One of the most famous franchises period, The Lord of the Rings may be concealing a range of innuendoes. The ones that allegedly target the feminist movement are clearly the most peculiar ones. Though the anti-feminist air of the book and the movie are hardly noticeable, each admittedly creates a rather unsettling mood, which can be traced in the development of female characters – or lack of thereof.
True, the female characters are rather underdeveloped in the book as well. The movie, in its turn, instead of focusing on the evolution of the female leads, seemed to be concerned with the relationships between the male characters as well as the growth of the latter. It can be assumed that the absence of any female character growth in the movie can be attributed to the attempts to keep the true voice and spirit of the source material. Still, even the endeavours of the director to capture the essence of Tolkien’s novel cannot justify the fact that some of the scenes, which portray the leading female characters in action, have been cut.
When it comes to the source material, one will agree that Peter Jackson both upgraded the movie to meet the current feminist standards and at the same time brought it a few notches down. For example, the fact that the battle scene between Eowyn and the Witch King was finally given the time and attention that it deserved was a welcome change of pace. However, the fact that the female characters portrayed in the novel were shifted into the background is clearly a huge step backwards in the restoration of the Tolkien universe.
One might argue that the notorious giant spider is a big allegory for the feminist movement in general and the threats that feminism poses to the society in particular. For those who insistently claim that the giant spider is anything more than merely a giant spider, it will be reasonable to quote a piece of Tolkien’s famous speech on allegories as a counterargument: “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence” (Purtill 117).
Jokes aside, the idea of portraying feminism through the character that can be viewed as a mix between the element of wilderness and the part of ancient mythology is rather clever. While the gender of the spider is clearly stated both in the book and in the movie, it seems that Tolkien’s decision to make Shelob a lady was quite random. In the movie, after seeing Frodo lying senseless on the ground, one of the spiders says the following about Shelob: “She jabs them with her stinger and they go as limp as a boned fish. Then she has her way with them. That’s how she likes to feed-fresh blood” (Jackson 01:12:08). The book, on the other hand, sheds more light on the possible innuendoes that Tolkien may have included into his novel.
For example, the “filth” and stench that Shelobs’ lair was shot through could be interpreted as the author’s disgust with the supposedly selfish and obtrusive nature of feminist movement as Tolkien may have seen it: “Out of it came a stench, not the sticky odour of decay in the meads of Morgul, but a foul reek, as if filth unnameable were piled and hoarded in the dark within” (Tolkien 992). On the one hand, such a disturbing description could be used to create the specific atmosphere. On the other hand, the insistent relation to Shelob as “her” may raise a few eyebrows concerning the anti-feminist air of the chapter.
When it comes to defining the key problem with Tolkien’s portrayal of female characters, one will inevitably notice that in his books, and in the Lord of the rings in particular, gender not only informs the character, but also defines it. Taking one of the most famous and the most beloved by all feminists moments in the Lord of the Rings (both the book and the movie), the scene in which Eowyn slaughters the Witch King, one should pay special attention to how Eowyn actually expresses her triumph. As the Witch King laughs in her face claiming that no man can ever kill him, she announces that she is not a man, but a woman, and murders him: “’You fool. No man can kill me. Die now.’ ‘I am no man’” (Jackson 2:11:08).
To simplify the message sent to both the viewers and the readers, Eowyn wins not because of the strength within her, not her courage and not her desire to protect the ones that she loves, but merely because of the fact that she is of the required gender. Eowyn’s statement about her mission to protect the warrior can be viewed as a means to enhance the impression of a strong and self-assured soldier that she has supposedly become: “I will kill you if you touch him!” (Jackson 2:10:55) can supposedly be interpreted as Jackson’s attempt at making Miranda Otto’s character more compelling. Unfortunately, Eowyn finally admits that her gender is her only asset in the battle with the Witch King and, thus, drives the significance of murdering the latter to nil in terms of her importance as a character.
It would be wrong to claim The Lord of the Rings entirely anti-feminist. The movie contains a plethora of other messages, including the racial issues, the battle between good and evil, and even the WWII. However, because of the underdevelopment of female characters both in the film and the novels, the franchise can be viewed as rather old fashioned from a feminist perspective.
Works Cited
Jackson, Peter. The Return of the King. New Zealand: WingNut Films. 2003. Web.
Purtill, Richard L. Lord of the Elves and Eldils. Grand Rapids, MI: Ignatius. 1974. Print.
Tolkien, John R. R. The Lord of the Rings. Vol. 1–3. Boston, MA: Mariner Books. 2012. Print.