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.....