grounded to reality and with this inflexible parameter, a lack of creativity commences, so much so that there is no overlying theme to follow besides the very basic and overdramatized tropes of medieval masculinity and heroism. Reality (and poor screen writing) make the movie banal. There are no revelations; it is just another boring take on a story retold a million times.
    “The Two Towers” is better. Tolkien is a genius with magic, metaphor, and morality.

    Like

Leave a comment