September 21, 2002

Alowyn's Complaints
Swynwr

Hello, Alowyn. I perused your article with more than half an eye and I have to say that your complaints aren't very original, and for the most part have been answered in this section in one form or another before. Firstly, in reference to your argument on Saruman's robes, you might care to notice that, in the film, they are a faded white, and if you've seen any of the images of Gandalf The White on the web you'll know that in comparison to his robes, Saruman's attire looks quite dirty. The implication therefore is subtle and far more stylish than having Saruman stride around looking like a giant traffic-light. I think PJ chose wisely here; the multi-coloured robe would have been gawdy, over-the-top, and no doubt would have undermined the gravitas of this particular scene, as well as raising more than a few eyebrows among the film-going audience. Furthermore to your comments about Saruman's extended role in the film, I think it was a necessary alteration, not only to develop and explore the crucial relationship between the two wizards and to cleverly observe the notion that they are, in fact, two opposite expressions of the same character, but also to provide FOTR with a solid villain. Saruman's threat is a truly menacing one in the book, and the film would have lacked the much-needed presence of a "tangible" baddie in this chunk of the saga had PJ not manipulated this element somewhat. It is a change that deserves credit, in my opinion. You also mention the wizard duel, well could I please refer you to my articles entitled "Re: Warg's cowering Greyhame" and "Wizard Duel"? Finally, the alterations you complain about are truly minor and have only been applied in order to ensure that LOTR stands on its feet as a marvellous film as well as a marvellous book. If you're really honest with yourself you'll realise that the film version has not suffered due to the omissions you mention. After all, the extensive Lothlorien scene is being restored, along with a number of other scenes. What you must realise is that a story must go through a process of transformation, to whatever extent, if it is to make a successful transition from book to film. We're talking about two different mediums of storytelling here. A literal and precise cinematic interpretation of a book would never make a good film, simply due to the difference between the two mediums. As Sir Ian Mckellen himself observed in response to a similar complaint from a fan (and I quote as approximately as my memory allows); "Even now as the films have been shot, Tolkien's book remains intact." So what's the problem, Alowyn?