[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Presenting Saruman as merely a servant of Sauron works against one of Tolkien's central themes - evil is 'fragmentary': it is a consequence of the fracturing/fragmenting of the Good. Light is the ultimate symbol of Good in Tolkien's world.

I am not sure that it is fair to criticise Jackson for not adhering to Tolkien's views on the nature of good and evil, or for exploring this particularly thorny aspect of the concept in the film.

The two key questions, for me, when considering Jackson's portrayal of Saruman as Sauron's ally, are as follows:

1. Does it work better in the context of the film?

2. Does it set up any internal inconsistency?

I will answer the second of these first. It has been suggested that there is an inconsistency in that, had Saruman been allied with Sauron, then the Orcs who captured Merry and Pippin would have headed for Mordor rather than Isengard. I would disagree with this. They were captured on the eastern border of Rohan. Isengard was much closer. As far as Saruman and his orcs were concerned, Rohan had been rendered impotent by Saruman's control over Theoden. So it made more sense to take the shorter route and have Saruman deliver the Ring to Sauron by "Nazgul-mail" (As, indeed, Sauron anticipated happening in the book). I therefore don't really see any inconsistency here.

So does it work better in the context of the film? Well, first I should say that I find the "three way" struggle between Sauron, Saruman and the Free Peoples inherently more interesting as a story than a simple two-sided approach. So, all other things being equal, I would prefer Saruman to have been portrayed as a separate party in the struggle, allying with Sauron only where it suited his own ends. But I think that Lalwendë hit the nail on the head:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that they may have done this to simplify Saruman for the audience, who may not have coped with a 'bad guy' proposing a 'third way' suddenly materialising so close to the start of the story; the film focussed on the good/evil divide, and was complex a story enough without troubling poor cinema goers' minds with Saruman's true aims.

Yes, there are films which successfully portray three competing factions. But normally, the different factions (and particularly those controlling them) are well-defined and each play a major role in the film. In the LotR film trilogy, we have Sauron set up as the main villain at the outset. Yet, apart from the initial skirmish with the Black Riders and the odd flash of his eye, we see and hear very little of him and his minions until the third film in the trilogy. Saruman is the main villain of the first and second films. Having him as an independent agent would have detracted from the force of Sauron as the main enemy. Many cinema-goers would, I think, have been wondering what all the fuss about Sauron was when Saruman was the one causing the main characters all the trouble. Setting Saruman up as an ally of Sauron completely avoids this difficulty.

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.

And, in any event, those of us who know and love the book story can always imagine Saruman as being a deceitful ally of Sauron, pursuing his own ends, if we wish. There is little, if anything, in the films which actively precludes such an interpretation.

One further point for now:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In the books we do not actually meet Saruman until the Ents have destroyed Isengard. All we know of him is what others tell us about him. This is one of those instances where we did have to 'see' scenes which we do not personally 'see' in the books. What does everyone else think of this?

Originally Posted by mormegil

This definately works on film, if it were simply dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf or Elrond and Gandalf it would be rather boring and uneventful.

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? On the one hand, the question of what had happened to Gandalf might have contributed towards the suspense. On the other, it would have rendered the Council of Elrond overlong and slightly unbalanced, with Gandalf's "flashback" contribution eclipsing what others had to say. My guess is that, without Frodo delaying the start of his journey in the hope that Gandalf would return, the tension would not be increased significantly. But some play might have been made of Gandalf promising to meet with them in Bree and then not turning up as promised.