3.13 Smeagol vs. Deagol - Questions to Ask about the Fictional Representations of Violence [1 / 2]
On the previous page, we posited assumptions for thinking productively about fictional representations of media violence. We spoke about the differences between the effects of violence versus the meanings and sociocultural context of violence. And we asserted that, with regard to fictional texts, violence is rarely without meaning. Rather, it often serves to move the narrative forward, to reveal character, and to shed light on circumstance. Moreover, fictional works, especially those belonging to popular culture, reflect violence as a fundamental aspect of human experience.
One cultural text that enjoyed immense popular (as well as critical) success was Peter Jackson's trilogy The Lord of the Rings (2001-3). Let's examine a scene that opens the third part of the trilogy, The Return of the King. In this scene, which functions to provide the back story for the main narrative of the trilogy, the hobbit Smeagol is fishing peacefully with his friend Deagol when, by sheer accident, Deagol discovers a shiny gold ring buried in the river bed. The violent sequence that follows has far-reaching consequences for events that occur more than 500 years later.
On this page and the next, we use the example of the violent conflict between Smeagol and Deagol to understand how to assess fictional representations of violence.
1. What basic conflicts are being enacted through the violence?
Literary critics have long identified three core conflicts that shape much of the world's literature:
1) Human vs. Human; 2) Human vs. Nature; 3) Human vs. Self (and sometimes: 4. Human vs. Machine). These human conflicts spark drama. Each can erupt in violence–against other people, against the natural world, and against ourselves.
The Smeagol-Deagol conflict encompasses all three types of conflict. First, it is a conflict between two hobbits (the equivalent of human; dwarves, elves, hobbits, men, wizards, and orcs representative of anthropomorphic races in LotR); in particular, two friends. Hobbits love foreign, shiny objects, and are known to be possessive about their meals and belongings. We glimpse this characteristic in the first few seconds of the film when Smeagol desirously holds the bait in anticipation of a good meal of seafood. Second, it is a conflict of all Middle Earthly beings against Nature. Here Nature is understood to be the evil that emanates from Sauron, the Dark Lord, who forged The One Ring in secret but lost it on the wayside until it was recovered by Deagol. Sauron has poured the darkness of his soul into the great Ring of Power, which brings out the weaknesses of humans and hobbits alike. Third, the scene also represents the conflict of Smeagol versus himself. We might not predict that Smeagol's personality would split due to the conflict; after all, Frodo maintained a whole even as he carried the Ring. The Ring activated a suppressed aspect of Smeagol's nature, one that resulted in his schizophrenic paranoia for 500 years. The last 90 seconds (from 4:08 on) of the clip portray how the conflict transformed and split Smeagol into his darker self, Gollum.
2. What power relationships, real or symbolic, does the violence suggest?
In the ontology of the LotR-verse, the soul is considered to be physically real. Magical powers, relegated to beings such as Wizards, are also real in that they produce tangible, physical effects. In that sense, the One Ring is powerful and can be compared to the horcruxes of the Harry Potter universe. Sauron insured his life by transferring part of his soul into the Ring. As long as the Ring was not damaged, Sauron's soul, however withered, would persist. The mantra inscribed in the inner shank of the Ring ominously portends:
One ring to rule them all
One ring to find them
One ring to bring them all
And in the darkness, bind them!
Smeagol and Deagol are thus struggling in vain against the will of the most powerful and evil beings to roam Middle Earth.
Further, the violence also suggests a symbolic power struggle. Centuries later, the hobbit Sam says this to Frodo, who has almost given up on his quest to destroy the Ring.
Sam's optimism about the fate of power can be compared to Smeagol's complete lack of optimism or pessimism (in his scene with Deagol). In all Tolkien's stories based in Middle Earth, power rises and falls. That is, it might be vanquished, but evil will rise again. The One Ring is sought by all to be worn and become so powerful as to become invisible, or to be destroyed so that the seduction of power is annihilated. Both scenes suggest that violence is a symptom of the interaction of larger, more ancient, and more powerful forces. The violence between Smeagol and Deagol, in particular, is symbolic of the idea that violent episodes are inevitable if grander forces are in conflict.
3. How graphic is the depiction of violence, and what function does it serve in the narrative?
Children, at a young age, are capable of making crude distinctions between realistic and imaginary representations of violence. They are more often emotionally disturbed by documentaries that depict predators and prey, war, or crime, than they are by graphic representations of media violence. While most of us have limited vocabularies for discussing different degrees of explicitness, implicit distinctions shape the ways we respond to fictional representations of violence. We each know that we can tolerate or avoid scenes we find too intense or disturbing. We need to guard against the assumption that the more graphic forms of violence are necessarily inappropriate. In some cases, graphic depictions of violence shatter our complacency and force us to confront the human costs of violence.
The violence in the above clip is not graphic by current standards. Smeagol and Deagol engage in a physical brawl in the mud. First, they playfully grab at each other. Then, as Smeagol seeks to claim the Ring that lays in Deagol's firm clutch, they twist each others' bodies and faces. Smeagol bites Deagol's hand, which results in the Ring falling and the hobbits srambling in the mud. In sheer desperation, they choke each other. In the end, Smeagol kills his friend. The violence between the hobbits is not gratutious either; that is, it is not "without apparent reason, cause, or justification."
To see the importance of this choice, play the video with the volume turned off. Most likely you will conclude that the violence does not appear as graphic, disturbing or gratuitous as before. You might understand why the characters perform the violent act; but without the sound, you will not understand what the filmmaker actually wants to depict. Through language and the conventions of the audiovisual moving image, the filmmakers are telling a very different story with sounds incorporated into the sequence. Pay close attention to the sound between 1:35 and 2:00. You will hear a soft echo, as though something good is departing. This sensation is reinforced by the sound of birds flying away. Then you hear the hymn-like lament of Elves, which you might recognize from the first and the second parts of the trilogy. At 2:32, you hear a fluttering wail intended to cause visceral tension, whereas the picture of the initial seconds (2:32-2:40) of Smeagol and Deagol's struggle is almost playful, as though two friends are wrestling for an object. It is only after 2:40 and especially after 3:01 that the filmmakers' artistic intent through use of sound is more in sync with the motives for the violence.
An artwork or a film might depict murder, but the filmmakers can layer the actions leading to the murder with elements––in this case, specific sound effects––that are motivated by realism (Smeagol and Deagol are possessed and possessive); genre (the sense of impending horror); theme (good and evil in ourselves and in the world); and symbolism (discussed above). In each case, the violence can have a different motivation, even though the actions depicted are the same. In this video, Peter Jackson, the director, and his team of editors and sound designers, convey generic horror as well as allude to the symbolic theme of the film. These layers elevate the actual action to a plane of seriousness wherein we can examine the consequences of violence. It is to this crucial aspect about the portrayal of violence that we turn to next.
One cultural text that enjoyed immense popular (as well as critical) success was Peter Jackson's trilogy The Lord of the Rings (2001-3). Let's examine a scene that opens the third part of the trilogy, The Return of the King. In this scene, which functions to provide the back story for the main narrative of the trilogy, the hobbit Smeagol is fishing peacefully with his friend Deagol when, by sheer accident, Deagol discovers a shiny gold ring buried in the river bed. The violent sequence that follows has far-reaching consequences for events that occur more than 500 years later.
On this page and the next, we use the example of the violent conflict between Smeagol and Deagol to understand how to assess fictional representations of violence.
1. What basic conflicts are being enacted through the violence?
Literary critics have long identified three core conflicts that shape much of the world's literature:
1) Human vs. Human; 2) Human vs. Nature; 3) Human vs. Self (and sometimes: 4. Human vs. Machine). These human conflicts spark drama. Each can erupt in violence–against other people, against the natural world, and against ourselves.
The Smeagol-Deagol conflict encompasses all three types of conflict. First, it is a conflict between two hobbits (the equivalent of human; dwarves, elves, hobbits, men, wizards, and orcs representative of anthropomorphic races in LotR); in particular, two friends. Hobbits love foreign, shiny objects, and are known to be possessive about their meals and belongings. We glimpse this characteristic in the first few seconds of the film when Smeagol desirously holds the bait in anticipation of a good meal of seafood. Second, it is a conflict of all Middle Earthly beings against Nature. Here Nature is understood to be the evil that emanates from Sauron, the Dark Lord, who forged The One Ring in secret but lost it on the wayside until it was recovered by Deagol. Sauron has poured the darkness of his soul into the great Ring of Power, which brings out the weaknesses of humans and hobbits alike. Third, the scene also represents the conflict of Smeagol versus himself. We might not predict that Smeagol's personality would split due to the conflict; after all, Frodo maintained a whole even as he carried the Ring. The Ring activated a suppressed aspect of Smeagol's nature, one that resulted in his schizophrenic paranoia for 500 years. The last 90 seconds (from 4:08 on) of the clip portray how the conflict transformed and split Smeagol into his darker self, Gollum.
2. What power relationships, real or symbolic, does the violence suggest?
In the ontology of the LotR-verse, the soul is considered to be physically real. Magical powers, relegated to beings such as Wizards, are also real in that they produce tangible, physical effects. In that sense, the One Ring is powerful and can be compared to the horcruxes of the Harry Potter universe. Sauron insured his life by transferring part of his soul into the Ring. As long as the Ring was not damaged, Sauron's soul, however withered, would persist. The mantra inscribed in the inner shank of the Ring ominously portends:
One ring to rule them all
One ring to find them
One ring to bring them all
And in the darkness, bind them!
Smeagol and Deagol are thus struggling in vain against the will of the most powerful and evil beings to roam Middle Earth.
Further, the violence also suggests a symbolic power struggle. Centuries later, the hobbit Sam says this to Frodo, who has almost given up on his quest to destroy the Ring.
Sam's optimism about the fate of power can be compared to Smeagol's complete lack of optimism or pessimism (in his scene with Deagol). In all Tolkien's stories based in Middle Earth, power rises and falls. That is, it might be vanquished, but evil will rise again. The One Ring is sought by all to be worn and become so powerful as to become invisible, or to be destroyed so that the seduction of power is annihilated. Both scenes suggest that violence is a symptom of the interaction of larger, more ancient, and more powerful forces. The violence between Smeagol and Deagol, in particular, is symbolic of the idea that violent episodes are inevitable if grander forces are in conflict.
3. How graphic is the depiction of violence, and what function does it serve in the narrative?
Children, at a young age, are capable of making crude distinctions between realistic and imaginary representations of violence. They are more often emotionally disturbed by documentaries that depict predators and prey, war, or crime, than they are by graphic representations of media violence. While most of us have limited vocabularies for discussing different degrees of explicitness, implicit distinctions shape the ways we respond to fictional representations of violence. We each know that we can tolerate or avoid scenes we find too intense or disturbing. We need to guard against the assumption that the more graphic forms of violence are necessarily inappropriate. In some cases, graphic depictions of violence shatter our complacency and force us to confront the human costs of violence.
The violence in the above clip is not graphic by current standards. Smeagol and Deagol engage in a physical brawl in the mud. First, they playfully grab at each other. Then, as Smeagol seeks to claim the Ring that lays in Deagol's firm clutch, they twist each others' bodies and faces. Smeagol bites Deagol's hand, which results in the Ring falling and the hobbits srambling in the mud. In sheer desperation, they choke each other. In the end, Smeagol kills his friend. The violence between the hobbits is not gratutious either; that is, it is not "without apparent reason, cause, or justification."
We must raise the question, then, of the function violence serves in the narrative. In fact, the two questions––how graphic is the violence, and what function does it serve in the narrative––turn on the creative choices about what to include and exclude in the film sequence. These are choices storytellers, artists and filmmakers must make in their construction of violent episodes.
To see the importance of this choice, play the video with the volume turned off. Most likely you will conclude that the violence does not appear as graphic, disturbing or gratuitous as before. You might understand why the characters perform the violent act; but without the sound, you will not understand what the filmmaker actually wants to depict. Through language and the conventions of the audiovisual moving image, the filmmakers are telling a very different story with sounds incorporated into the sequence. Pay close attention to the sound between 1:35 and 2:00. You will hear a soft echo, as though something good is departing. This sensation is reinforced by the sound of birds flying away. Then you hear the hymn-like lament of Elves, which you might recognize from the first and the second parts of the trilogy. At 2:32, you hear a fluttering wail intended to cause visceral tension, whereas the picture of the initial seconds (2:32-2:40) of Smeagol and Deagol's struggle is almost playful, as though two friends are wrestling for an object. It is only after 2:40 and especially after 3:01 that the filmmakers' artistic intent through use of sound is more in sync with the motives for the violence.
An artwork or a film might depict murder, but the filmmakers can layer the actions leading to the murder with elements––in this case, specific sound effects––that are motivated by realism (Smeagol and Deagol are possessed and possessive); genre (the sense of impending horror); theme (good and evil in ourselves and in the world); and symbolism (discussed above). In each case, the violence can have a different motivation, even though the actions depicted are the same. In this video, Peter Jackson, the director, and his team of editors and sound designers, convey generic horror as well as allude to the symbolic theme of the film. These layers elevate the actual action to a plane of seriousness wherein we can examine the consequences of violence. It is to this crucial aspect about the portrayal of violence that we turn to next.
| Previous page on path | Negotiating Cultural Spaces, page 13 of 15 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "3.13 Smeagol vs. Deagol - Questions to Ask about the Fictional Representations of Violence [1 / 2]"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...