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 Nazgūl. 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-dūr. Anyone else see a bit of a contradiction with Saruman saying that "[Sauron] cannot yet take physical form..."?
Quote:
|
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.