Question on Gandalf

[Fake Vencar]

I would imagine that a wizard is not about spells at all but about knowledge. Gandalf knows an awful lot about things such as his fireworks and about hobbits of course. Plus there isn't many places where he could have used magic in the books when he didn't anyway

[j. d. worthington]

Well, the suggestion to read the novel having been made, I'll take a swat at giving a few extra points:

For one thing, Gandalf is immensely powerful, but -- being one of the faithful among the Maiar rather than a follower of Melkor/Morgoth (Sauron's master), he is under strictures the enemy is not. In Tolkien's words: "for those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel" (The Silmarillion, p. 66). The Valar and Maiar must, as much as possible, work within the natural order to interfere as little as possible with the "free will" of the inhabitants of Arda. To use his power regularly not only taxes him within the circles of the world, but also would increase the danger of domineering the will of those around him; something which Morgoth, Sauron, and the Witch King certainly have no qualms about because their character is to dominate by fear and oppression, whereas those on the opposite side are there more as guardians and guides, to protect to some degree, but not to interfere with the free choice given to the Children of Iluvatar.

In addition, Gandalf (as one of the Maiar and therefore having been since before the making or marring of the world) know the dangerous temptation of power -- this is why he reacts as he does when Frodo offers him the Ring; he knows he could be corrupted:

'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

(The Fellowship of the Ring, Chap. 2: "The Shadow of the Past".)

In addition, Gandalf knew that the Witch King couldn't be slain "by hand of living man"; yet he stood up against him without (apparently) any fear -- it was the unexpected shift in fortune, which indicated that Sauron's plans were going awry, which called the leader of the Nazgûl away... and a lucky thing for Faramir, too, else he'd have been burned to death in the funeral pyre his father set for them both.

In the end, though, when you do read LotR, read it carefully; Tolkien put an awful lot of thought into all of this, and there are layers within layers within layers of subtleties going on there -- which is one of the reasons the book has lasted so long, and continued to grow in popularity as well as critical repute, and why it can bear many re-readings and still present you with surprising new facets each time.

[Wiglaf]

Wizards use their will to battle, lousy for a movie. Imagine two old men staring at each other thinking real hard. Ooooh! What cinematic excitement. Plus Maiar like wizards are subject to the will of the Valar, unless like Sauron and the Balrogs, they are Maiar in rebellion. However, the Valar who rule Middle Earth from over the sea are subject to the will of Iluvatar, the Creator. Even the work of the rebel Melkor/Morgoth, Sauron's former boss and a Valar, could be turned to Iluvatar's will. Each higher rank seems to be more atune to Iluvatar's will. Therefore Gandalf could have had an inkling that he was not destined to be the Witchking's ultimate defeat. As for magic, if your primary magical power is force of will and you are sworn not to exert your will by force over the people of Middle Earth and are for the time being limited to human form, you are severely restricted in your magic practicing ability.

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by pyan

Oh, I'm not saying that Jackson didn't make a good fist of the attempt to film an unfilmable book...just that if you attempt to analyse characters in the book by their actions in the film, you're going to run into problems.

This is a good example - only by reading the books do you realise that this impression, given by the film, is so far from the book's slow reveal of the power and weaknesses of the Istari...

I agree in general
but I do think that Jackson's casting of Sean Bean showed Boromir in a more honest way than did Tolkei

For me, Tolkein describes as a noble lordly type warrior who is brought down by the temptation of power, whereas Jackson portrays Bean as more a barbarian warrior, who , when attempting to take the Ring from Frodo , is acting as any barbarian would - by taking what he wanted , by force if necessary

[pyan]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

I agree in general
but I do think that Jackson's casting of Sean Bean showed Boromir in a more honest way than did Tolkein

For me, Tolkein describes as a noble lordly type warrior who is brought down by the temptation of power, whereas Jackson portrays Bean as more a barbarian warrior, who , when attempting to take the Ring from Frodo , is acting as any barbarian would - by taking what he wanted , by force if necessary

In what way is Bean's portrayal more "honest" than Tolkien's character?
Jackson makes possibly the worst character portrayal of the entire movie here.

Boromir is the eldest son and heir to the Steward of Gondor - with no king, the highest position in the land. He is of High Numenorean blood - he can trace his ancestry back as far as anyone in Middle-earth. He has been trained from birth to succeed his father as ruler, diplomat, law-maker, Prince and Lord of Minas Tirith. Whatever else he is, he is certainly not a "barbarian warrior"
The trouble with Sean Bean is that he plays Boromir as Sean Bean.....

[Teresa Edgerton]

I liked Sean Bean's Boromir -- who didn't remind me of a barbarian warrior at all. I saw a civilized man who was weary of fighting and desperate to save his people from what appeared to be certain destruction.

Boromir in the book seems to be driven more by pride, by the desire to be the hero. In the movie, it seemed to me that Boromir just wanted it all to be over. But after Boromir's death, Tolkien tells you things that humanize him, that make him seem more admirable and more accessible. Too late, because the impression of a chilly, prideful man is difficult to banish. Which Boromir is closer to the man Tolkien intended his readers to see? We could debate that for a long time, and I'll bet we would never agree.

It seems to me that Sean Bean (under Peter Jackson's direction) played the Boromir of those belated glimpses, the one whose kind but lordly manner won Pippin's devotion, the one beloved and deeply mourned by a father and a brother, the one whose death pierced Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn to the heart. It was a sympathetic portrayal, and it won my sympathy for a character I had never been able to warm to in the books. When Boromir died in the book, I was unmoved. All that eulogizing and I felt nothing. In the movie, I felt every one of those crossbow bolts go in, and it didn't take a lot of poetry on the part of the other characters to tell me the man would be missed.

I have a lot of quibbles about differences between the books and the movie, but Boromir was the one character where I thought the changes were the most justified.


But to return to Gandalf: I agree with those who say that it wasn't his job to take on the Witch King. One thing I didn't like in the movie was the way Jackson made it seem like the Witch King was somehow supposed to be Gandalf's counterpart and particular nemesis. That was just wrong.

[pyan]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, Teresa...

One thing I didn't like in the movie was the way Jackson made it seem like the Witch King was somehow supposed to be Gandalf's counterpart and particular nemesis. That was just wrong.

But not that...."I was the Enemy of Sauron" says Gandalf. (RotK - Bk VI - Ch V - The Steward and the King)
The plans that Gandalf laid for the defeat of Sauron made it unnecessary for him to fight Angmar directly, even if he could have killed him in person.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by pyan

The plans that Gandalf laid for the defeat of Sauron made it unnecessary for him to fight Angmar directly, even if he could have killed him in person.

Oh most definitely. If Eowyn hadn't killed him, the Witch King would have crackled, withered, and burned out at Orodruin with the other Nazgûl, only a short time later.

[j. d. worthington]

To return for a moment to Boromir... in some ways, I agree with Teresa. I didn't particularly care for Boromir when I read the book (to use a trite phrase) lo, these many years ago; though with later readings I've come to have a higher and higher regard for him, and to feel his death. However, I do have a quibble with the handling of some of the scenes with Boromir -- not Sean Bean's fault, I think, but Jackson's approach. It was a bit too "in your face" and broad at times (such as parts of the scene where he attempts to take the Ring). Yet we do see a great deal of nobility, certainly in the extended version, which brings out a great deal more character development and subtlety of layering with him... well played by Sean Bean, I felt. And I do very much like the way his death is handled.... Not that it's better than Tolkien, but that it is a very valid reading for a dramatic adaptation.

And on Gandalf: Precisely. I think we've been a bit too conditioned to think almost in Hollywood terms when it comes to wizards (albeit the battle between Merlin and Madame Mim in White's Sword in the Stone might have something to do with it...); we too often fail to see the meatier, subtle forms of power, as we're too used to flash rather than substance. Tolkien was from a much older form of storytelling, which gave the reader credit for picking up on subtle touches, shadowings, symbolism, layers of meaning, etc.; he was also one who, as I mentioned earlier, put a great deal of thought into these things as he went along, and it shows, as Gandalf is a very richly textured and complex character.....

[Wayward Ho!]

It's also worth noting that the term 'wizard' is a rough translation of the elvish term 'istar' which places the emphasis on the wise root of 'wizard'. The wizards of the Third Age bear little resemblance to the wizards of later legend according to Tolkien. Although in The Hobbit we do see Gandalf take on a more traditional wizardly role.

Thought I would add that I am in agreement with poster above. Sean Bean's potrayal of Boromir was one of the highlights of Jackson's adaptation for me. Boromir's death being possibly the zenith of the whole production. Apart from a few flashes of genius from Andy Serkis it was all down hill from there...

[Briareus Delta]

Originally Posted by Toraspanda

Read the books Jaire, and forget those dreadful films - which could hardly be less true to Tolkien!

Succinct and apposite. Love it!!!

[Balinor]

Originally Posted by Kissmequick

or weilded the secret fire of Anor, or survived being wreathed in flames or even smote his ruin uppon the mountainside

It's been a long time since I read them...but wasn't the secret fire a referance to the elven ring he had that protected him from fire etc?

[Balinor]

Originally Posted by Wayward Ho!

Apart from a few flashes of genius from Andy Serkis it was all down hill from there...

The charge of the Rohirrim, most amazing part of the third movie. but yes, i did like Boromir a lot in the films.

[Kissmequick]

Originally Posted by Balinor

It's been a long time since I read them...but wasn't the secret fire a referance to the elven ring he had that protected him from fire etc?

more an indicater he was a servant of the gods.

Therefore Ilúvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Ea

also

"He [Melkor] had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Iluvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Iluvatar."

Silmarillion

In his Letters, Tolkien once states that this very fire is the holy spirit, and that Gandalf is a servant of it.


Anor is the sun, and so literally the 'flame of Anor' would be the light of the sun, which originated in the fiery fruit of Laurelin, one of the Two trees of Valinor. Gandalf seems to be referring, then, to the power he gains as a servant of the Lords of the West, in defiance to the corrupted darkness of the Balrog. And ofc the ring, Narya is not of the gods but elven made, so one could assume that he is not referrring to that.

However I don't think it has ever been stated 100% either way, so it's all a matter of your interpretation.

[orionsixwings]

Don't know if this has been said before, but Gandalf along with the four others that were sent to Middle Earth were not allowed to use their natural powers against the enemy, Sauron. Of course, Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Palando, and Alatar were all equal to Sauron in terms of power (they are all Maiars), but as the Istari, the physical form they were given when they were sent to help Middle Earth, they were prohibited by Eru to use these powers and instead were only there to guide men using their powers of persuasion.

That is the reason why you don't see him wielding his staff as though it was a wand, conjuring spell after spell after spell. He did fight Saruman in the film though, which was fun to watch.

Balrogs are demons that are beyond the abilities of normal warriors. In fact, Gandalf said it himself in the film, the enemy was beyond any of them, except him. The magic that he used to defeat it was great even though it wasn't flashy.