LotR1-FotR-Seq04

[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!!!

[Lathriel]

I like the Palanitir and I get very annoyed when people call it "that bowling ball"!
They obviously don't know the power of the Plantir and I think the movies should have explained them a bit more because some of the non-book readers got very confused on this point.
All Gandalf says in this scene is that "They are not all accounted for, the lost seeing stones." and that's it. The first time I saw the movie the line left me hanging because I was expecting some follo up information.
I had also imagined that Saruman would imprison Gandalf normally, minus the fight. They could have used that time wasted on the fight to explain some other things about ME. (just a suggestion)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

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).

I was just hoping to hear the 'speech long practiced' by Saruman as he tried to convince Gandalf to join up - hey, this is the EE version, and so we could have had some dialogue. Plus the thought about only one hand wearing the Ring would have been great. The audience could have been led to think that Saruman was being nice, then WHAM! Gandalf pokes a pin in the bubble and lets us see Saruman's real game. It could have been another demonstration of desire for the Ring making one loco.

With such a great voice, it was a shame to see what Christopher Lee's Saruman did say.

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

Avidly awaiting its release!

[Lush]

While we're on the topic of Saruman's voice,

I have great admiration for the sound technicians who worked on this film. Saruman's opening lines sound so eerie, and yet, at the same time, so voluptuous, almost sensual in their power. The depth and range give him so much charisma, he sounds practically hyptonic. This, in turn, explains to me why Gandalf would act so deferential, even goofy, around his old friend. This Saruman has got gravitas!

[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. The single light/Secret Fire is One in the beginning, but breaks up over time due to the actions of those who, wittingly or unwittingly serve evil: Morgoth throws down the Lamps of the Valar which shine out with a single, unbroken Light over Middle-earth. This 'broken' Light then takes the form of the Two Trees - a 'dual' light, Golden & Silver, which fluctuates. After the death of the Trees the Light is further fragmentered ('Splintered' in Flieger's words) into the Silmarils & the Sun & Moon. So, the Light not only diminishes towards darkness it also becomes broken up - indeed it is this very breaking up of the Light which causes it to diminish. So, Evil is broken or shattered Good. As Tolkien stated: 'Evil is fissiparous, but it cannot create.' (ie it can multply by breaking itself up into smaller bits, but not create more of itself)

This means that (in Tolkien's world at least) evil is not, cannot be, a unified force opposing Good. Gandalf talks about a traitor betraying himself, etc. We have Saruman's justification of his actions to Gandalf in the book: 'The White Light may be broken' & Gandalf's response: 'He that breaks a thing to find out what it is made of has left the path of wisdom'.

Where Jackson goes against Tolkien in his desire to simplify the story is in showing Saruman & Sauron working as one. In Tolkien's world/philosophy this is impossible, due to the way evil works - if Saruman & Sauron were allied in that way they would be less evil (ie they would be displaying loyalty & providing a mutual support system). We do see the Orcs in Cirith Ungol fighting amongst themselves, but I'm not sure the movie makers got why they did so - in one of the commentary tracks someone says its 'convenient' for Sam that they did. Far from being 'convenient' its actually inevitable that they turn on each other. Sauron has slaves, but clearly the very fact of their being slaves makes them desire to be free - hence more (potential, at least) fragmentation.

Presenting evil as a unified force opposing the Good makes it appear 'equal & opposite' the Good - something Tolkien was at pains to deny. Good is the only thing that truly exists - evil is not its opposite but its breaking up. The conflict is between wholeness & fragmentation, not between one form of wholeness (good) & another form of wholeness (evil).

Oh, and while we're talking about Saruman's voice - try listening to Peter Howell's portrayal of the character in the BBC radio version: amazing!

[Lalwendë]

There is of course the line "a new power is rising" as used in TT (during the glorious Evita-esque balcony sequence), which might also suggest that Saruman does think of himself as offering a third way. Though I think that only someone who has not read the books might be qualified to say whether they 'got' this point or not.

Originally Posted by davem

We do see the Orcs in Cirith Ungol fighting amongst themselves, but I'm not sure the movie makers got why they did so - in one of the commentary tracks someone says its 'convenient' for Sam that they did. Far from being 'convenient' its actually inevitable that they turn on each other. Sauron has slaves, but clearly the very fact of their being slaves makes them desire to be free - hence more (potential, at least) fragmentation.

I'm surprised that they said this on the commentary track. As film-makers I would have thought they would have been aware of one of the 'devices' for the 'evil' side or 'bad guys' in films, and that is to make them look as though they do not trust one another and cannot truly work together effectively. We often see, for example, film gangs turning on one another which then makes it easier for the 'good guys' to save the day. In that respect the battling Orcs do make sense, so this isn't just 'convenient'.

[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.

[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.