[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.