One of the sorely misunderstood, and underrated, influences on Tolkien's work is the chivalric tradition. While not unique in world history—think, for example, of the rigorous codes of conduct exhibited in Japanese Samurai legend—European chivarly owes significant debts to uniquely Western cultures: Gaul, Norman and that of the Holy Roman Empire. Military service was not compulsory, but something undertaken voluntarily. Vows were taken, and vows were kept—even at the cost of death, if necessary. Warfare was not merely material, but spiritual. Eventually, a secular devotion to honor prevailed; and by the time chivalry faded, it had become solely focused on the glory of temporal powers.

But today, the codes of conduct dictated by chivalry are sorely misunderstood—and the role that it plays in The Lord of the Rings is often missed. In Los Angeles last December, Bernard Hill talked about chivalry, its appeal, and the way it plays out in Tolkien's work.

He also revealed that, while he and the filmmakers appreciated the import of chivalry, they sorely misapprehended other equally important influences on Tolkien's work.

The questions in the interview are posed by press from a variety of publications, and Hill's responses are given verbatim. Where necessary, extraneous, unintelligible or profane remarks are indicated by bracketed ellipses, so: [...].

One of the things that you remarked on in the press notes was that one of the aspects that you liked about the Rohirrim was the chivalry involved. Was that something that was explicitly talked about—the codes of chivalry and the conduct of war under chivalry?

I think it's implicit in the books, and it was something that we wanted to reflect. It's the kind of ethos that you could imagine that the people of Middle-earth at that time kind of adhered to. It's the same as, you know, the kind perfected in the early Shakespeare plays, the kind of—Henry VI parts I and II, you can see the very kind of organized chivalry approach to fighting somebody. "I shall hack off thy head." "Ah! Fair enough, have a good go." And it's in Knights of the Round Table, and all that kind of thing. It's the kind of classic early tale way of kind of setting up a moral code, I suppose, really. And it's very good, because the counterpoint to all that is the way that the "baddies," if you like—the Richard IIIs of the world—kind of—

Or the orcs themselves?

And the orcs, yeah, the real kind of evil just—they don't want to obey those kind of codes. So it's not just a kind of evil way of looking at things. It's a breaking down, and a destruction of the morals of the time, and the way that people handled themselves and kind of respected each other, and reacted to each other. It's that deterioration that's probably the most offensive aspect of it all. I mean, you can cope with somebody who doesn't agree with you if there's a kind of— if there's a confrontation on a respectable basis. If that other person doesn't respect even the basic principles of combat, if you like, or of disagreement, then everything deteriorates. Society deteriorates. And that's kind of what Tolkien was on about, really.

In your death scene—great death scene, by the way—

I do die well, really.

Fabulous.

It's living I find difficult.

When Éowyn says she has to save you, and you say, "You already have," what did you believe Théoden meant by that?

I think it's the first person that he sees when he comes out of that kind of slide in Film 2, when he—you know, she was obviously instrumental in his kind of resurrection, if you like. And because she's the first person that he sees. And he sees her growing in strength, he sees her becoming happy, and that's what makes him happy, and that helps the terrible guilt, that he feels, to dispel.

Your character really grows and develops as a person.

Yes, he's really on that arc, isn't he? We kind of plotted that in, quite carefully. Some of the steps didn't make the edits, but overall you can still see that kind of arc of development.

In the end there's almost a reconciliation or a relief that what he did in battle, now he can go to the house of his—

Oh, that's what I mean—it's that kind of chivalry thing. Like at the big party. And he says, you know, "It wasn't Théoden who led, you know, the people to safety." And it's a big thing. When you first meet him at Helm's Deep, when he comes back, you see that thing, you know—"At least our people are safe." It's that, but there's still the undercurrent of guilt that permeates every aspect of the way he behaves, really. It makes him very kind of reticent about— you know, he's not very brave in the early parts of Film 2 because he's still ill.

What you said about chivalry and about people not being able to get along in human relationships, you're really, in Tolkien, you're really referring to communication, right? The ability of people to communicate and respect—

Not directly. But I think the whole— communication is at the heart of most things, I think. And I think if we fail to communicate then I think that what we do as human beings is we deny ourselves the ability to rationalize alternative points of view. And I think if we close off from those points of view, and don't communicate, and investigate what those points of view stand for, and how they mean something to the people who hold them, then I think that society generally—not just in Tolkien— but society generally is actually on a slippery slope to destruction. I think communication is everything. It permeates every aspect of our lives, either communication or the lack of. And we see the effects of both of those things, and we see them on a daily basis. And we could all get into the great thing about how—you know, are the people in the Middle East and are the people in the Far East, are they necessarily evil? Because when you turn around and look at them from their point of view, they think we're evil.

That's a question I have for you. I think a lot of people see it as black and white—the orcs and then the good people fighting [them]. But you also see the people fighting themselves, within themselves, fighting themselves over the Ring. How did you see that with your character—

Well, it's something I believe in anyway, personally. I don't think that anybody is all bad, and anybody's all good. I think that there's good and evil in both aspects in everybody. And I think that it's that duality that's in our basic nature—which causes us some kind of concern when we see the evil in other people. Because I think it's not just an independent observation, but I think it's something that comes out of the same properties that are in all of us. I think that the things we cry out most against are identifiable aspects of other people from our own personalities. And because we see it in them, and we know that we, somehow, to some extent, have controlled it, then I think that we get more angry because they've not controlled it themselves. Even in a relationship, if you put yourself in a situation where you can control certain aspects of your own emotional drives and differences, and you see your partner not doing that, then you're more angry because you think they don't have the right to that because "I've got mine under control." Which is kind of naïve in a way, really. And then in a greater sense, if you say, "I'm not behaving like that, why do you behave like that?" it causes a different level of anger. So I think it's because we relate to everything through our own properties. If you imagine— I mean, we are kind of a microcosm, aren't we, really—of the whole world, of everything that's in it? Because several billion years ago, the whole thing cooled down, and solidified, and became stable, with seas and lands and everything like that. And then human beings came, and all this kind of stuff—sorry, I don't subscribe to your theory on it—and once that happened, then nothing left and nothing arrived. So the world, for billions of years, has been kind of locked in a stable series of combinations of properties. In a purely physical sense, that's kind of what happened. So everything that's here, including every aspect, every kind of, you know, gene that's in our body, is the same as everything else. It came from the same place. So we have that kind of automatic symbiotic response to the world at large. And I think that's where offense at some aspects of other people's nature comes from. And that's what I wanted to put in— I mean, to get back to Tolkien— This is really kind of early for all this, really. If you look at— what we did was, we had these script meetings, because the script was completely unformed when we all came on the project, and we pulled the script out, kind of, as the schedule kind of pushed it towards us. And we dealt with certain sections. And we'd go, some of us—a lot of us—we'd go to Pete Jackson and Fran Walsh's house with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, who, at that time, were essentially the writers on it, and you'd work out what was going to happen in that section for your character. To the extent where you'd actually kind of determine dialog. Which is a real trick, but it's wonderful, to be able to do that. And in that, I always wanted—

Let me ask you—they let you throw in ideas about the dialog?

No, it wasn't just ideas, because— They didn't have the idea and we threw in ideas. We actually developed the ideas at the time, ourselves. They were a bit further down the line because they'd been doing it a lot longer, but that was the only difference really.

That's pretty unique, though, isn't it? For them to do that?

Yeah. And I think that's why, in large areas of the film, the film works brilliantly well, probably as well as anything that you see on the big screen, or on anywhere. I mean, I've done it before on low budget films, and in theatre, but I've never actually done it on a movie that had this kind of dynamic to it. So we had a real serious input, at a very primitive developmental level, for how our character was going to be seen. And one of the things I said, right from the very beginning, was, "I don't believe that there's any difference between a person who's a king and a person who carries the water barrels, or whatever. Because we're all made up of the same properties. And although we have a kind of superficial kind of difference—and a superficial difference of appearance, if you like, or in behavior, or in responsibility—basically we're all the same because everyone gets diarrhea, right? And that's— you know, everyone [...] in their own armor, and everybody's [...] stinks. So at certain points in certain people's lives they have to take responsibilities which other people don't have to take. So I said, the idea of the king being a king all the time, even when he's on the toilet, is nonsense. The king, the queen, or whoever rules the country, the generals or whatever, they have to go back [...] they have to think to some extent of what they've just done, or what they're about to do, or what they have to do. And it's that kind of responsibility—and how the people react to that responsibility—that makes the difference between the good people and the bad people, or the good general and the bad general. To just finish that thought—so that's why, on the battlements, I was quite keen to have that moment when Théoden turns around on Aragorn, and he's saying "They're going to do this, and no one's ever been in there, and they don't stand a chance," and all that. That's just PR. He knows underneath that that they're [...]. You know, really, basically. There's no way they're going to get through this without losing vast numbers of men—if they don't lose everybody. The idea is to minimize the damage to their confidence. Sorry for the French language. [...] And it's that moment when he turns around and says, "Well, what do you want me to do? I can't just say, 'Listen guys, this is not looking good for all of us. But just try your best, okay? I'm just going to go have a cup of tea now.'" You can't do that. You know, kings don't do that.

"Courage hangs by a thread."

Yeah. "What would you have me do?"

This came up last year in conversations with Jackson, and with Philippa Boyens, because they'd both said that they'd heard this theory that this is one gigantic battle between good and evil, and that they didn't see the movie in those simple terms—that they thought it was about the battle between good and evil in every human heart (which is the way Philippa put it).

I wouldn't say that, but I'm glad you said that. It just shows we're all on the same page about this really.

Since you grew up Catholic, you know the term; did the term "original sin" ever come up in any of these discussions? This belief that people are, you know—that this struggle is built in?

No, it didn't really. I mean, I'm an absolutely confirmed non-Deist now, so I don't subscribe to any of that.

Right.

So I wouldn't have brought it up. I didn't hear it from anybody else. I don't think it's in here, either [he holds up his own copy of The Lord of the Rings].

In Tolkien's letters, he talks an awful lot about his absolute conviction that man is fallen, that every story is about the Fall, and that The Lord of the Rings itself is one of those stories about the Fall. Which, you know, for him, would include the concept of Original Sin.

It's in there. In his mind, it's in there.

Is it? You think so?

Absoultely.

It's the ultimate source of evil.

I thought Original Sin was something that, you know, you had when you were born. Through no fault of your own. That kind of thing.

Well, he's saying that the Creation is fallen. Everything about it is fallen.

By nature.

By nature.

And it just plays itself out in the sense that good and evil are both found in the human heart—that, as you were saying, evil can be found in every individual, and it's not just black and white. I thought you did an excellent job of portraying Théoden's virtue as well as his personal weakness. Personally, I'm curious as to how you thought he overcame his resentment toward Gondor and finally chose the good rather than being consumed by his own pride.

Yeah, well you get that played out in—I think he's playing games at that point, really. It's also a useful kind of moment to establish the fact that Théoden is no longer just being kind of whisked along, or carried along by events, in a way—events that are outside his control, or they certainly were in Film 2. He's very reticent in Film 2. But he more or less gets persuaded to do certain things—he goes to Helm's Deep and such. But after that, there's a kind of growing strength with him.

Do you think he still feels resentment at that point toward Gondor when he chooses to—

Well, I think he did, because I think they got really badly hurt by Gondor. But then it shows his development that he can actually— he knows it's a practicality, but needs to be embraced, really. You know, the armies of good against the armies of evil—they need each other. And he's also got a growing respect for Aragorn, we can plainly see that. And it's just a question now of him saying, "This is not an automatic assumption any more." Like everything, it's a pride in him, really. And you don't get that level of pride unless you're feeling strong within yourself. And I think it's just a kind of— it's a useful way of marking his development, really. I mean, there's more to it than that, there's more in that scene and stuff like that which kind of didn't make it, but in the end he just turns around and says, "Yes, of course." Well, in a way. He doesn't say, "Yes, of course." But he's, like, "Yes. We will do it."

Do you have a favorite of the trilogy?

[Film] 2, I think. In Film 2, you're introduced to the World of Man. So that whimsy from [Film] 1, that very ethereal kind of wash from Film 1, takes on a more pragmatic kind of identity in Film 2. And from that—because you're introducing humans, with all those kind of human qualities that they obviously have—then you see story lines filled with things with which we identify quite well. And I think I like Film 2 for that reason. And Film 3 is full of conclusions, and necessary tail-offs to the story, and stuff like that. So I was kind of frustrated in Film 2, because I wanted to see more development—but you can't. It's kind of almost the opposite, really. Film 3, I mean.

When you signed on to the project, did you have any idea that it would become as big as it has become?

I don't remember. I don't think anyone could have anticipated it, really. I mean, we all knew we were working on something of quality, obviously, because, you know— I mean, this [gesturing with book] is a quality piece of work. And I think a lot of it's over-written, and he needed an editor, but aside from all that, it's a great coalescing of many different tales on many different levels. That's what it is. It's a re-writing of some of the old myths and legends.

The sagas.

Yes.

You bring up a good point that people are going to come from various religious backgrounds when they come to watch this film. What are some universal values that you think people can take away, or that personally touched you?

I think "honor." There's a very strong theme of honor that goes through the whole thing—probably more than anything else, in a way: that you set out to do something, and you do it, never more so symbolized [than] within Samwise Gamgee's thread that goes through the whole thing. I think that's the best part in the whole lot, really. I think it's the hardest part to play. And I keep telling—Sean's bored with it, really—but I keep telling him on a regular basis that I think he's the best thing by a long way. It's really hard to do. And in fact, it's not got those great moments of jumping on elephants and all that kind of nonsense, really. It's not got that. You can't help him through it. He's a single drive that he's got. And he's got the best line in the movie—he's got the best line in millions of movies. He's got one of those classic lines. He says, "Come, Mr. Frodo. I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you." That's right up there with, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." You know, it is! I think so. When I saw that, that was it, for me. That's a movie [...].

Isn't Théoden's belief that Gondor has abandoned them something of a carry-over from one of Wormtongue's lies? Because—

No, no no. It's an old, old thing, that.

But in reality, Aragorn does represent Gondor. And he is there. He is at Helm's Deep.

Yeah, that's right.

So there are elements, there is a truth—

But he's not there as Gondor.

It's a shading of truth.

But he's not there as Gondor. He doesn't represent Gondor when he's at Helm's Deep. He represents some guy that used to be called Strider. I mean, he's part of a Fellowship which is almost like an independent mercenary group. You know what I mean. They are mercenaries—well, they're not being paid...