|
|
 Saruman,
Wizardry and Magic
Consider: Tolkien did not write
The Fellowship of the Ring as a standalone novel; and his
villain, Sauron, only comes into play in the full scope of the
"trilogy." Jackson's movie, however, must work as standalone entertainment:
and so it must have a viable villain.
Analysis by Greg Wright
|
THE FELLOWSHIP
OF THE RING
MONTHLY FEATURE: MAY 2002
Saruman,
Magic and Wizardry
This
page was created on May 15, 2002
This page was last updated on
May 31, 2005
|
|
Saruman, Magic and Wizardry
|
|
In
April, 2004, this web page was annotated to address errors in
the text. Click on highlighted text to review errata.
|
 Why
Wizards?
Wizards are suddenly hot. I remember seeing John Boorman's version
of Excalibur in 1981 and being particularly numbed by the
Arthurian legend. Despite early, and memorable, performances by
Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson and Patrick Stuart, it seemed that most
audiences agreed: the whole wizard thing was just too dorky for
words. Nigel Terry as King Arthur didn't help matters for post-Watergate
post-Jimmygate cynics, of course; nor did memories of John Cleese's
wizard "Tim" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). But
suddenly, with the resurgence of interest in The Lord of the
Rings, and the 21st century phenomenon called Harry Potter
(among other entertainments), the concept of wizardry is once again
part and parcel of our cultural fabric. So the question has frequently
been raised: what is wizardry in The Lord of the Rings, what
did it mean to Tolkien, and what about the movie's presentation
of magic?
|
 The
first two of these questions are really very easy to address. In
brief, the "powers" of Tolkien's universe have a very definite hierarchy.
Eru, the One, is the supreme being, a perfect correlate to the one
god of monotheistic religions. Under him are an order of created,
"angelic" beings: the Ainur. Some of these, the Valar, were given
the task of ordering and supervising the affairs of Arda (our Earth),
and were variously described by Tolkien as analogous to the Greek
gods, or Catholicism's Archangels. Others, lesser of the Ainur,
followed the Valar in their work in Arda: the Maiar. These beings
are of a class commonly thought of as "angels" or "demons." While
not explicit in the text of LOTR, Tolkien makes it clear
that Sauron himself is one of the Maiar (originally in the service
of Eru, and later a follower of the rebellious Melkor), as are Balrogs
and other evil spirit beings; and as are the Istari, the Wizards.
So in Tolkien's world, wizards are not humans with supernatural
powers; they are, in fact, supernatural beings. So in Gandalf and
Saruman we have angelic representatives of the Divine: one who is
faithful and one (like Milton's Lucifer, or even Lucas' Anakin Skywalker?)
who has been seduced by evil.
|
Why
Magic?
Magic is a fairly omnipresent feature of Tolkien's books.
From Gandalf's perspective, some very simple "tricks" of his trade
could be found in his fireworks, or in his ability to provide light
for the Fellowship as they pass through Moria. One act of which he
was particularly "proud," however, was the flourish he added to the
flood that descended upon the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen.
Elrond (through the power of one of the Rings crafted by Celebrimbor
in ages past) controls the flow of Bruinen (not, as mentioned previously
in the February feature,
through the incantation delivered by Arwen in the movie), but Gandalf
adds, through magic, the appearance of white stallions galloping amidst
the foam of the flood. Of what nature is such magic? Is it akin to
the miracles performed by Jesus in the Bible, like raising Lazarus
from the dead? Not at all. Nowhere in Tolkien's fiction does any created
being have the power of life over death. In his letters, Tolkien explains
frequently that "magic," which is also practiced by the Elves in imitation
of the Valar, is a form of Art. It is the ability to apply knowledge
of things as they truly are in such a way that they become "transformed"
in the eyes of the uninitiated. Middle-earth's fireworks are a perfect
example: "magic" to Hobbits, but perfectly understandable to a modern
audience. The mithril-inlaid gates of Moria are another: the product
of the elevated craft of the Dwarves and Elves, but one whose secret
has simply been lost. |
Why,
Then, Jackson's Saruman?
It doesn't take a genius, then, to see that Peter Jackson has taken
some liberties in his presentation of Wizards and Magic in The
Fellowship of the Ring. Two scenes in particular stand out.
The first is the seemingly gratuitous "wizard battle" at Orthanc.
While in Tolkien's book, the event happens rather peacefully (if
with chagrin on Gandalf's part) it is wholly explainable within
the framework of Tolkien's spiritual hierarchy: Saruman is the most
powerful of the Istari, and Gandalf must yield to his powers while
in his "spiritual space." In the movie, however, it seems that Jackson
simply wants to present a WWF (Wizard's Wrestling Federation) scene
for the more crass in his audience. Jackson's purpose, though, has
more to do with narrative flow and audience satisfaction than one
might think. Consider: Tolkien did not write The
Fellowship of the Ring as a standalone novel; and his villain,
Sauron, only comes into play in the full scope of the "trilogy."
Jackson' movie, however, must work as standalone entertainment:
and so it must have a viable villain. Thus it is that the facts
of Gandalf's imprisonment even surface in the first installment.
In the books, that subplot is not revealed until much later.
|
Better Understanding Jackson's Intent
For me, a second key "scene" is Saruman's creation of
the Uruk-hai. In the books, Saruman's devilry all happens in the
background; Jackson, however, in order to add tension to the Uruk-hai's
pursuit of the Fellowship along the banks of Anduin, brings it to
the foreground in all its grisly, fiendish, barbaric creativity.
And this is a potential problem: because the audience may think
that Jackson (and Tolkien, by extension) believe that the ability
to create is a possibility through Magic; that is, that those who
practice magic, such as wizards, have powers equal to that of the
Creator. Tolkien was at pains to explain that Saruman's actions
were a perversion of existing creation, not an original, life-giving
act. Jackson's visual treatment of the event does not make that clear;
indeed, perhaps the opposite. And so it is important that we distinguish
Tolkien's intent from Jackson's, and realize that some "errors"
that Jackson has introduced have been at the service of narrative
effectiveness.
That having been said, we can safely assert, I think, that Jackson's
magic is a touch more supernatural and less "artistic" in tone than
Tolkien's (think again of Arwen's incantations at the Ford of Bruinen),
and perhaps worthy of holding a bit more at arm's length. |
| LOTR Coverage Index here
E-mail Greg Wright here
|
OFFICIAL
SITE
The Lord of the Rings © 1999-2004 New Line Cinema. All Rights Reserved.
|
| |
|
|
