The funny thing in all of this it that historically, the idea that an envoy can't be harmed is relatively new. The Romans, for one, saw no problem with executing messengers bearing unpleasant news. The only real reason for not shooting a messenger was not that this was disohonorable. It was that doing so could cause the side who sent the enjoy to retaliate (as one city that supported Hannibal found out when they disrespected one or Rome's Emissary "This insult will be washed away with blood" (And the Romans did just that). Or it might cause other sides to be less likely to look for a diplomatic resolution. None of which really applies in Aragorn's case.
- Sauron was gonna attack anyway.
- The Messenger was purposely trying to piss them off (mentioning just how much Frodo has suffered, taunting them all). Sauron himself that done this to Aragorn through the Palantir.
- Aragorn's allies knew the negociation was just a delaying tactic.
- Sauron is known for, amongst many things, deceit and lies. That's his MO, so diplomacy with him was ill advised to begin with.
Also, all the people talking about international law. WHAT international law? Middle Earth has a Geneva? Sauron signed treaties with Gondor?
Really, Aragorn's only fault is killing the guy so soon. Could've milked more time out of him.
Black Numenorean to be precise. Lets just say them and the people of Gondor have a rocky history
edited 23rd Sep '11 3:57:47 PM by Ghilz
It seems that diplomatic immunity was invoked by at least some regions of Middle-Earth, as is implied by Gandalf when the Mouth whines about being a messenger and not being assailed: "Where such customs hold, it is also usual for ambassadors to show less insolence", or something like that. I think it is likely that Aragorn et al would refuse to kill a messenger, even if Sauron's side wouldn't stick to that rule.
Yeah, pretty much fuck the Mouth. Aragorn is a baller.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchHonestly, my only problem with the scene is that Aragorn KNOWS he's Stalling for time. That's his whole strategy. Why not keep the Mouth talking longer before cutting his head off. My problem isn't "he killed the messenger". It's "He killed him so soon". And don't tell me "He thought Frodo had been captured and there was nothing else to delay for" because anyone with two braincells to rub to togheter would've realized the Mouth was bluffing.
edited 24th Sep '11 10:52:07 AM by Ghilz
I always saw it as a Shut Up, Hannibal!. The Mouth asked Aragorn about hearing that Frodo died horribly and brutally, and Aragorn's response was just to cut off his head, which the Mouth did not appear to see coming.
The parlay was a fake anyway, neither party intended anything other than fighting the other (though for different reasons, since Aragorn was just doing it for a distraction) and since this was implicitly recognised I wouldn't call this a violation of any international law.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.Given that it occurs in Middle-Earth, the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with it.
In the High Medieval setting of Lord Of The Rings, there are conventions that need to be adhered to, and not killing an emissary - even if that emissary is being a dick - is one of them. So yes, it's not in character for Aragorn to do it, but a large part of what happens in the movies isn't in character. Given what they did to the Stairs of Cirith Ungol scene, ones of the best ones in the book...Aragorn got off easy.
International Law is all about technicalities. It has no meaningful existence *beyond* the technicalities established by treaty.
And "granting Geneva protection only to those who follow it" is not even a technicality, its the core of the Geneva Convention. "The world would be better if wars were fought while following these certain standards. Why should you follow them? Because if you don't, everyone else will be free to make you suffer for it. How does that sound?"
Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.comBecause if you take that away we are arguing:
"Was it right for the good guys to cut the head of an obviously evil man working for a mass murderer trying to employ the same subtle form of mind control he used several hundred years ago to cripple Gondor or should they have waited for him to walk a few hundreds yards away and then try to kill him?"
How about "is it consistent with the diplomatic rules that would've been in place at the time and the characters involved in both book and movie? does it achieve anything more than a cheap dramatic moment? did the filmmakers even want to do anything more than just chop off the head attached to those truly disgusting teeth?"
ophelia, you're breaking my heartThis, along with - "does it accomplish anything besides making the hero look 'badass?'"
edited 27th Sep '11 8:42:41 AM by KnownUnknown
And given how the thread's gone all-quiet on us, the answer's pretty much a resounding "no, not really".
-is a threadkiller-
and, okay, I get not wanting to see that face anymore. It haunts MY waking nightmares. There would've needed to be some sort of conclusion to introducing a character so individual, and the filmwriters were all clearly looking for excuses to make Aragorn be badass so that he wouldn't be overshadowed by the hobbits. (In the extras on the special edition, they mention an abandoned plot device of having Sauron come down as Annatar for a Final Confrontation.)
...Was it necessary? I don't think so. I mean, badassery is a state of being, not just something you do or accomplish. Mc Clane is more badass because he survived all four movies, rather than because he can come up with an appropriate oneliner. Boba Fett is badass because...well...look at him.
But that also ties into a lot of other problems they had with Aragorn. Personally, I didn't like how they made him more of a reluctant hero who shirked his responsibilities in the movies. In the books, Aragorn had long ago accepted his legacy as Isildur's Heir and been working to know his kingdom and become worthy of becoming King. The reforging of Anduril was symbolic of the fact that if the quest to destroy the Ring failed, then so did his quest to unite Gondor and Arnor. He gradually becomes more kingly over the course of the book, culminating in his claimal of his right to the army of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. And when he comes to Minas Tirith, everyone recognizes him as their king, even if he doesn't officially come into the city as king until after the war is over.
But in the movies, Elrond has to come personally to remind him of his duties and give him Anduril reforged. His words ring hollow before the king of the dead men, and he practically begs them to remember their vows. (And I may never understand what the point was of faking his death in the Warg attack.) In brief, he doesn't really seem to me like a guy who's been knocking around the world for eighty-odd years and is finally ready to take on his role as King.
Anyways, point being that this is part of a trend. And I get that having a true King is a hard concept to make acceptable to...well, Americans, in particular, because there's all this history. And it's an old white guy who's trying for the position of Boss of Everyone, and (again) it's hard to get across the idea of him having accepted his legacy and trying to do the best he can with it and maybe actually wanting to be King because he can do good in that position and unite this humongous realm and get rid of a lotta crap. That, maybe, this one guy actually could be a Good King and not have that greatness forced upon him.
...This is probably coming out all confused.
TL;DR: what I'm trying to say here is that in-book Aragorn's journey of deciding whether or not he wants to be King is already finished, and I think that that means he doesn't have to prove himself. Jackson chose to depict the journey towards choosing to become King, and I think that makes Aragorn a weaker character because he needs to prove himself.
And that need creates (again IMO) unnecessary drama, which creates the need for a climax and conclusion to that drama, which happens in that final battle scene. The gore in cutting off the messenger's head is a symptom of that, because a) everyone in the audience had to be sick of him by that point, so his death is viscerally satisfying, and b)it leads up to Aragorn's big "We few men" speech. It's supposed to be his CMOA.
Which works in-movie, but doesn't make sense when you try to match it up to canon. And I'm not a filmmaker, so probably they had to make him more like other action heroes. In doing that, I think they lost a lot of Aragorn's uniqueness. I'm not saying it's bad, or anything. It just...is.
edited 29th Sep '11 8:48:25 AM by Maridee
ophelia, you're breaking my heartOh, I dunno, the idea of "What, anxiety about my tainted bloodline and the responsibility of ruling pretty much the entire world of Man? Nah, got over that before I ever showed up in the story" is kind of inherently a weaker and less full character in my opinion. What is there left to develop? All that's left is to physically walk from Point A to Point Z while swinging your sword at the obstacles therein... he becomes (or was) less of a developing character in his own right and more of an MMO avatar. "Already ran this quest a few times, I know how many Warg Paws I need, let's go, let's go."
It's sort of like comparing a Steven Seagal character to... practically any other action movie character. Seagal makes his characters, in his own words, "born perfect". By the time they show up in the movie they've already had long, full careers and become legendary badasses untouchable by any foe. There is nothing left for them to do or any way for them to develop other than "In the course of two hours, start by killing the lowest-level mook and make your way to killing the Big Bad." That's all they do.
By giving Aragorn an emotional journey that's about becoming King of Gondor in heart and spirit instead of just becoming King of Gondor by having the crown put on his head, I think he becomes more of a real character rather than the sort of semi-autonomous plot device Tolkien used him as.
edited 14th Nov '11 9:21:17 AM by 84788484
You know, there actually was a pretty practical reason for beheading the Mouth of Sauron: Morale. You don't want a morale-crushing orator singing siren songs to your men about how they failed, you want to chop his head off so that your men get the blood pumping.
Yes, they were unable to press for more time, but at least Aragorn remained in control of the situation that way; if he had tried to smooth talk the Mouth and delay him, Sauron would have been the one to end "negotiations" whenever he chose, which could have been that very instant.

I prefer the book's version of that scene, though I really like the visuals for the Mouth in that deleted scene.
This is why Aragorn is a hero: because he doesn't let his anger get the better of him and kill a man who posed no immediate threat to anyone present. You can argue that it would be justified for him to kill the Mouth, but sometimes "justified" isn't enough. For a hero, you want just, without the -ified part.
The whole scene is a Crowning Moment Of Awesome in the book, because Aragorn makes the Mouth flinch with nothing but a Death Glare, and Gandalf verbally pwns him with a speech while literally ripping Frodo's possessions from his hands. It shows that the heroes are above Sauron's mind games, and don't have to kill everyone who isn't on their side.
Also, a note: The Mouth isn't an orc or anything. He's a human. So Always Chaotic Evil arguments don't work here.