The Eye: what was it?

[wayseer]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I actually thought the way he did it in Fellowship was credible because it was more something the characters saw (and even then, not in the physical sense) than the audience. Would've been nice if he'd kept that up through Towers and King.

Good point - had not considered that aspect - but I tend to agree - the aspect of the Eye being something internal rather than external - but I think the moviegoer would have demanded something more tangible.

[Lush]

I dunno, don't you think it seems strange only to see one Eye, and not a pair, if it is indeed Sauron's actual eye?

If anything, it's a cool literary device, no? Made me think of an enormous cyclops the first time I read the book. *shiver*

Also, it makes you think of the common expression - "a third eye," the ability to see beyond physical things, telepathy, power, etc. When Pushkin, for example, refers to a kind of Slavic fairy princess as having a "star blazing on her forehead," he's actually symbolizing her third eye, her power and wisdom.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about as I was being wowed by creep-tastic Sauron.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lush

If anything, it's a cool literary device, no? Made me think of an enormous cyclops the first time I read the book. *shiver*

Something like this perhaps?

Originally Posted by Lush

Also, it makes you think of the common expression - "a third eye," the ability to see beyond physical things, telepathy, power, etc. When Pushkin, for example, refers to a kind of Slavic fairy princess as having a "star blazing on her forehead," he's actually symbolizing her third eye, her power and wisdom.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about as I was being wowed by creep-tastic Sauron.

I've little to add but that's a good point about the third eye.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Something like this perhaps?

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by wayseer

Good point - had not considered that aspect - but I tend to agree - the aspect of the Eye being something internal rather than external - but I think the moviegoer would have demanded something more tangible.

Yes, the representation in the Fellowship movie is much more effective.

There should have been a way to visually expand on this in The Two Towers and Return of the King, without having to resort to plonking a fiery eyeball atop Barad-dur!

I would like to have seen a representation of Frodo's "Wheel of Fire" as being something like the Eye. That would have livened up the Mordor scenes considerably; I found them to be quite anti-climatic until Gollum reappears. Also ... the notion of the Eye as being a presence inside the Tower would have been good.

What the moviegoer was demanding was an actual visual of Sauron, I think, rather than a giant eye. PJ's movies implied that Sauron still had not attended a regular physical form. If I was making the movies I would have opted for just hinting at Sauron's appearance. Showing him in brief glimpses, wreathed in shadows. Letting our imaginations do the work.

Of course, PJ isn't noted for his subtlety.

[Inziladun]

I found what appears to be an interesting reference to the symbolic Eye of Sauron, in an unexpected place in the books. While Frodo was in Rivendell awaiting the start of the second phase of his quest, he looked at the sky and saw something somewhat ominous.

But low in the South one star shone red. Every night, as the Moon waned again, it shone brighter and brighter. Frodo could see it from his window, deep in the heavens, burning like a watchful eye that glared above the trees on the brink of the valley.

FOTR

'Red' and 'watchful eye'? And he sees it in the South. Surely that isn't just a coincidence. Even in Rivendell, is he being influenced by the Ring and his ordeal with the Nazgûl to see the Eye?