LotR1-FotR-Seq04

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

So, much as I love the concept of Saruman as a separate and distinct force (which works fine in the books, as we don't meet Saruman until he is all but defeated) I do think that they made the right choice for the films here.

But its more complex than that, &, as I said, it goes to the heart of Tolkien's philosophical vision/perspective. Staying faithful to the book is more than a matter of making sure Hobbits are half the size of humans & that Orcs are ugly, Elves beautiful, etc.

We come back to the Boethian/Manichean dichotomy - is evil an externally existing 'force'/state in its own right, or is it a perversion of Good, an absence, a corruption of something else. Jackson presents it as the former. This has a profound knock on effect across the whole of the movie. If evil is an equal & opposite force to Good then it is a necessary (if unpleasant) part of the natural order, & its defeat leaves nature unbalanced (albeit a 'nicer' place to be).

The effect of the Ring is to fragment, break up, the good in an individual, make them firstly turn against, then seek to dominate, others. It isolates them, breaking all bonds of love, fellowship & simple humanity/compassion. Once one becomes 'possessed' by the Ring (either by claiming it or simply becoming possessed by the idea/desire of it) one would be incapable of 'serving' another or working with them - everyone else would be percieved either as a threat if they were powerful enough to take it from you, or as an actual or potential slave. This aspect of the Ring's power does come through in the movie, but it is contradicted by Saruman's apparently willing submission to Sauron. What we repeatedly see is Saruman making sacrifices for Sauron & willing his victory. In Tolkien's world this would be impossible due to the effect, the idea of, the Ring on Saruman. He would not have been able to even contemplate the idea of Sauron regaining the Ring without being overwhelmed by fear & horror. With the Ring one is everything, without it one is nothing. We can see that plainly in Frodo after its destruction.

What Jackson has done is not merely simplify Tolkien's complex political power struggle, but twist out of all recognition his moral-philosophical position. In doing so he presents us with a different concept of 'evil'. Evil, in Jackson's Middle-earth, is an external force which has to be beaten, not an inner pull towards fragmentation/domination of others. To claim the Ring is to become Sauron, & to claim it is a moral choice. The enemy is not a unified force in the book, its individual 'members' are in constant conflict with each other because that's their nature.

[Holbytlass]

I concur that seeing the landscape before the destruction is vital. I like the subtle visual clue when the camera is directly overhead Gandalf riding, passed the front gate, into the sharp angle made by the two trails and then repeated by the two sides of Orthanc making a sharp angle again as if saying something is closing in on him.

Even though it seems odd, afterall, how often do we see or hear of two old men beating the pants (or robe) off each other, it makes sense for Gandalf's capture to happen that way. I don't see Gandalf being taken down by a bunch of orcs (that would be inconsistent to his fighting all those orcs later in Moria), he could've easily blasted them like he did in the cave in The Hobbit. It would take someone/thing as powerful as himself to potentially take him down.

The rotating on the ear was weird. I suppose there had to be something visual to say that he was completely under Sarauman's control but the ear?!

It didn't really matter to me whether it was shown as Saruman being Sauron's lackey or a second evil person, I don't think there was enough to show what caused Saruman's fall from grace. He had been established as "wise and powerful", "head of the order" that Gandalf belonged to and since Gandalf is shown to be good and powerful and helpful, that would make Saruman more so, being the one in charge, so to speak.

On a side note, I do like how Saruman, like Bilbo, is a piler not a filer, eccentric and/or evil trait? Wonder what Sauron's study looks like? And what does that make me?!

[Boromir88]

So, much as I love the concept of Saruman as a separate and distinct force (which works fine in the books, as we don't meet Saruman until he is all but defeated) I do think that they made the right choice for the films here.~SpM

I think it comes down to whether the concept of Saruman being a seperate, individual threat to the "good guys," or being a puppet/underling of Sauron would be too complicated and confusing, or not.

I personally don't think it would be too confusing to establish Saruman as a seperate threat to Sauron. (Eventhough Elrond does say something like "we cannot contend with Isengard and Mordor...etc) he's still the puppet of Sauron in the movies..."What orders from Mordor, my lord? What does the eye Command?" Yes, Saruman is another threat to Middle-earth, but he's not seperate one on his own.

As I've already stated it undermines Saruman's own character. It's been done in movies before, so the concept shouldn't be too confusing if seen. As I mentioned Braveheart, but there's also movies like Star Wars, where we have the Republic (future Galactic Empire) facing the Seperatists, and the Jedi Council is stuck in the middle...what the heck do we do?

Eventhough we know in the books that Sauron is fully aware of what Saruman is up to and only using him to suit his own purposes, in Saruman's own mind he can undermine and defeat Sauron if he gets a hold of the Ring. This shouldn't be too complicated to establish in the movies. Instead of saying "We must join with Sauron," he could say "Join me Gandalf, and together we can defeat Sauron and restore Order back to Middle-earth, and we can rule them like we should." (Maybe something less corny but that's basically what Saruman's own intentions were, is to rule Middle-earth himself.

Also, it's something that the movie hasn't already tackled, as we see with Boromir, and later with Denethor the idea of using the ring to overthrow Sauron. And we even have Boromir in the books say..."Is Saruman not right in using Sauron's own weapon against him" (something like that). So, it's not like this idea of Saruman wanting the Ring for himself to rule would all of a sudden get people flabberghasted and confused, it would actually be something that would be expected..."Hey why not get the Ring to me so I can defeat Sauron." Then Gandalf of course being the good guy would explain to Saruman it's all wrong and we have the wizard fight.

Again, this isn't something that would be overly-complicated to do, it's actually a fairly common thing in movies to establish sort of this third party/extra, yet seperate hurdle for the good guys to get over.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Eventhough we know in the books that Sauron is fully aware of what Saruman is up to and only using him to suit his own purposes, in Saruman's own mind he can undermine and defeat Sauron if he gets a hold of the Ring. This shouldn't be too complicated to establish in the movies. Instead of saying "We must join with Sauron," he could say "Join me Gandalf, and together we can defeat Sauron and restore Order back to Middle-earth, and we can rule them like we should." (Maybe something less corny but that's basically what Saruman's own intentions were, is to rule Middle-earth himself.

Was that really his view? Or is this really a pipe dream he has? For what he actually says is:

'And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper! " he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you. before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.

bide our time, control it? you really think saruman thinks he could control Sauron once he had the Ring back?

or could it be a way of forcing Gandalf to follow him? tell him to join with sauron and they could then bend him to their will, when he might not really think this himself? or is Saruam nvain enugh to actually believe this?

so I'm not sure HOW far away the film actually is - he still gives gandalf 'one choice' - to 'join' with sauron...... (ok perhaps 'must' is too strong.....)

[Mister Underhill]

Real life has been kicking my butt for the past week, so I've been on the sidelines for this excellent thread. I'll just try to chip in a few quick points:

I agree that Saruman as a free agent rather than a Sauron lackey is both preferable story-wise and could have been pulled off without undue confusion.

I always get a little wary of an argument where filmmakers start shifting the blame onto an audience that -- without sugarcoating it -- is too dumb to get it. If audiences are confused by a sequence or a concept or an idea, is it the fault of the audience, or the fault of filmmakers who didn't do a good enough job of telling their story? Now certainly there are times when a story is too complex for its own good, and indeed there is a fair share of dummies in the movie-ticket-buying demographic... I'm just saying that simplifying is only one solution for a complex structure, and often a clumsy one at that.

But I'm not so sure the filmmakers in this case are even making that argument. According to the commentary track, they feel they've come up with a Saruman who is close to the book. In which case I think this sequence doesn't work as intended, because I think most audiences walk away thinking of Saruman as a stooge of Sauron.

Saruman arguably is the primary "bad guy" of the first film at least, though the threat of Sauron is constantly felt, I think, in the flaming eye flashes and even moreso in the presence of his agents, the Nazgûl. Saruman as a victim of the Ring and its promise of power is a far more interesting character than a Saruman who has either (a) been dominated by too much gazing into the palantir, which I think is at least suggested, or (b) decided to cast his allegiance with the side he perceives as being more powerful and the inevitable victor in the coming war.

I do miss a lot of the verbal sparring from the book scene, which gives way to a sequence which is designed mostly to convey exposition, especially about Sauron's "new look": this is where PJ commits to the idea of embodying Sauron as a giant flaming eyeball atop Barad-dûr. Anyone else see a bit of a contradiction with Saruman saying that "[Sauron] cannot yet take physical form..."?

Originally Posted by SPM

I agree with Morm that conveying these scenes through dialogue would not have worked at all on film. But Gandalf's encounter with Saruman could have been portrayed through flashback at the Council of Elrond. We would have the same scenes, but later on. How do people think that this might have worked?

This is an interesting question which I think goes back at least a little to our early discussions about POV. A less restricted POV is free to roam to Isengard for this scene, but what is gained and what is lost?

I think a flashback version of Gandalf's run-in with Saruman might work in a differently structured Council of Elrond, or even earlier as a scene between Gandalf and Frodo in Rivendell. I like the way the book builds some mystery about what has happened to Gandalf -- he fails to show in Bree as promised, there are signs of his having been at Weather-top, etc. -- and I wonder if a similar construction might have worked here in the film. Of course flashbacks can have their own drawbacks, though they're used at least once effectively to maintain the integrity of the book's structure: when Gandalf relates the tale of the outcome of his fight with the Balrog.

It might be an interesting exercise to continue our earlier discussion of structuring the films according to a more limited, hobbit-centric POV here, though I unfortunately do not have the time to do it right at the moment.

A couple of other quick thoughts:

Orthanc
Pretty cool overall, but I don't like the way it's all hollow inside for that shot of Gandalf spinning to the top.

Performances
Both actors make the most of their parts, whatever the limitations of the writing might be. I really love McKellan's reaction when he throws the cloth over the palantir. Interestingly, Lee reportedly lobbied for the part of Gandalf, but I think he makes a much better Saruman.

Wizard Fight
The wizard fight doesn't do much for me. Jackson indicates on the commentary that he didn't want to go the traditional route with wizards shooting blue lightning from their fingertips, and says that two old men beating the crap out of each other might be kind of humorous. It doesn't strike me as that, and I wish PJ & team had dug a little deeper for another approach. It's interesting to note that Jackson tends to resort to humor when he's not sure how else to tackle a problem.

On a related note, Saruman's line -- "Your love of the halflings' leaf has clearly slowed your mind." -- and Gandalf's abashed reaction never failed to get a laugh the two times I saw the film in a theater.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by Essex

Was that really his view? Or is this really a pipe dream he has? For what he actually says is: bide our time, control it? you really think saruman thinks he could control Sauron once he had the Ring back?

or could it be a way of forcing Gandalf to follow him? tell him to join with sauron and they could then bend him to their will, when he might not really think this himself? or is Saruam nvain enugh to actually believe this?

so I'm not sure HOW far away the film actually is - he still gives gandalf 'one choice' - to 'join' with sauron...... (ok perhaps 'must' is too strong.....)

Well, granted, it's pretty close to the book for THIS scene, but that's the only scene in the book that really presents Saruman as being honestly tight with Sauron. In later scenes (check Book III Chapter V "The White Rider" for example), Gandalf makes it clear that Saruman is a traitor not only to the White Council, but to Mordor. I don't think we can make a good argument that Saruman was loyal to Mordor; in fact, I believe this is made yet more explicit in "The Hunt for the Ring" in Unfinished Tales.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But its more complex than that, &, as I said, it goes to the heart of Tolkien's philosophical vision/perspective. Staying faithful to the book is more than a matter of making sure Hobbits are half the size of humans & that Orcs are ugly, Elves beautiful, etc.

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it comes down to whether the concept of Saruman being a seperate, individual threat to the "good guys," or being a puppet/underling of Sauron would be too complicated and confusing, or not.

I don't think that it does come down to that at all. As I tried to explain in my post, it comes down to whether having Saruman, the main villain of the first two films, as an independent agent would have lessened the impact of Sauron as the main enemy overall. I think that it would have done.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I always get a little wary of an argument where filmmakers start shifting the blame onto an audience that -- without sugarcoating it -- is too dumb to get it.

That's not the argument that I am making. I certainly do not think that most viewers would be too dumb to understand the concept of an independent Saruman without getting confused. As Boro points out, it's a fairly straightforward concept that has been deployed to good effect in a number of films. The difference however is that, in those films, we get to see the main protagonists on each side plotting, talking, acting and reacting. We get to see nothing of the kind with regard to Sauron. Jacskon could have chosen to portray him as an active character, but I think that he made the right choice not to do so (and to stay faithful to the book in this regard). However, we do get to see a lot of Saruman (again, a correct choice in my view). To have Saruman as independent would have created an imbalance, in that he occupies most of the screen time (in the first two films) as the directing force of the Free Peoples' enemies, yet the audience was told at the outset that Sauron was the main enemy. The solution to addressing this imbalance was to set Saruman up as a "Sauron substitute" for the first two films.

So it's not about dumbing down the film for poor dumb audiences. It's about the balance of the film trilogy.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I like the way the book builds some mystery about what has happened to Gandalf -- he fails to show in Bree as promised, there are signs of his having been at Weather-top, etc. -- and I wonder if a similar construction might have worked here in the film.

I like this aspect too, and I think that this structure could have worked on screen. But I also believe that the structure which Jackson chose works well. They would create different tensions, but I could not say that one way would necessarily be better than the other in the context of the films. Incidentally, in the book, I think that the structure chosen for the films in this regard would not have worked nearly so well. Not quite sure why, but perhaps the answer lies in that old chestnut, the PoV.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".
.

I'm going to be jumping far ahead in making this point - I hope you'll bear with me.

I suppose it depends on how important you feel 'Tolkien's philosophical persepective'' is. For myself, I admit, is is central. I may (or may not) agre with it, but I do think it is core to the works. Jackson appears to believe that LotR is basically an action-adventure fantasy, about Elves & Goblins, wizards, & heroes with magic swords, not realising that those things are just the 'hroa' of the story. The fea is missing. I suspect that is maybe why I find the movies visually impressive, but basically 'cold' & uninteresting. I was surprised not to be moved, for example, by Eowyn's desperate defiance of the Witch King (which in the book always moves me to tears). The movie placed all the emphasis on her killing of the WK, with her comment 'I am no man!' reducing the moment to one of silly 'feminist' sneering.

This episode in the book goes to the heart of Tolkien's 'philosophical persepective' on the nature of Good & evil, & is moving specifically because of that. Eowyn stands over her fallen uncle & defies the WK even though she is convinced she is going to die (her declaration 'I will kill you if you touch him!' makes her seem simply stupid - how the hell did she think she would do that, having no knowledge of Glorfindel's prophecy?) In the book she shouts 'I will smite you if you touch him'. Pointless defiance, & she knows it, but she stands there & defies him anyway. Shippey calls this Tolkien's 'theory of courage': doing the right thing even in hopeless situations, because it the right thing to do. There is never any point at which Eowyn realises she will kill the WK - its as much of a shock to her as it is to him!

Evil in Tolkien is a 'void', an absence, a nothingness, which can swallow the individual - open a 'void' within them. It is a temptation towards despair & fragmentation. This is, at the very least interesting, & not something that I have seen explored in mainstream movies. I'm moved by Eowyn's defiance when I read the books, because, at the end she refuses to be broken & swallowed up. She defies the chaos & nothingness that threatens to swallow her & all she loves. In the movie, all I see is a sub-James Bond moment, where the villain is despatched with a snappy wisecrack & bullet to the head, followed by his escape craft blowing up.