The Eye: what was it?

[skip spence]

^There sure is. One wonders if there was any influence between them, one way or another. 1984 was published 1949, LotR in 1954-55, but Tolkien started writing on it much earlier unless I'm mistaken.

Originally Posted by Inzil

I'm mostly convinced that the Eye was mainly symbolic, a contrivance of Sauron in Third Age 'tyrant' guise to appear more threatening, to his forces and his enemies alike. As someone else may have mentioned, the idea of his Great Eye constantly observing them was probably a considerable motivation for his troops as well.

Agreed, and I'm not really suggesting that the Eye was some cunning device Sauron conjured up to see better. It's psychological warfare, and that is why I'm not entirely discounting the idea of a physical Eye on Barad-Dur, gazing over the lands. That would keep the Shagrats and Gorbags of Mordor thinking of the lesson at hand and not their own petty schemes, methinks.

I kind of agree with ElanorFB that the movie-image worked pretty well and served its function - twas' a bit over the top perhaps, but I suppose you have to be rather obvious in the big blockbusters. However, equating Sauron with it made for some glaring lapses of logic that are harder to forgive.

[wayseer]

PJ had little choice but to create an Eye with which we, humble folk, could relate. For Tolkien the Eye was part of the Evil with which he is dealing.

Sauron did not 'need' an eye, he used the palantir onto which he could impose his will and create images which suggested the future to those who gazed into them. The Eye was a symbol of oppression and fear - that fear that haunts all of us in those unguarded moments. When we are controlled by fear there is no need for anyone to keep an 'eye' on us - we are struck impotent by our own sense of oppression and helplessness - we are no threat to those who would seek to place us under their control.

That is why Sauron is Evil - he HAS to know the future - and to KNOW the future in all its detail is to remain all powerful - to play God no less. To KNOW the future robs everyone of hope, drains all of any thought of adventure, robs us of our sense of wonder. In the end we avoid risk-taking.

The Fellowship is a risk - the future is far from certain. That is why the Fellowship succeeds and Sauron and his host fails.

I know all this probably bypassed the movie-goer but I suspect PJ saw some things better that Tolkien. However, I don't know how else PJ could have gone about creating the Eye other than making is rather visible and identifiable.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by wayseer

However, I don't know how else PJ could have gone about creating the Eye other than making it rather visible and identifiable.

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.

[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?

[Juicy-Sweet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

^There sure is. One wonders if there was any influence between them, one way or another. 1984 was published 1949, LotR in 1954-55, but Tolkien started writing on it much earlier unless I'm mistaken.


Agreed, and I'm not really suggesting that the Eye was some cunning device Sauron conjured up to see better. It's psychological warfare, and that is why I'm not entirely discounting the idea of a physical Eye on Barad-Dur, gazing over the lands. That would keep the Shagrats and Gorbags of Mordor thinking of the lesson at hand and not their own petty schemes, methinks.

I kind of agree with ElanorFB that the movie-image worked pretty well and served its function - twas' a bit over the top perhaps, but I suppose you have to be rather obvious in the big blockbusters. However, equating Sauron with it made for some glaring lapses of logic that are harder to forgive.

Dunno --- I saw the movie as representing Sauron AS the eye floating on top of Barad Dur, his body consisting in the eye. And I found it silly - how would you go on wearing a ring if your body was in the shape of an eye?

I don't like the idea of it floating freely either. There's no things or people levitating of flying by willforce or by magic in LOTR - so I find it out of place that it can float.