Aragorn has (gasp!) a . . . tail!

Shadowdancer · 4th October 2005, 08:58 AM

Just went to see A History of Violence (good movie, by the way. worth seeing). There is a scene in which you get to see Viggo Mortensen's bare backside. And he has a small tail. I know some people are born with such things, but I would think he would have had it removed long ago.

Undead Pete · 5th October 2005, 02:57 AM

ok, that's kinda freaky

Uzumaki · 5th October 2005, 03:56 AM

Thanks. I wasn't going to see this movie because I don't want to fork over the cash. Now I have to. You owe me $10.

demiurge1138 · 5th October 2005, 04:45 AM

I don't know if that's actually Viggo Mortensen's real tail. The movie is directed by David Cronenberg, after all. Cronenberg loves deformations of the flesh, and could easily have said "okay, the main character, we're giving him a tail! No, it's not going to be important in the script, just do it!".

Demiurge out.

Shadowdancer · 5th October 2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demiurge1138

I don't know if that's actually Viggo Mortensen's real tail. The movie is directed by David Cronenberg, after all. Cronenberg loves deformations of the flesh, and could easily have said "okay, the main character, we're giving him a tail! No, it's not going to be important in the script, just do it!".

Demiurge out.

I thought the same thing. But nothing is ever mentioned about it, it's not the focus of the shot, you might even miss it if you're not paying attention.

Aeric · 5th October 2005, 07:32 AM

Great. Now whenever I watch my LOTR DVDs, I'll think of Jason Alexander's character from Shallow Hal.

Just_Hal · 5th October 2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeric

Great. Now whenever I watch my LOTR DVDs, I'll think of Jason Alexander's character from Shallow Hal.

Leave my movie out of this!

The Grumpy Celt · 5th October 2005, 02:44 PM

So long as it's not covered in fluffy fur.

What is this condition known as, in medical terms? And does Wiki have an article on it?

apoptosis · 5th October 2005, 03:31 PM

It is an atavistic tail...basically we have the genes to create a tail. Over time the genes are basically shut off (well more complicated..actually we start with a tail and then kill it apoptotically, very loosely similar to starting out with webbed hands and removing the in between skin during embryonic development)...

atavistic characteristics just refer to traits that we no longer evidence that characterized an ancestral species

Mean Eyed Cat · 5th October 2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apoptosis

atavistic characteristics just refer to traits that we no longer evidence that characterized an ancestral species

I haven't seen the movie nor do I know alot about David Cronenberg's films, but given this information, I have a theory. I suspect that the tail is somehow symbolic. I found this quote from Roger Ebert's website:

"to the innate violence of Darwinian evolution, in which better-adapted organisms replace those less able to cope. 'I am a complete Darwinian,' says Cronenberg, whose new film is in many ways about the survival of the fittest -- at all costs."

In addition, I found bit of information that someone on the imdb message boards brought up [possible spoiler]:

"Some posts have claimed that this film demonstrates Darwin's natural selection - ie Tom is stronger thus he wins. The fact that his son is able, when he finally cracks, to deliver such well aimed violence when he has presumably never before even hit anyone, seems to imply that he has inherited the ability to be violent."

Given Cronenberg's inclinations toward the unusual (Naked Lunch still leaves twisted imagery in my head), it might make sense.