Saruman - The Greatest Failing of the LOTR Adaptation
 

Let me just preface this by saying I sincerely liked the first two LOTR films. They just disappointed me in some areas and this area is the one most grievous to me as Saruman was m favorite Tolkien villain.

Why did the movies turn Saruman into Sauron's toady? True, he was corrupted by Sauron's will, and his machinations ultimately served Sauron, but that was never his intent. He is a peer of Sauron cosmically speaking and he was very cunning in his own right. Moreover, he was an interesting villain. Unlike The Silmarillion, LOTR paints a rather simplistic picture of good and evil. Sauron by this point is devoid of anything resembling goodness and is all about torture and mwahahaha evil just for the lulz. He reigns over an empire of faceless goons who are kinda defined by being Generically Evil.. But Saruman? He is a "human" face of wickedness; someone we can look to and say "yes...I can see why he is doing this." Even when he repeatedly rejects his chances for redemption, it's presented in the most pitiable and understandable of ways. Pride is something we all must struggle with and Saruman was mastered by his, to his great loss as he was forever banished from paradise. His end is extremely poignant and tragic and I don't know which is more insulting, the way one cut of ROTK has him vanishing never to be heard from again or the extended cut where he just dies in the dumbest way imaginable.

I'm sure the Catholic Tolkien wouldn't have made this comparison but The Istari kind of make me think of Jesus. Wasn't he God's attempt to lower Himself to that of a human being? To feel all our emotions, our weaknesses? The description of the Wizards in Unfinished Tales is much the same:
"[the Valar] sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years."

I also found this part fascinating:
"For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had needs to learn much anew by slow experience, and though they knew whence they came the memory of the Blessed Realm was to them a vision from afar off, for which (so long as they remained true to their mission) they yearned exceedingly."

Saruman succubmed to human vices after two thousand years of what must have seem fruitless labor. He lost sight of Heaven where he came from and instead fixated on Earth and all its comparatively meager dealings.

Now, yes, I suppose Denethor got it worse as he was transformed from a broken man into little more than comic relief, and the less said about Sauron the Evil Spotlight of Doom the better, but I honestly don't care about them as much as I do about Saruman. I think he was possibly the most three-dimensional character in the books apart from maybe Frodo himself.

Now I think Sir Lee was a perfect casting choice but they removed everything that made Saruman....Saruman. Don't you think?

I think that Tolkien did see the Istari being Maia as angelic beings, and they are incarnate, but Gandalf makes it clear that he is a messenger and servant of a greater power so the Jesus comparison is perhaps too strong though I am not much of a theologian (there are some around though so you may get a more erudite answer). Saruman could be seen as a Fallen Angel like Satan in Paradise lost. I would contest that evil is so black and white in the Silmarillion. Morgoth yes but there are plenty of his adversaries who are not whiter than white.

The critical difference between the arrival of Jesus and the sending of the Istari lies in the purposes behind the plans.

The Istari were volunteers, recruited from the angelic Maia to go to Middle-earth and work against Sauron. This they would do not by direct confrontation, but by teaching, inspiring, and leading. They had to take the forms of Men so as to better understand the plight of the Children of Ilúvatar, as well as to help ensure they would keep a semblance of humility, and not lord their abilities over those they had come to aid.

Jesus did those things also, but his main accomplishment was to be his self-sacrifice, a one-time expiation of sin for all. This was his destiny, which he well knew.

Also, along the lines of what Mith said, Jesus was not a mere angel, but an embodiment of God Himself. Eru Ilúvatar does not enter Arda, nor is any form of him ever seen.

I've seen it argued that Gandalf's sacrifice on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm was comparable. It is not, for the reason that Gandalf did not know beforehand that his death would be required. He had not arrived in the mortal lands with the purpose of dying. It became necessary to confront the Balrog and save his friends (and more importantly, advance the Ring's destruction), but that was "chance", as Bombadil would say it.

After the death of Jesus on the cross, his task was done. Gandalf's "death" was dissimilar, in that he was re-embodied and sent back temporarily, to see to Sauron's defeat.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What I said in my post was that The Sil had a lot more gray area in terms of morality than LOTR. As you noted, many of the Elves who opposed Morgoth were selfish, vain and some were just plain jerks. In addition there were all kinds of "vllains" ranging from Melkor down to poor Maeglin. By contrast, I think Saruman and maybe Grimm are the only bad guys in LOTR who receive such understanding while their fellows on Team Evil are handled rather simplistically. Sauron by this point just wants power for its own sake and look at what Gandalf said of him and Hobbits; that as worthless as hobbits were to him, Hobbits enslaved and miserable would make him happier than hobbits free and happy.

Saruman meanwhile is more akin to early Second Age Sauron in mentality I think in that he has fallena nd desires power but he at least believes he wants to use that power for good.

And fair enough on the Jesus analogy. I figured it ws a stretch anyway.

I definitely agree with him being an interesting villain. Saruman is indeed, fascinating and in many ways you can say he is a scientist, breaking down things and studying the parts...although it turns out his motivations for his research is to just gain more power, not to have deeper understanding or to really help anyone.

Although, I don't think the movies did a bad job with his portrayal. Christopher Lee is an immensely talented actor as well as being an avid Tolkien reader, he knew how to play the part to show Saruman was after the Ring for himself, not to be Sauron's "toady." There is a scene in FOTR when Saruman is in a room by himself after using the palantir and an orc stumbles in asking "what orders from Mordor?" Lee's body language is slumped and it's almost as if he's sick, but it's definitely portraying the conflict that at one point Saruman had to go through in his personal corruption. He feels now the charade is up, he can't realign with the West because he spilled his true intentions to Gandalf, and he starts feeling the vice he's caught in trying to play Sauron as a fool.

There is one version told in UT: The Hunt for the Ring, where the Witch-King pays Saruman a visit and it creeps him out enough to try to go talk to an imprisoned Gandalf again about joining together to defeat Sauron, but by this point Gandalf had escaped. Anyway, I just meant that I think FOTR and TTT portrayed Saruman well mostly because Christopher Lee knows how to play his roles. ;)

Your point about his botched ROTK disappearance (and death in the extended edition) is spot on though. Actually, it angered Lee enough to publicly say that he was boycotting the extended edition premiere. I mean it was clear from the beginning that PJ wasn't going to film the Scouring of the Shire, which was fine and understandable in my opinion. But because of where TTT ended, it left a significant loose end to tie up in ROTK and that's how the beginning of ROTK felt like.

Sorry, iread that back to front. :( My library session was timing out... I think though that while more characters are basically good in LOTR many have to face the ethical decision to disobey orders.

Ahem, inzil Jesus was reembodied and sent back for albeit a short time according to scripture.

Yes, but not to finish his mission. That's what I meant to get across.

I think Sauron is still an interesting villain. Mainly because in spite of his godlike powers he has many moments of únsecurity and fear.

Plus I always wondered if the eye hovering about Barad-Dur is his body, or if he has a body sitting on a throne somewhere and his spirit is somehow incarnated in the eye as well.

I like it is left so open - the whole idea of the chief villain being an eye hovering above his own castle, presumably only communicating by telepathy with his minions seems just weird. Yet it works. It would also work if the eye was maybe a technical-magical contraption, or something he could possess when he wanted to while his body would then sit lifeless in his throne.

That sounds like the mind-transfer Jutsu that Ino uses when she possesses someone else.

http://youtu.be/aUCvGs4YpUU

"Why did the movies turn Saruman into Sauron's toady?"

Because here, as in some many other things, Jackson severely underestimates (that's the nice word) the intelligence of the audience. He (or Philippa) actually says as much in an interview, that they didn't think the audience could handle the "added complication" of Saruman as a freelancer rather than a minion.

Well i just hope I'm not alone in thinking Saruman was Tolkien's best villain.

Well he WAS.

Only he had his own agenda, but it clashed with Sauron's. The rest is history ;)