LotR1-FotR-Seq04

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Yet the way he is actually depicted doesn't show the subtilty of his plan. The book version is great where we see Saruman try and convince Gandalf and use the logic that "our goal is to accomplish order and we can do so by claiming the ring". It seems to me that Saruman is a pawn of Sauron with no agenda of his own. I think this detracts from the actual character of Saruman and doesn't show the duplicitious nature of his treachery.

I agree that they did simplify Saruman's true aims, and it did come across as though he simply wanted to follow Sauron. 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. At least I hope that this wa sthe aim, as otherwise I would take it that they themselves misinterpreted the nature of Saruman.

Still, even without this, I do think that this was one of the best character depictions in the films, simply due to the sheer quality of Christopher Lee's acting! And there is a hint that Saruman is more clever than we are led to believe. As portrayed, you can see him thinking on his toes all the time.

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. In this instance we are able to see and feel Saruman much more on a tangilbe level and it at least shows us where Gandalf went after he abandoned the hobbits.

Yes, it would have been incredibly dull to only have heard of Saruman through the talk of other people in the film. Not only that, but when we read the book, when we first actually meet Saruman, we can flip back to the pages where he was mentioned before and view that information in a new light. You can't do that with a film, so this was the only way I believe.

The other thing about Christopher Lee's voice being so suitable for Saruman is that he is able to convey 'command' or 'authority'. It's worth comparing him in LotR to how he acts in The Wicker Man; in this film again he uses his voice to convey a character who it is very difficult to defy.

[Boromir88]

Again, I have to give kudos to the acting, and I will continue because the acting is one of the stronger points of the movies. I think most of the actors did a great job in making convincing characters in the movies. Chris Lee is no different, bringing in such a beloved Tolkien fan as well as an experienced actor was a big plus for the movies.

morm brings up a good point about the simplification of Saruman's goals. He certainly does seem like Sauron's puppet, a miniature Sauron. He becomes Sauron in TTT as Sauron is in ROTK. In the movies I got this picture that he was like "the lower boss," you know in those video games...to get to the head hancho you have to beat through the lower bosses. Saruman is certainly simplified, I believe he says "We must join with Sauron."

Also, I'm not convinced that the audience could not have seen a different motive. Where now instead of just plain Middle-earth vs. Sauron/Saruman we have Middle-earth vs. Sauron vs. Saruman (which is the way I pictured it in the books). Saruman may have communicated and shared details with Sauron, but I got the impression that Sauron was using Saruman for his own purposes, and Saruman was planning to backstab Sauron.

Now could we have had this in the movies without creating a lot of complexion? I think so. I think it's been done in other movies as well, where we have multiple factions, multiple goals for each side. Each side is in it for a different reason.

Braveheart comes to mind right now where we have the Big Bad English dominating the Scots, but we have the Scottish nobles who can't break away from England because they're fighting amongst themselves. They can't decide who is to rule them, and they can't be united, each "faction" has their own agenda.

So, I think portraying Saruman as this man who comes to Gandalf and says..."Hey, together we can beat Sauron and we can use this Ring to restore Order and overthrow Sauron." And of course, Gandalf being the good guy that he is, saying that's all wrong. But, now we see that Middle-earth also has to deal with Saruman, not just as a mimic of Sauron, but someone who's after the Ring himself for his own power. (And we'll see this used later in Boromir/Denethor/Faramir scenese especially TTT EE. Don't see why it not here).

With all that being said, I think the movies did do a good job of establishing the feeling of "something's not right with this other wizard." Even before we meet him we have Gandalf tell Frodo "I must see the head of my order, he is both wise and powerful. Trust me Frodo. He'll no what to do." Lines like that may seem, ok everything's going to be fine, but it's just a use of irony. Just by using "Trust me, Frodo. He'll no what to do." I don't know about you, but I got a sense of, "Umm, he's not going to know what to do," or atleast what the "right" thing to do is.

Then when we get to the actual scene we start having our suspicions reaffirmed. Once we get to the Palantir, and Gandalf touches it, with the flash of "The Eye of Sauron." We then get the history of the Palantiri and that's basically the climax right there, we now are pretty confident Saruman's not a good guy.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Chris Lee is, without a doubt, perfect for the role of Saruman. His appearance, his voice, his commanding demeanor, totally awesome. One of the best-casted parts in a movie that had many great ones.

I too would have liked to have seen Saruman's independence from Sauron. I don't think this would have been too difficult to accomplish, and kudos to Boromir for several great points about that.

I liked the fight scene and loved the accompanying score, which, as critics have negatively pointed out, is reminiscent of John Williams' Duel of the Fates in SWI:PM. All in all, while I would have liked to see some more complexity in Saruman's character, I thought he was done excellently and was very impressed in my first look at him in the movie. Plus, Isengard and Orthanc absolutely rock!

[Lathriel]

I as well like the scenery.
As for the trees that are still standing. If they had already been gone there would have been no tension and it would have been so easy to guess that Saruman was a bad guy. Plus when the orcs tear the trees down later in the movie it makes you mad because you knew of what the Orthanc looked like before.
I didn't expect the wizard fight when I first saw the movie. Somehow I know I wouldn't have lked it if lightbolts would be shot across the room. I guess its because it would remind me of the lazer beams in Star Wars.
Anyway, I'll add more to the discussion later.

[Essex]

Alatar, good point about Saruman being less of a 'traitor' to Sauron in the movie, and not really showing he wants the Ring for himself.

Also, won’t this conflict later with the scene where the Uruks of the White Hand head for Isengard and not Barad-dur?

Exactly. These are the points that I'll make throughout these discussions. Change certain things and you have LOTS of inconsistencies throughout the movie, and it can have a domino effect.

Now to me, these sort of changes to the plot that have not been CORRECTLY thought out are more annoying than BIG 'Changes' that do not make Big Inconsistencies to the rest of the film. For example, Faramir bringing the Hobbits to Osgiliath is one of the biggest 'Changes' that people hate from these movies, but it really doesn't have any knock on effects to the rest of the movies. Whereas the Saruman 'change' does give inconsistencies later when we have his Orcs bring merry and pippin back to isengard instead of straight to Mordor as Alatar mentions above........

[Tuor of Gondolin]

The scenary of Gandalf going into Orthanc was, I think,
one of the best bits in this section. It made clear the later
trashing of the local environment by Saruman and the Ents
resentment of destroying all those trees, etc.

I've always seen Saruman imprisoning Gandalf in a much
more "civilized" manner, with no overt physical action
taken by either, given Saruman's powers vis-a-vis Gandalf
the Grey and Saruman's forces men/orcs/wolves present
in Orthanc.
(A barroom brawl between two maia seems a bit tacky).
An understated hint at force by Saruman would also have
been unsettling for a movie audience, with an implied threat
of torture, with perhaps a reprise of Gollum being tortured
being briefly shown.

I've also thought more could have been used of the voice of
Saruman influencing people, given Christopher Lee's great
voice.

[Essex]

Follows a list of the main differences, and why I believe they were done or were a mistake -

Gandalf telling Saruman that he's found the Ring.

In the book I think it works better that Saruman insinuates he knows Gandalf has found the Ring, and that Gandalf, in seing Saruman's mind, will not tell him so.

Saruman says:

For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?

and then Gandalf replies once he knows Saruman's intentions:

But I would not give it, nay, I would not give even news of it to you, now that I learn your mind

I think the reason why we can have it this way in the film is 'ok' because:

1/ the movie goers do not know the history between gandalf and saruman, and gandalf's growing mistrust of the head of the council (ie stuff read from unfinished tales, etc)

2/ Frodo hsa already left the Shire, so is 'safer' from Saruman going after him to capture him.

Not that it's better. I prefer the book version.

What I DO like though is the way the scriptwriters take mounds of narration from different sources and enclose it in one quick bit of speech from saruman ( who actaully states none of this in the book - but it works really well on film)

Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. Concealed within his fortress, the Lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf. A great eye, lidless, wreathed in flame

These lines (or at least the Key words) were paraphrased from:

Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age
FOTR, The Breaking of the Fellowship
FOTR, The Council of Elrond
TTT, The Passage of the Marshes
ROTK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields
Silmarillion, AKALLABÊTH The Downfall of Númenor

Saruman showing the Palantir to Gandalf - As we all know Saruman does not show the stone to Gandalf, or tell him he has one in the book. Jackson uses this to show us Saruman's communication with Sauron, which we do not find out in the books until the Two Towers. I don't mind this change, it gives the audience information (again becasue he hasn't got a narrator!) by the characters

And finally, film Saruman:

They crossed the river Isen on Midsummer's eve, disguised as riders in black

- in the 'official' time line of LOTR the Black riders didn't cross the isen until after gandalf escaped - If we had more of a tie in to the books, imagine the scenes with saruman confronting the Witch King at his gates, and then Gandalf escaping as Saruman reaches the top of Orthanc (as told in unfinished tales, isn't it?) - of course this would mean a big change to the timeline of events prior to this scene.......ah well, can't have everything.

My 3 season mini series of Lord of the Rings will have all this back story in it once it gets made!!!