One point: Gandalf the White's first use of magic is when we first encounter him (as the white), when he uses his staff to counteract the three trackers' weapons: "The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leaped to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and his grey rags were flung away. His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame."
One thing I love in Tolkien, is that is seems that minor magic is showy (the pinecones in The Hobbit), but very powerful magic is usually very subtle (Lothlorien, the battle of wills in Meduseld and at the gates of Minus Tirith). A possible exception to this is the door in Moria, shattered between Gandalf and the Balrog... but that's also, perhaps a mix of relatively minor magic (the holding spell) and the will of the two Maia.
I think magic in Lord of the rings is more like magic in Shakespeare where disturbances in nature reflect the plot. think of the storms in Macbeth or the witches in Macbeth where it's not obvious what magic they actually do. We should not forget that in Lord of the Rings Tolkien fixes one of his disappointments with Macbeth "Birnam wood marching on Dunsinane" this happens in The Two towers, Fangorn does march to Helms Deep.
He also fixes his disappointment of the fall of Constantinople by having minas tirith saved (via the charge at Vienna in the form of the rhohirrim and the Alliance of the men of the west at the battle of the Catalonian fields via Aragorn, the rangers of the north, knights of dol amroth etc).
Good point about the storm being present afterwards; I had forgotten about that. Yeah, seems like serendipity/Gandalf having foreknowledge wielded with dramatic timing, rather than explicit magic as such. I'd mention that Narya might also be playing a role in kindling courage and hope again in Theoden's heart. Cirdan says as he gives the ring to Mithrandir: "For," said he [Cirdan], "great labours and perils lie before you, and lest your task prove too great and wearisome, take this Ring for your aid and comfort. It was entrusted to me only to keep secret, and here upon the West-shores it is idle; but I deem that in days ere long to come it should be in nobler hands than mine, that may wield it for the kindling of all hearts to courage." If so, it is quite subtle and something that the reader of the Two Towers would not realize without reading the Unfinished Tales as well.
I believe that passage is also, there, though in slightly different form (you may kindle hearts in a world that has grown cold) in 'On the Rings of Power and the Third Age'
One of the implications of this change that I find most interesting is how Theoden's arc of recovering his bravery is altered in the movie. In the book, Theoden agrees with Gandalf to ride out and fight Saruman immediately, only turning for Helm's Deep when the party discovers the mayhem in the Westfold and the true strength of Saruman's forces. Theoden does despair again when Helm's Deep is awash in orcs, but he steels his resolve when he sallies forth. So the book's arc for Theoden's recovery is something like "apparently full recovery, stumble, full recovery." In the movie, Theoden still remains somewhat cowardly even after Gandalf "cures" him. He disagrees with Gandalf and Aragorn about riding out to fight Saruman and instead insists on hiding alongside his people in Helm's Deep. He only finally becomes brave when he sallies forth from Helm's Deep during the battle. The movie is at least consistent. If Gandalf had freed Theoden from Saruman's beguilement by speaking with him as he did in the books then it would be much more confusing if Theoden then went on to disagree with Gandalf's plan of action since he had apparently just found him so convincing a moment ago. By having Gandalf magic Theoden better they can justify making him disagreeable much more easily, which sets up the approach to Helm's Deep they wanted to take in the movie. But personally I prefer the book's treatment, which also provides an excellent recovery arc while simultaneously making Theoden look much less foolish.
I did a conference paper a few years ago comparing this scene with Gimli & Galadriel and Eowyn & Faramir, showing how each are instances of metanoia. Lots of similar imagery in each scene, particularly light -- and smiling, which rarely happens in LOTR and so is usually significant.
Exactly. Love and companionship (not just sexual or romantic) are things allowed because of the gift of Illuvitar (free will) and they are a force for good and beauty when pure. Happy relationships give rise to grand lines of heros while unhappy ones that usually contain domination of another lead to cursed lines or the ends of lines (Ar-Pharazon forced his wife to marry him and it was all a part of the unlawful succession, which was part of why he was the last king of Numenor, the end of the line of kings.) The whole reason Sam and Frodo as well as the Fellowship even make it is because of love and companionship, so it seems like scenes such as these with great beauty and chemistry and awe would be framed in such a way, with common thems and symbolism abound through description and visuals.
I think it tends that Tolkien's most powerful version of magic in his stories is that of spoken incantation. From the Oaths of Feanor, the duel between Finrod and Sauron, to the Ring Poem, and Gandalf's words, all indicate a subtelty of an incredible range of power.
I much prefer the book version (as in many other areas) - it's all subtle and psychological, and more powerful because of it. It's interesting that Gandalf succeeds in curing Theoden of despair, but fails to do so for Denethor (who has additional character flaws and the secret influence of what he sees in the palantír). Oh, and another thing they left out if the film was Wormtongue being a thief.
I've always assumed that "movie Theoden" had been poisoned, either magically or physically, and that the effect was to make him weaker and feebleminded, opening him to suggestion. Hence the presence of Grima: Saruman needed someone here to actually do the suggesting. They don't really tell you these things, but I thought the movie did a decent job of showing it. He's clearly senile, and Grima clearly feeds him his lines. He says just enough to establish that he's completely subjugated, and Grima does most of the talking because it effectively doesn't matter, Theoden is pretty much Grima's (and by extension, Saruman) mouthpiece at the moment. The details aren't particularly necessary, I think you get enough of an idea just by looking at the scene. Both versions are fine, I'd say, and I understand why they changed it for the movie. There's only so much you can cram into a single trilogy, and the fact that "movie Theoden" was so obviously corrupted made it easier for the audience to buy that he was actually a decent man at the core without the benefit of being able to build his character through narration, and over a longer period of time. I think it's a good way to play to the medium's strength. It would have probably seemed cheaper if they tried to pull off the book version in such a condensed way. You simply neither have the time nor the opportunities to get too psychological with a secondary character. Though I agree, you can make a point that it weakens the passage a bit. I suppose you can't evade having to sacrifice some things for the sake of the adaptation.
Hama is an interesting character study in the book. There are others including Faramir and the older guard of the citidel who befriends Pippin. They all disobeyed their lords in some way to serve a higher purpose. They all had to accept some kind of serious punishment for their disobedience. This is a profound principle which is quite foreign to most modern readers. Few people really understand what a king's soverienty, or even a steward's, really means. Disobedience is never an option, no exceptions.
Given that it's such an iconic scene in the films I was fully expecting Theoden's cure to come up in the course of the magic series, but when I reread it I came to the same conclusion: there's very little recognizable magic in the confrontation with Theoden, and it mostly boils down to Gandalf getting Theoden to put his priorities in order. That being said, having just done some deep and painful research on Ainur and destiny, I wonder if Gandalf is simply choosing his moment here, or if he's maybe tweaking not just the weather, but the coincidences of umbar itself....
@@TolkienLorePodcast I would like to suggest that we take a look at "Book" Gandalf's intercedence with Denethor at "The Pyre of Denethor" Not actually to mention that Gandalf simply raises his hand and in the very stroke Denethor's sword flies from Denethor's hand...But, to rather mention that Gandalf HIMSELF...jumps onto the pyre and lifts Faramir as though Faramir's weight means very little to Gandalf. This singular point concerning Book Gandalf may point nicely to your stance Here...that it isn't so much magic as much as Gandalf's actual (and simply) inherent strength. And in the case of Theoden...Gandalf's inherent Wisdom, Magic not withstanding. And in The Silmarillion, it is said of Olorin that: whenever he was present people took heart and put away their imaginings of darkness.
Actions in Middle Earth being divinely guided is a major theme in TLoTR. Tolkien was a devout Christian. In the Bible, the great prophets and apostles are channels of divine power, not its source. However, Gandalf being a supernatural being, does he have is own power, or just move / co-operate with the power of others? As all power derives from the song(s) of the Ainur and ultimately Eru, I'd say the latter.
To me, the scene in the movie is representative of one of the ills of big budget cinema - the substitution of special effects for acting. It's always rankled with me. As a kid I loved the subtle way magic was represented in the books - I think Peter J would need a 12-foot neon sign in order to recognise subtlety.
To me, the reason for Grima and his thugs in the movie makes sense IF we assume that Sarumans spell on the king would normally require close proximity, and that Grima is acting as a conduit between them. This explains why Grima is in Eddoras. His thugs are there for contingency to ensure Grima can stay close to the king. They basically can run interference and create a gap for Grima to reestablish control if necessary.
In the book, Grima isn't a witless worm. He is Theoden's most trusted adviser for a reason. The name Wormtongue isn't an insult; it's a complement. It stands to reason Grima wouldn't put up people calling him that if it meant earth worm - he is one of the most powerful person in Rohan after all. Worm is what they call dragons, and from the hobbit we know you have to be careful how you talk to dragons. They are wily and clever, and are famous for the way they can twist words to enchant people. This ability to influence people is surely how Grima got to his position, even though he isn't a famous warrior or a member of the royal family. Grima has this way with words in common with Saruman, however Saruman has the power to persuade people with much stronger minds than Grima. Grima is the one in Saruman's power, and Theoden is in Grima's power. Grima is there beside Theoden all the time, and knows just what to say to keep him indecisive, and make him mistrust anyone else who attempts to give him help or advice. Grima should really be called Dragontongue, not Wormtongue. Saruman can't mind control Theoden all the way from .Orthanc, or he wouldn't have needed Grima as a spy. What Gandalf does is break Grima's hold over Theoden by exposing his lies and offering Theoden hope. The only magic in that is the magic of words, and Tolkien knew a lot about that.
A good summarization I think, thx. Tolkein is no product of Hollywood, yet Hollywood is now the pathetic standard for so many ppl such that complex subtle issues are perverted into crude mockeries and values like loyalty and consistent resolution are perverted into doubt and vasillation, typical Hollywood dismissal of solid moral values. Theoden was not so far gone as portrayed in the movie. It's sad that people don't realize that he never needed to be. Even a relatively small failure in doing his kingly duty or a series of small failures compounding over time, is enough to bring a kingdom down.
I don’t know if someone already mentioned this, but the palantiri could also be used as mind control. Obviously again it is only if they are being used as Souron was but they could be manipulated in that way.
I understand where you are coming from, but it has long been my belief from my first reading that we are seeing here a glimpse into the true powers that Gandalf could command if he so chooses. I bid you to remember that when the full might of the Valar and Maiar are unleashed in times past the world was irrevocably altered forever. The War of Wrath saw the utter destruction of Beleriand and Anband. Thus I do not view a minor storm to be any great exertion for Gandalf, especially when as the White Wizard, he has been granted greater use of his full power than he was granted initially. I also wish for us to note the power of Gandalf's voice and remember that he tells Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas that he is Saruman as Saruman should have been. In the confrontation at Orthanc, we see these two contesting the strength of their vocal magic in opposing manners as Saruman attempts to discourage and belittle the party and Gandalf repeatedly breaks the magic. Finally Saruman comes at call and is summarily dismissed against his will by the power of Gandalf's voice alone. I now point out that Theoden comments that Gandalf has greater healing abilities than the former realizes. I believe that, as is true in so many cases, Gandalf offered healing but it had to be received by one with the will to live. This is why Theoden, though old emerges from his decrepit state so thoroughly. Add to this Gansalf's ability to call upon the ring of fire to kindle hope in the enemies of Sauron (notice again that the power of speech is again involved in the working of this magic), and you again have magic at work. It seems to be hinted that Wormtongue had been given very limited magical instruction by Saruman as the novel indicates that Theoden's decline, the brittle despair of Eowyn, and the overall pall across Edoras is at least partially of a magical nature, which immediately begins to wane when Grima is knocked to his face by Gandalf's spell (Gandalf has used such enchantments in the past for our observance so this is not at all unlikely.) There are other aspects of this scene I could mention, but I wish to move to a final point. I disagree that magic can not be used to dominate another as completely as you indicate because we actually have several examples of it doing that. What we do not have is one person being the embodiment of or being possessed by another through magic. However, the domination, breaking, and manipulating the minds of others has been done repeatedly. I mentioned the confrontation at Orthanc, but there is also the warnings that Gandalf gives concerning Saruman's ability to dominate the will of others through his voice alone. It is also seen that both Morgoth and Sauron could Dominate the wills of of others through the use of magic, both vocally and at a distance. There are also both cases seen with both Smaug and Glaurung being able to control the workings of the mind if you looked into their eyes. The Nazgûl were nearly always almost able to order Frodo to use the Ring when they were near him, and at Weathertop they actually succeed briefly. My apologies for being lengthy, but I felt a full and robust defense of my position was necessary. However, though we might not agree on the amount of magic utilized in this scene, I doubt not that we would agree that the books make the use far more subtle and nuanced than the movies ever attempted. BTW, Hama was still demoted for his action, though Theoden at the same time kept near as a valued friend and councilor and then wept when he died at Helm's Deep.
@@jayt9608 That'd be a crying shame on a Tolkien channel, but I've met the "tl;dr" crowd myself. They've reduced me. Never again will my prose flow o'er the boundaries between red and blue...
@@WisdomThumbs Thus perhaps a difference between me and thee, for I care not for the criticism, only that the fulness of my thought be expressed aright. 😁
Why use words and weather when you can yeet Saruman simultaneously on his butt and out of Theodain? Loved the video and the discussion. I would note that Gandalf the White's first use of magic is when Gimli gets impatient with the White Wizard and wants to put a dint in the White's hat, but... "The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leapt to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and grey rags were flung away. His white garments shown. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leapt from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, still in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame." (The Two Towers; Chapter 5, The White Rider) Love your videos. Thank you for the great content.
I think there has been a rapid development of the portrayal of magical abilities in cinematic media since JRRT kicked this all off in the 1930's, as technology in movies has advanced, also on competition with science fiction developing lasers, super strength heroes and telekinetic powers, Traditional magical manifestations, were more manipulation of happenstance to a desired outcome, a curse, potions that affect behaviour or sometimes transmutation's. Magical beams of energy and kinetic affects crept into fantasy story telling in competition to Sci Fi's laser beams, energy blasts and the like of the 60's and after. When Gandalf faces the Balrog, it's not with lighting bolts and directed energy beams, its by wrecking the bridge with the but of his staff, that the balrog might be able to magically levitate did not need explanation because in fantasy of the time, flight needed wings. So to an extent the magic is on display in LOTR books, it's more akin to Granny Weatherwaxe's "headology" than on display in a Dr Strange movie or Buffy the Vampire slayer. Although in part I think its a censorship of JRRT's he did not want plot to be resolved like that, as Magic is leaving middle earth and it detracts from proper plot development, but also due to the fact magical abilities we see in todays Video Games and Movies was not part of the storytellers lexicon at the Time. For what its worth I prefer Peter jackson's shortcut using "hard" magic and exorcism to Tolkiens own drawn out and ambiguous magic use in this scene, in others particularly the rout of Sauron's forces at Minas Tirith I do not.
"Lathspell I name you, ill news, and ill news is an ill guest!" Same words from Wormtongue in both movie and book, and why I love both, since PJ respected Tolkien enough to use his words whenever possible.
Enjoyed this one. I think it's a similar kind of deal to Galadriel's speech to Frodo when it's put on screen (which I broke down in a video but it would be interesting if you compared movie/book versions as you did here). It lacks subtlety and nuance. It is difficult to show such things on screen but I think the filmmakers read things quite literally so it seems quite on the nose when they put such scenes in the movies. Just a minor complaint, I guess. edit - similar meaning that all subtlety is lost on the screen when they show moments like Gandalf 'healing' Theoden and Galadriel's temptation.
Such is the nature of the visual medium. Subtlety in movies, especially blockbusters as the LotR trilogy were, is what leads to general audiences watching movies like Tenet or Dune 2021 and having no clue what's happening.
Great video, thanks! Would disagree regarding film`s integrity, though (not defending it against the books in any way, of course). As for Grima`s thugs, as you have said, it seems to me as quite a good socio/psychological point there. Grima would obviously have felt insecure even having Theoden`s will. He might be close to the king, but not the king himself, and in order to fight possible resistance (as well as helping enforce Saruman`s will) there should be some kind of men (Rohirrim, I suppose - spoiled by some promises/ideas) loyal to Grima to both defend him and spy around others etc. Which, given the film`s own world, seems logical, at least to me. The scene in the hall when a part of men jumps to fight Gandalf`s company, and the others choose not to, kind of resembles (perhaps deliberately) this repeating theme of faithfulness that we see in Aragorn`s predecessors from Numenor, for example, choosing not to perform what a king says if he is obviously heading the wrong way.
@@justmecarter1717 This might be true. After revisiting the scene in the hall I see that those who fight Gandalf's company have somewhat long(ish) hair, quite usual men faces and black clothes (just like Grima) that distinguish them from Rohirrim guards. That still looks like some kind of "privileged security forces" thingy or smth of the kind, be that Rohirrim or not. But after all it would be strange for me to realize if Rohirrim would accept Dunlendings as security team in the king's hall, even in the film.
I wonder how much of Gandalf’s fire use is from his ring and how much of it is innate to him. I don’t know if the three rings have such explicit magical uses, but if a ring of fire did have magical abilities, it seems like making fire would be one
It seems like fire and light are intrinsic (nazghul for instance, seemingly hating fire for disliking light and preferring darkness) to each other and the forces of good+the Ainur. Through the entire Legendarium, light is shown to be good, and darkness evil, and of bad omen. I believe as a rather powerful Maiar spirit (the power of whom as a group is often understated), Olorin even as Gandalf could produce some elements of fire and have a degree of control over it, the Ainur being the masters of the physical world and so power being moreso an ability to change and impart one's will+talents rather than raw strength. It is also evident that Saruman has a control over fire in the form of explosives such as Gandalf does with fireworks, when he creates and uses a bomb at Helm's deep. This is either technical knowledge Saruman has achieved from exploring Middle Earth and learning as well as whatever teachings he might have received in Valinor, or something the Istari (at least the more powerful of which) are able to use to formulate or manipulate elements occuring in the world to make great machinations of fire and spectacle, with great skill. I think their different usages of this ability shows how they embue their powers upon the world and how they use them on the free peoples, being that Saruman uses his power to dominate while Gandalf used his to inspire and spread joy, as is seen with his fireworks. The ring of Narya could certainly believably enhance any ability of pyrokinesis and such Gandalf might have, but I don't recall any direct references to it having this power. Rather than a ring of strength, it is a ring of power in that it boosts the will of others around (the opposite of the one ring which erodes the will of others and corrupts oneself aside from its true master. Remember the 'through me it would do great evil though I intend good', from Gandalf?) and increases the ability of its wielder to inspire courage and hope, while assumed to naturally give off this aura to all forces of good, children of Eru and Ainur alike. I believe the flame aspect is more of a reference to the secret fire itself (or flame imperishable) and how the elves whom created the rings (namely the craftsman Celebrimbor, a great hero of the SA) had a reverence for Eru and the gift of free will (which the secret fire is) bestowed upon them. All of the Elven rings are intrinsically tied to this as they are of Celebrimbor rather than Sauron, though still being subject to effects and fate regarding the one. This ring seems to be the most tied to the concept of free will in the concept of the secret fire, and it seems perfect to be bestowed upon a character who is supposed to inspire people of their own free will to commit to good and courage as Eru intended, rather than bestow impressive magical ability or raw strength to an individual. All in all, the ring seems to merely boost Gandalf rather than tangibly add to his abilities of strength and pure machination of the natural world.
@@cynicaltheastrocreep4504 Fyi, Both Sauron and Saruman are apprentices of Orome, the valar of craftmanship. You just wonder his judgements of taking these kind of maiar under his tutulage. Both went into darkness. Sauron made the ring of power. While Saruman made the industrialization of Isengard.
On the point of staves wielded by the Istari: I have always interpreted them as being a mark of their station and their mission. The staves themselves are not, inherently, any more magical than any other object in Middle Earth. Rather, they mark the Istari as members of their order, and perhaps more importantly, they divert attention away from the nature of the Istari themselves. Their power is not their own, it flows from the authority and faith vested in them by the Valar and indirectly by Eru Illuvatar himself. By using a staff to produce "magic" they are essentially removing themselves as a source of power and authority and proclaiming that what they do is ordained by a higher power. If they just went around snapping their fingers to do things, as they could, then they would be seen not as guides and wise men, but as gods and lords. This is why Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, the latter had abandoned his purpose and his cause was no longer that of the Istari, so he could not be allowed to carry a mark of that station.
I don’t know if you get video ideas from comments, but this was something that came to my mind when I came across your video about hobbits and others heights. I’m not sure if you’ll see this, but if anyone else has any insight, I’d love a comment back. If Frodo wasn’t fat, or that fat, how did Fredegar "Fatty" Bolger who stayed behind in Crickhollow fit in his clothes? And how fat to skinny were the main hobbits in comparison? I know Sam is portrayed as fat, but if I remember from the texts, he wasn’t ever described as being so, since he did physical work.
Gandalf’s description of Frodo to Barliman says he’s “a stout little fellow” and at the outset of his journey Frodo checks a mirror and notes he needs to get back into walking shape, so he seems to have become lazy and gained weight over the years. Sam, as you note, is probably the thinnest of the four, though as a potato lover I wouldn’t assume he’d be in athletic form either. 😂
@@TolkienLorePodcast Oh my goodness, I just got a notification an hour ago. I hope it wasn’t a trouble to answer, thank you for your response! I was wondering that, just since Fatty was nicknamed Fatty, I was thinking perhaps he may have been fatter than most hobbits, going along with his lineage from his great-great-great grandfather, (if I understood that correctly) Otto the Fat, but maybe Tolkien thought it sounded better than Freddy. That sounds reasonable though, since Frodo was mentioned needing to lose a little weight and looking thinner as the story goes on. I’ve been trying to keep the Jacksonverse separate from the book-verse much as I can. :) Thanks again! Keep up the great content!
Thanks! I agree, as usual the movies fall short in conparison. I read into it that Tolkien depicts a different world view than what is or can be shown in the movies (to a large part for the time related reasons you adress, and to perhaps equal part that special effects are better for box office than subtle explorations of the metaphysical). Theoden can be said to be possessed by Saruman or the will of Saruman in a demonic way in the book too. But Tolkien depicts, with much more psychological realism, how demonic forces work. (He was a very classically well read catholic, he knew.) Just like you’ve pointed out how the Ring tempts people, how it parasitizes on their will and intellect and ego, becomes or is internalized and you can’t draw a clear line where the ”real” you stops and the external force begins. The Ring works on people through the lies they tell themselves and Saruman works on Theoden through the lies Grima tells him. I certainly believe these insights in how the demonic/evil/whatever forces of this world function is a big chunk of the wisdom Tolkien wanted to convey to his readers through his stories and lore.
My headcanon for Grima's thugs were that they were just the most greedy and myopic of the guardsman/foot soldier type guys in Rohan, so Grima bribed them and that's how they became his enforcers. Whereas Hama and Eomir represented the men of Rohan who either placed loyalty before greed, or sized Grima up for the weakling he was and figured it would be a bad bet in the long term to throw in with him.
Definitely prefer the books version of magic. Though throughout the hobbit and LOTR, Gandalf only ever seems to do any actual magic when it has to do with light or fire. I always thought that his personal abilities only ever extended to inspiring and informing, as he was originally doing. Any of the actual magic we see (which involves fire) I assumed came from him using the ring that he was given. Sarumans ability was his voice, Gandalf had inspiration, radagast had nature. I don’t think that they ever had other magic without using outside means.
Good stuff as ever. The movie scene was disappointing, but to be expected. I think always of two things with this scene, neither magical. Firstly Gandalf is like an old-fashioned nurse treating a mild case of depression, opening the curtains, getting rid of the dust and bullying/encouraging the patient to go out. The second is the Wizard of Oz. Saruman uses goetia against Theoden, with help from Wormtongue. Gandalf pulls back the curtain and shows that the great and powerful Oz is the silly little man hiding behind it. Thanks and keep up the good work.
"...bullying/encouraging the patient to go out..." That may work for people who are "feeling down" due to circumstances, but is highly counterproductive to those whose depression is due to brain disfunction and not external circumstances.
@@tominiowa2513 As a mental health professional I realise, that for people with severe organic depression, this is no type of treatment. Indeed it is a doubtful treatment even for, as I said a mild depression. But it was an apt comparison. Which just strikes me in my reading of the book. But yes it is important not to create false impressions in relation to mental illness. Thanks for reminding me.
I remember being confused by the scene when I first saw the movies, then years later as an adult when I read LOTR in full (I had previously only as a child read bits and pieces up to Theoden's 'recovery') I remember being bewildered by the movie interpretation. Though I despise the movies, I understand the change to an extent, as they needed to make it more notable than Gandalf simply giving a pep-talk. That said, I won't comment on the thugs. So do understand PJ's dilemma with the scene. Great video, am so glad to have listened to it and for you to have pointed all the discrepancies between the two interpretations. Tbh, Theoden's one of my favourite characters and his scenes with Gandalf in the book rank up there as amongst my favourite scenes in any piece of lit ever.
I think this scene was quite dramatic enough without the unnecessary drama. If you look at older movies such as Star Wars, The Godfather Parts I and II, and others, you find more dialog than most modern movies without the frantic racing from one dramatic moment to the next. Thin injustices done to this scene nearly rival the injustice done to Faramir, Boromir, and Denethor.
It would have been so cool to see Tony Jay play Theoden, Maria Sharapova as Éowyn, Aaron W. Reed as Eomer, William Dafoe as Wormtongue, etc! This is, yet again, an amazing video!
Really liked your video. Excellent comparison. The movie version is weak and ill adapted. While it is true that time is a limitation in films, you also have things that books don't: acting (actors' expressions and body language), music, camera angles and editing, which, in the right hands, can convey a lot of information and emotions. The problem is that Peter Jackson has the sensibility of a 12 year old and, ultimately, it tarnishes everything.
I was appalled by Jackson's enfeebled Gandalf. What he and his co-writers (?) failed to realise is that if they had kept he characters of Gandalf and Aragorn as powerful as they were in Tolkien's mind and yet STILL be mortally afraid of Sauron, who was only ever a distant but menacing shadowy figure, it made Sauron all the more dangerous - no need then for a stupid looking red lighthouse. Didn't they ever read that Barad Dur was almost permanently swathed in shadowy cloud, only occasionally pierced by a stab of red fiery light from the Great Eye?
I just got done watching the Lord of the Rings again last night. I watch it like once a year. And I like the scene. It is epic and Gandalf is so well played by Ian Mcellen. My question is if Grima had followers why weren't they punished alongside Grima?
Reading the books will help you to understand the Actual intentions of Tolkien rather than the unnecessary changes that led to your final question. The films, created Plot holes where there should have been none. I have been Steeped in Tolkien's written world since 1975 so of course I find the films Very difficult to watch, and Even the most benign of changes in plot and Character, I find to be quite Jarring on a very visceral level. Yes, gut wrenching would be the correct term here.
The 'thugs' were not loyal to Grima, but erroneously thought that their king was in danger. They were just faithful guards executing their orders to the best of their ability. Some, like Grima, trusted in the goodness of the visitors and did not think the king was in danger. At least, that is how I interpret the scene.
I don’t think that makes sense. They aren’t in the same garb as the Rohirrim present, bearing no insignia, and we see them manhandling Eomer as well when the only person he threatened was Wormtongue. And if you doubt that, PJ explicitly says they were Grima’s thugs in the bonus content.
@@TolkienLorePodcast I suppose that comes down to a question of what we should expect them to have achieved, absent any magic taking place. I interpreted the relationship between Saruman and Wormtongue as one of abuse and dependence. It seems like Wormtongue can beguile people in a way that Saruman can not, but that he's beholden to the much more threatening wizard. I hope that the Hobbits wouldn't have been so vulnerable merely to bad ideas and evil suggestions. I always thought that Saruman couldn't have set himself up there without Wormtongue poisoning people's thoughts with his own little power.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Fair point. To be honest, I've always felt that Wormtongue was duplicative, and I'm not sure how to interpret him. If he's only meant to give bad council and represent the effects of doubt and fear, I think it would have been better to have a fairer -even truly innocent- character in his role. And BTW thank you for your responses!
@@fnamelname9077 Duplicitous is the word you mean (double dealing, liar), not duplicative (doing things doubly, repeating something), like a change in the matrix. Your other point does make one wonder where Wormtongue came from, when he got his nickname, et cetera. Maybe he began as a worthy counselor. The people of Rohan were not known to be litetate so they may have outsourced some things, idk. Saruman was once a friend to Rohan for all intents and purposes so far as anyone knew was he not? Here king, a present for you, a learned advisor to be by your side. Saruman can be very convincing.
I don't think the weather effects here can or need to be explained naturally. Even if Gandalf could foresee the storm, it would require a perfect timing to use it for his needs, and it would be too easy to fail if they arrive too late or too soon. But most importantly, I don't really see a need in such explanation. We know Gandalf can do magic, we see it before and after this scene. So why strip him of his ability to do so in this scene and try to find a purely natural/scientific explanation?
@@TolkienLorePodcast [Caradhras happened before his rebirth.] With just a few uses of magic by him altogether and them being quite different, I don't think we can make conclusions what he can _not_ do. But again, I just don't see a point in trying to find a natural explanation, it's like as if the goal were to prove he's not a wizard - then yes, I guess pretty much anything can be explained by rare natural effects and good timing, but why?
Oh there is definitely no magic going on in the book. The idea that Gandalf was using magic on Theoden never even occurred to me. I mean, he uses magic to possibly demonstrate things with the weather, but he's not doing anything directly to Theoden (and I don't think Saruman was either; it was all psychosomatic on Theoden's part, at most enhanced a bit by poisons from Wormtongue, but he gets cured so rapidly I don't think that is likely). It's possible that Gandalf does cause the actual thunderstrike, like, there's a storm there, and he is able to cause a lightning strike from it. Or, he's using magic to be aware of what's going on with the weather. That whole bit has always seemed a little weird to me, since it is unlikely that Gandalf controls the weather in general. Oh and I think at one point he knocks Wormtongue down, possibly by magic? "In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue’s voice: ‘Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!’ There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face." However, we do see him use his staff the very first time we meet Gandalf the White. 'The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leaped to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and his grey rags were flung away. His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli’s axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame.' Note that he lifts his staff to fling Gimli's axe, light up Aragorn's sword, and burn Legolas' arrow.
I always thought the staff was psychosematic especially to Saruman. They did have rules. not showing their true form and power. Perhaps they believed the staff was neccassary to do their jobs and access their 'power'. But Saruman became obsessed with "things" which made him much more vulnerable to mental issues even illness. Because Saruman believed it was neccessary it becomes necessary. Like Theodan not thinking 'aged' and therefore he isn't. And maybe Gandalf got told something when he died and got sent back. Perhaps
What I never understood from the two towers movie was, Saruman throws a fireball at Gandalf knowing he has Narya? Gandalf pretty much has 99% resistance to fire!
@@TolkienLorePodcast I believe so or at least he has a great suspicion as much! There’s a passage that states that the white knows grey was given the ring!
@@skilljoy9246 Where? I can't easily believe that Saruman wouldn't have tried to take it from Gandalf when he was held captive. Why did Galdalf allow himself to be manhandled (wizardhandled?) up to his open air dungeon? I think part of the reason was to keep the ring secret.
The staff has great significance. The Shepherd uses the Staff to guide his Flock to safety. This is why Gandalf has the staff - he is identified as the Shepherd while Rohirrim and Gondor folks are the flock. As far as Theoden is concerned, Gandalf the White gave Theoden 'Truth'. He pretty much 'deprogrammed' Theoden from the 'cult of Saruman'. As far as the dying embers, the rains and thunderstorms, the grey cloak vs. white cloak, etc. - these are 'powers of Divinity' not 'magic' - theological interpretations of Dualism vs. 'reformed' Monotheism.
Same, I really like his design and his voice is great! Though I also like Gandalf being abrupt, or easily annoyed to the point of anger by Pippin's antics Like they say in the poem, "Swift in anger, quick to laugh"
I know you do book v movie comparison with Peter Jackson's trilogy v book. Have you compared 1978 Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings, 1980 Return of the King v books and Peter Jackson's trilogy maybe compare scenes from all three to the books to give different takes how animated version v live action v books. Because I think Peter Jackson was inspired in part by 1978 Ralph Bakshi version on some scenes not sure, but like your knowledge on the world.
@@TolkienLorePodcast There is always the 1993 Finnish version where everyone looks like they just walked off stage from a rock festival - Bilbo's 1/14 share of Smaug's hoard would barely pay for the Aquanet used.
This might be a task, but was thinking since you do comparisons, theories, speak about Tolkien's works. Have you ever thought about doing a series about how you would have made the Lord of the Rings films, The Hobbit films, even what the Amazon series on the second age or the first age. Probably a big task, but I assume you don't pretecurly care for the films when you talk snd compare scenes. Would you want to do a series like that? It could be in parts. Because when I either read a book or watch a anime show or something I have in my head it play out like a film and yes change things, but from book, show, etc to film you can't keep it all. Just was thinking it would be interesting on how you would have adapted the books to series or film. Anyways keep up the good work.
What we perceive as magic in Gandalf is actually his innate power. This is where I disagree with how he is treated in the film. Being an angel of lower rank than the Ainur, he still has certain powers attributable to an angelic spirit. However, as Gandalf the Grey, the extent on how he uses his powers is limited, perhaps by the order of the Valar or by Eru himself. After his death and resurrection as Gandalf the White, he is bestowed rights to use his powers extensively as demonstrated in his healing of Theoden. In the book, he's powerful with or without his staff. Even the Witch King will probably have hard time dealing with him had not for a more urgent matter of Faramir. And he is the one who snatches Frodo's belongings from the Mouth of Sauron as the Black Numenorean cowers before him.
Hmmm, you overplay the inconsistency of the Meduseld scene in the movie. It's quite obvious Saruman wouldn't be able to control Theoden all the time. What he was probably doing in movie continuity is (with Grima's help) poisoning Theoden's mind, making hem more and more weak, aged and incapable, which would allow to possess him if necessary. So up to the point when Theoden starts to laugh at Gandalf, he probably wasn't possessed, and Saruman stepped in the game when Gandalf tried to dispel whatever Saruman did to Theoden. As for Grima's "thugs", I'd assume Grima was smart enough to prepare the emergency signal of a kind in case the situation with "the visitors" would come out of hand, it wouldn't be too hard to warn certain guards more loyal to Grima than Theoden, or disinform the loyal guards on the nature of events to follow, and try to use violent approach if diplomacy fails.
Oh yes, and I always loved how...in the book....Theoden calls for his sword, and Hama finds it in a trunk in Grima's room, along with many other people's things. Loved that Grima got so BUSTED out!
Truth. In a books assists, but not solve. Otherwise Gandalf would have thrown the ring in that envelope in Mordor's direction and magic would carry it until it burns.
Theoden complains to Grima about his substandard leechcraft (medical care). The implication is that Grima has been subtly poisoning the king, then treating his symptoms with a therapy that leaves him worse off than before, so that Grima needs only mental poisoning, not physical to continue controlling Theoden. Gandalf refers to this as “an old device of Saruman’s.” Meaning he’s pulled this kind of shit lots of times before. Okay. On whom? And if Gandalf knew, why’d he tolerate it?
So Grima has to keep treating Theoden to keep him in a state of mind liable to Saruman’s telepathic control. And the thugs are there to keep people from interfering with Grima’s leechcraft.
I think leechcraft here is a metaphor, not literal. As for it being an “old device” I can only assume Gandalf is referring to Saruman’s powerful ability to persuade or daunt.
The fight scene in Meduseld is all about character development for a one-off background character, Hama the Door-Guard. First he makes the Company disarm, and when Gandalf begs the use of his walking-stick, Hama gives a look which reads as “a likely story, but I can’t technically prove it untrue, so….” Then when the fight starts up between the Conpany and Grima’s thugs, one of the other Door-Guards grabs his sword, ready to ward the king, but Hama grabs his hand, gives him a look, and says, “Wait!” Then, when Gandalf urges Theoden to grasp his sword, it is Hama who hands it to him, his face full of hope. I don’t know if Hama was one of the people to hurl Grima down the steps later, but I wouldn’t put it past Peter Jackson. Hama later gets his face bitten off by a warg for his troubles. And his son Haleth asks Aragorn if there is any hope left, because “the men say they will not last out the night.” Also, you know, his dad died earlier that morning.
The book is much better than the movies. It also applies more to real life, as dealing in with depression or other mental problems similar things might happen -- over a longer period. The movie adaptation is understandable but completely unrelated to anything anyone might experience, coming down to a battle between two wizards.
A movie is a very different medium and different things work in a movie vs the book. I think the LOTR movies are good and certainly much better than they could have been but it's very difficult for me to be fair to them as an adaptation since I have such a strong impression left by the book. I do totally get some of the changes like cutting characters and/or for example giving glorfindel's moment to arwen, some like this I find myself less understanding to I guess and I think it's unfair of me.
You're kind of unfair to the movie version of this scene. First of all, even with the King's backing it's perfectly reasonable for Grima to recruit lackeys, and where they come from isn't really relevant. Grima can't be everywhere at once. It's just not to be expected that he would have no need or desire for henchmen simply because he has the King's backing. Secondly, the movie version clearly shows that Saruman's possession primarily incapacitates Theoden. That Theoden's incapacitation fluctuates so that he speaks at one point and not another isn't a relevant objection. Most ailments fluctuate. The mind fluctuates. It doesn't need a specific explanation. How Theoden became possessed isn't relevant either. Third, because the possession primarily incapacitates Theoden Grima is necessary to act as an effective mouth piece and front man who can push Saruman's will. The possessed Theoden is clearly ineffectual, probably because Theoden is resisting the possession, which would also go to explaining the fluctuations. Whether this kind of possession is consistent with the rest of Tolkien's lore isn't relevant either. The three films are stand alone productions, and this issue never comes up again. It's a creative choice, and critically, it's not bad. It's a good scene. Saruman is NOT magic-ing Theoden into doing what he wants. Theoden is barely functioning. I wouldn't call that control. Saruman has incapacitated him. By your own admission in another video the One Ring is based on Sauron's own power set. Sauron pours his power into the One Ring. Where does the mind control power come from? It comes from Sauron. It is part and parcel of what he was capable of without the ring. Saruman is a Maiar just like Sauron, and the idea that he would be capable of a weaker less useful form of mind control is totally reasonable. Based on where the powers of the ring originate it may be rationally inferred that influencing the minds of others is not off the table, and there is no reason why it should be. Pretty much all of this stuff may be gathered effectively by inference. It doesn't require explicit explanation. It's called visual storytelling. What is happening and why may be inferred, and what isn't directly shown or told mostly isn't relevant. The movie version is much more concise. It's a stronger character moment for Gandalf especially in a direct contest with Saruman, and it's just more fun to watch than all of that talking would have been. I don't favor style over substance as a rule, but faulting the film for not holding your hand with exposition seems a little unfair. No, a person shouldn't write the movie for the film makers, but there's no relevant information missing from the film. I'm not adding to it. I'm just saying, it makes sense on its own. Further exposition to detail the precise mechanics of the possession, and Grima's role, and the nature of the henchmen is superfluous. It's pretty obvious if you don't expect to be spoon fed, no offense. Having said all that, I do like the book version.
I think this interpretation relies on too many coincidences. Did Gandolf just raise his staff hoping the storm would blow up and hoping that lightning would strike? There’s a gray area between overt movie magic and absolute coincidence. I think this interpretation goes too far to the other extreme
@@TolkienLorePodcast "Theoden's charge" is overtly miraculous. that alone should be enough to make the case that Gandalf not only healed Theoden but that the healing went MUCH further than simply reinvigorating an aging warrior king. further Gandalf/O'loren is a healer and counselor by nature and not far short of the Valar themselves in this regard he is also in possession of Narya the ring of fire which is stated as having the power to sustain and strengthen along with the preservative powers common to the three rings.....you call this a "soft magic system" i doubt Tolkien would agree with that at all. IMO his reaction to such claims would either be that there is no "magic as such in his books" he intimates as much in the early exposition that takes place on the subject between the elves and the hobbits , or that the magic is quite well explained as being the power of the spirits of the characters he created.
Gandalf is not a “healer by nature.” His nature is to inspire (courage, artistry, etc.). But there’s nothing “overtly miraculous” about Theoden’s healing except in Peter Jackson’s movie; the book gives no hint that anything supernatural goes on as far as Theoden’s health, mental or physical.
@@TolkienLorePodcast have you ever actually read the books? or do you not understand the term Miraculous or is that you think that "grass flaming to life" under the hooves of theoden's horse was "natural" or that a human can just yell to an entire army and blow a horn so loudly that it explodes? find me a single line in that paragraph that is NOT supernatural.
The grass “flaming to life” is because of the sunrise. Practiced orators can make themselves heard by large crowds; it was common before the invention of voice amplifying devices. As for the horn, I see no reason to think that’s supernatural either since he goes into a battle frenzy immediately. Adrenaline does crazy things to the body and if he had a good set of lungs as implied by his achievement if a very clear and loud voice he could put out some serious wind. One could also read it as poetic license by an unreliable narrator, or maybe the horn was just fragile.
One point: Gandalf the White's first use of magic is when we first encounter him (as the white), when he uses his staff to counteract the three trackers' weapons: "The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leaped to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and his grey rags were flung away. His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame."
One thing I love in Tolkien, is that is seems that minor magic is showy (the pinecones in The Hobbit), but very powerful magic is usually very subtle (Lothlorien, the battle of wills in Meduseld and at the gates of Minus Tirith). A possible exception to this is the door in Moria, shattered between Gandalf and the Balrog... but that's also, perhaps a mix of relatively minor magic (the holding spell) and the will of the two Maia.
I think magic in Lord of the rings is more like magic in Shakespeare where disturbances in nature reflect the plot. think of the storms in Macbeth or the witches in Macbeth where it's not obvious what magic they actually do. We should not forget that in Lord of the Rings Tolkien fixes one of his disappointments with Macbeth "Birnam wood marching on Dunsinane" this happens in The Two towers, Fangorn does march to Helms Deep.
He also fixes his disappointment of the fall of Constantinople by having minas tirith saved (via the charge at Vienna in the form of the rhohirrim and the Alliance of the men of the west at the battle of the Catalonian fields via Aragorn, the rangers of the north, knights of dol amroth etc).
Good point about the storm being present afterwards; I had forgotten about that. Yeah, seems like serendipity/Gandalf having foreknowledge wielded with dramatic timing, rather than explicit magic as such.
I'd mention that Narya might also be playing a role in kindling courage and hope again in Theoden's heart. Cirdan says as he gives the ring to Mithrandir: "For," said he [Cirdan], "great labours and perils lie before you, and lest your task prove too great and wearisome, take this Ring for your aid and comfort. It was entrusted to me only to keep secret, and here upon the West-shores it is idle; but I deem that in days ere long to come it should be in nobler hands than mine, that may wield it for the kindling of all hearts to courage." If so, it is quite subtle and something that the reader of the Two Towers would not realize without reading the Unfinished Tales as well.
I believe that passage is also, there, though in slightly different form (you may kindle hearts in a world that has grown cold) in 'On the Rings of Power and the Third Age'
You'll get it from the Appendices too.
One of the implications of this change that I find most interesting is how Theoden's arc of recovering his bravery is altered in the movie. In the book, Theoden agrees with Gandalf to ride out and fight Saruman immediately, only turning for Helm's Deep when the party discovers the mayhem in the Westfold and the true strength of Saruman's forces. Theoden does despair again when Helm's Deep is awash in orcs, but he steels his resolve when he sallies forth. So the book's arc for Theoden's recovery is something like "apparently full recovery, stumble, full recovery."
In the movie, Theoden still remains somewhat cowardly even after Gandalf "cures" him. He disagrees with Gandalf and Aragorn about riding out to fight Saruman and instead insists on hiding alongside his people in Helm's Deep. He only finally becomes brave when he sallies forth from Helm's Deep during the battle.
The movie is at least consistent. If Gandalf had freed Theoden from Saruman's beguilement by speaking with him as he did in the books then it would be much more confusing if Theoden then went on to disagree with Gandalf's plan of action since he had apparently just found him so convincing a moment ago. By having Gandalf magic Theoden better they can justify making him disagreeable much more easily, which sets up the approach to Helm's Deep they wanted to take in the movie. But personally I prefer the book's treatment, which also provides an excellent recovery arc while simultaneously making Theoden look much less foolish.
I did a conference paper a few years ago comparing this scene with Gimli & Galadriel and Eowyn & Faramir, showing how each are instances of metanoia. Lots of similar imagery in each scene, particularly light -- and smiling, which rarely happens in LOTR and so is usually significant.
Exactly. Love and companionship (not just sexual or romantic) are things allowed because of the gift of Illuvitar (free will) and they are a force for good and beauty when pure. Happy relationships give rise to grand lines of heros while unhappy ones that usually contain domination of another lead to cursed lines or the ends of lines (Ar-Pharazon forced his wife to marry him and it was all a part of the unlawful succession, which was part of why he was the last king of Numenor, the end of the line of kings.)
The whole reason Sam and Frodo as well as the Fellowship even make it is because of love and companionship, so it seems like scenes such as these with great beauty and chemistry and awe would be framed in such a way, with common thems and symbolism abound through description and visuals.
I think it tends that Tolkien's most powerful version of magic in his stories is that of spoken incantation. From the Oaths of Feanor, the duel between Finrod and Sauron, to the Ring Poem, and Gandalf's words, all indicate a subtelty of an incredible range of power.
I much prefer the book version (as in many other areas) - it's all subtle and psychological, and more powerful because of it. It's interesting that Gandalf succeeds in curing Theoden of despair, but fails to do so for Denethor (who has additional character flaws and the secret influence of what he sees in the palantír). Oh, and another thing they left out if the film was Wormtongue being a thief.
I've always assumed that "movie Theoden" had been poisoned, either magically or physically, and that the effect was to make him weaker and feebleminded, opening him to suggestion. Hence the presence of Grima: Saruman needed someone here to actually do the suggesting. They don't really tell you these things, but I thought the movie did a decent job of showing it. He's clearly senile, and Grima clearly feeds him his lines. He says just enough to establish that he's completely subjugated, and Grima does most of the talking because it effectively doesn't matter, Theoden is pretty much Grima's (and by extension, Saruman) mouthpiece at the moment. The details aren't particularly necessary, I think you get enough of an idea just by looking at the scene.
Both versions are fine, I'd say, and I understand why they changed it for the movie. There's only so much you can cram into a single trilogy, and the fact that "movie Theoden" was so obviously corrupted made it easier for the audience to buy that he was actually a decent man at the core without the benefit of being able to build his character through narration, and over a longer period of time. I think it's a good way to play to the medium's strength. It would have probably seemed cheaper if they tried to pull off the book version in such a condensed way. You simply neither have the time nor the opportunities to get too psychological with a secondary character. Though I agree, you can make a point that it weakens the passage a bit. I suppose you can't evade having to sacrifice some things for the sake of the adaptation.
Hama is an interesting character study in the book. There are others including Faramir and the older guard of the citidel who befriends Pippin. They all disobeyed their lords in some way to serve a higher purpose. They all had to accept some kind of serious punishment for their disobedience. This is a profound principle which is quite foreign to most modern readers. Few people really understand what a king's soverienty, or even a steward's, really means. Disobedience is never an option, no exceptions.
Given that it's such an iconic scene in the films I was fully expecting Theoden's cure to come up in the course of the magic series, but when I reread it I came to the same conclusion: there's very little recognizable magic in the confrontation with Theoden, and it mostly boils down to Gandalf getting Theoden to put his priorities in order.
That being said, having just done some deep and painful research on Ainur and destiny, I wonder if Gandalf is simply choosing his moment here, or if he's maybe tweaking not just the weather, but the coincidences of umbar itself....
If so, then his power level as the White is VASTLY greater than I or probably even The Tolkien Professor has ever guessed. 😅
@@TolkienLorePodcast
I would like to suggest that we take a look at "Book" Gandalf's intercedence with Denethor at
"The Pyre of Denethor"
Not actually to mention that Gandalf simply raises his hand and in the very stroke Denethor's sword flies from Denethor's hand...But, to rather mention that Gandalf HIMSELF...jumps onto the pyre and lifts Faramir as though Faramir's weight means very little to Gandalf.
This singular point concerning Book Gandalf may point nicely to your stance Here...that it isn't so much magic as much as Gandalf's actual (and simply)
inherent strength. And in the case of Theoden...Gandalf's inherent Wisdom,
Magic not withstanding.
And in The Silmarillion, it is said of Olorin that: whenever he was present people took heart and put away their imaginings of darkness.
It’s that last “power” that I think Narya is enhancing.
@@TolkienLorePodcast
Yes, I whole heartedly agree!
The power to inspire, uplift and encourage 👍
Actions in Middle Earth being divinely guided is a major theme in TLoTR. Tolkien was a devout Christian. In the Bible, the great prophets and apostles are channels of divine power, not its source. However, Gandalf being a supernatural being, does he have is own power, or just move / co-operate with the power of others? As all power derives from the song(s) of the Ainur and ultimately Eru, I'd say the latter.
this was a great scene in the movie. the bombasticness is fitting for a movie adaptation of the book.
To me, the scene in the movie is representative of one of the ills of big budget cinema - the substitution of special effects for acting. It's always rankled with me. As a kid I loved the subtle way magic was represented in the books - I think Peter J would need a 12-foot neon sign in order to recognise subtlety.
To me, the reason for Grima and his thugs in the movie makes sense IF we assume that Sarumans spell on the king would normally require close proximity, and that Grima is acting as a conduit between them. This explains why Grima is in Eddoras. His thugs are there for contingency to ensure Grima can stay close to the king. They basically can run interference and create a gap for Grima to reestablish control if necessary.
In the book, Grima isn't a witless worm. He is Theoden's most trusted adviser for a reason. The name Wormtongue isn't an insult; it's a complement. It stands to reason Grima wouldn't put up people calling him that if it meant earth worm - he is one of the most powerful person in Rohan after all.
Worm is what they call dragons, and from the hobbit we know you have to be careful how you talk to dragons. They are wily and clever, and are famous for the way they can twist words to enchant people. This ability to influence people is surely how Grima got to his position, even though he isn't a famous warrior or a member of the royal family.
Grima has this way with words in common with Saruman, however Saruman has the power to persuade people with much stronger minds than Grima. Grima is the one in Saruman's power, and Theoden is in Grima's power. Grima is there beside Theoden all the time, and knows just what to say to keep him indecisive, and make him mistrust anyone else who attempts to give him help or advice.
Grima should really be called Dragontongue, not Wormtongue. Saruman can't mind control Theoden all the way from .Orthanc, or he wouldn't have needed Grima as a spy. What Gandalf does is break Grima's hold over Theoden by exposing his lies and offering Theoden hope. The only magic in that is the magic of words, and Tolkien knew a lot about that.
A good summarization I think, thx.
Tolkein is no product of Hollywood, yet Hollywood is now the pathetic standard for so many ppl such that complex subtle issues are perverted into crude mockeries and values like loyalty and consistent resolution are perverted into doubt and vasillation, typical Hollywood dismissal of solid moral values.
Theoden was not so far gone as portrayed in the movie. It's sad that people don't realize that he never needed to be. Even a relatively small failure in doing his kingly duty or a series of small failures compounding over time, is enough to bring a kingdom down.
I don’t know if someone already mentioned this, but the palantiri could also be used as mind control. Obviously again it is only if they are being used as Souron was but they could be manipulated in that way.
I understand where you are coming from, but it has long been my belief from my first reading that we are seeing here a glimpse into the true powers that Gandalf could command if he so chooses. I bid you to remember that when the full might of the Valar and Maiar are unleashed in times past the world was irrevocably altered forever. The War of Wrath saw the utter destruction of Beleriand and Anband. Thus I do not view a minor storm to be any great exertion for Gandalf, especially when as the White Wizard, he has been granted greater use of his full power than he was granted initially.
I also wish for us to note the power of Gandalf's voice and remember that he tells Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas that he is Saruman as Saruman should have been. In the confrontation at Orthanc, we see these two contesting the strength of their vocal magic in opposing manners as Saruman attempts to discourage and belittle the party and Gandalf repeatedly breaks the magic. Finally Saruman comes at call and is summarily dismissed against his will by the power of Gandalf's voice alone. I now point out that Theoden comments that Gandalf has greater healing abilities than the former realizes. I believe that, as is true in so many cases, Gandalf offered healing but it had to be received by one with the will to live. This is why Theoden, though old emerges from his decrepit state so thoroughly. Add to this Gansalf's ability to call upon the ring of fire to kindle hope in the enemies of Sauron (notice again that the power of speech is again involved in the working of this magic), and you again have magic at work.
It seems to be hinted that Wormtongue had been given very limited magical instruction by Saruman as the novel indicates that Theoden's decline, the brittle despair of Eowyn, and the overall pall across Edoras is at least partially of a magical nature, which immediately begins to wane when Grima is knocked to his face by Gandalf's spell (Gandalf has used such enchantments in the past for our observance so this is not at all unlikely.) There are other aspects of this scene I could mention, but I wish to move to a final point.
I disagree that magic can not be used to dominate another as completely as you indicate because we actually have several examples of it doing that. What we do not have is one person being the embodiment of or being possessed by another through magic. However, the domination, breaking, and manipulating the minds of others has been done repeatedly. I mentioned the confrontation at Orthanc, but there is also the warnings that Gandalf gives concerning Saruman's ability to dominate the will of others through his voice alone. It is also seen that both Morgoth and Sauron could Dominate the wills of of others through the use of magic, both vocally and at a distance. There are also both cases seen with both Smaug and Glaurung being able to control the workings of the mind if you looked into their eyes. The Nazgûl were nearly always almost able to order Frodo to use the Ring when they were near him, and at Weathertop they actually succeed briefly.
My apologies for being lengthy, but I felt a full and robust defense of my position was necessary. However, though we might not agree on the amount of magic utilized in this scene, I doubt not that we would agree that the books make the use far more subtle and nuanced than the movies ever attempted.
BTW, Hama was still demoted for his action, though Theoden at the same time kept near as a valued friend and councilor and then wept when he died at Helm's Deep.
Well said!
@@WisdomThumbs
Thank you. I always fear that the rather voluminous quantity of words that I produce may provide a deterent to most readers.
@@jayt9608 That'd be a crying shame on a Tolkien channel, but I've met the "tl;dr" crowd myself. They've reduced me. Never again will my prose flow o'er the boundaries between red and blue...
@@WisdomThumbs
Thus perhaps a difference between me and thee, for I care not for the criticism, only that the fulness of my thought be expressed aright. 😁
Why use words and weather when you can yeet Saruman simultaneously on his butt and out of Theodain? Loved the video and the discussion. I would note that Gandalf the White's first use of magic is when Gimli gets impatient with the White Wizard and wants to put a dint in the White's hat, but...
"The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leapt to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and grey rags were flung away. His white garments shown. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leapt from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, still in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame." (The Two Towers; Chapter 5, The White Rider)
Love your videos. Thank you for the great content.
I think there has been a rapid development of the portrayal of magical abilities in cinematic media since JRRT kicked this all off in the 1930's, as technology in movies has advanced, also on competition with science fiction developing lasers, super strength heroes and telekinetic powers,
Traditional magical manifestations, were more manipulation of happenstance to a desired outcome, a curse, potions that affect behaviour or sometimes transmutation's. Magical beams of energy and kinetic affects crept into fantasy story telling in competition to Sci Fi's laser beams, energy blasts and the like of the 60's and after.
When Gandalf faces the Balrog, it's not with lighting bolts and directed energy beams, its by wrecking the bridge with the but of his staff, that the balrog might be able to magically levitate did not need explanation because in fantasy of the time, flight needed wings.
So to an extent the magic is on display in LOTR books, it's more akin to Granny Weatherwaxe's "headology" than on display in a Dr Strange movie or Buffy the Vampire slayer. Although in part I think its a censorship of JRRT's he did not want plot to be resolved like that, as Magic is leaving middle earth and it detracts from proper plot development, but also due to the fact magical abilities we see in todays Video Games and Movies was not part of the storytellers lexicon at the Time.
For what its worth I prefer Peter jackson's shortcut using "hard" magic and exorcism to Tolkiens own drawn out and ambiguous magic use in this scene, in others particularly the rout of Sauron's forces at Minas Tirith I do not.
"Lathspell I name you, ill news, and ill news is an ill guest!" Same words from Wormtongue in both movie and book, and why I love both, since PJ respected Tolkien enough to use his words whenever possible.
Saruman gave Grima the password to Theoden's account.
Enjoyed this one. I think it's a similar kind of deal to Galadriel's speech to Frodo when it's put on screen (which I broke down in a video but it would be interesting if you compared movie/book versions as you did here). It lacks subtlety and nuance. It is difficult to show such things on screen but I think the filmmakers read things quite literally so it seems quite on the nose when they put such scenes in the movies. Just a minor complaint, I guess.
edit - similar meaning that all subtlety is lost on the screen when they show moments like Gandalf 'healing' Theoden and Galadriel's temptation.
Such is the nature of the visual medium. Subtlety in movies, especially blockbusters as the LotR trilogy were, is what leads to general audiences watching movies like Tenet or Dune 2021 and having no clue what's happening.
Great video, thanks!
Would disagree regarding film`s integrity, though (not defending it against the books in any way, of course). As for Grima`s thugs, as you have said, it seems to me as quite a good socio/psychological point there. Grima would obviously have felt insecure even having Theoden`s will. He might be close to the king, but not the king himself, and in order to fight possible resistance (as well as helping enforce Saruman`s will) there should be some kind of men (Rohirrim, I suppose - spoiled by some promises/ideas) loyal to Grima to both defend him and spy around others etc. Which, given the film`s own world, seems logical, at least to me. The scene in the hall when a part of men jumps to fight Gandalf`s company, and the others choose not to, kind of resembles (perhaps deliberately) this repeating theme of faithfulness that we see in Aragorn`s predecessors from Numenor, for example, choosing not to perform what a king says if he is obviously heading the wrong way.
I thought the "thugs and spies" in the Hall were Dundlendings, brought in by Grima and Saruman.
@@justmecarter1717 This might be true. After revisiting the scene in the hall I see that those who fight Gandalf's company have somewhat long(ish) hair, quite usual men faces and black clothes (just like Grima) that distinguish them from Rohirrim guards. That still looks like some kind of "privileged security forces" thingy or smth of the kind, be that Rohirrim or not. But after all it would be strange for me to realize if Rohirrim would accept Dunlendings as security team in the king's hall, even in the film.
I wonder how much of Gandalf’s fire use is from his ring and how much of it is innate to him. I don’t know if the three rings have such explicit magical uses, but if a ring of fire did have magical abilities, it seems like making fire would be one
It seems like fire and light are intrinsic (nazghul for instance, seemingly hating fire for disliking light and preferring darkness) to each other and the forces of good+the Ainur. Through the entire Legendarium, light is shown to be good, and darkness evil, and of bad omen.
I believe as a rather powerful Maiar spirit (the power of whom as a group is often understated), Olorin even as Gandalf could produce some elements of fire and have a degree of control over it, the Ainur being the masters of the physical world and so power being moreso an ability to change and impart one's will+talents rather than raw strength.
It is also evident that Saruman has a control over fire in the form of explosives such as Gandalf does with fireworks, when he creates and uses a bomb at Helm's deep. This is either technical knowledge Saruman has achieved from exploring Middle Earth and learning as well as whatever teachings he might have received in Valinor, or something the Istari (at least the more powerful of which) are able to use to formulate or manipulate elements occuring in the world to make great machinations of fire and spectacle, with great skill.
I think their different usages of this ability shows how they embue their powers upon the world and how they use them on the free peoples, being that Saruman uses his power to dominate while Gandalf used his to inspire and spread joy, as is seen with his fireworks.
The ring of Narya could certainly believably enhance any ability of pyrokinesis and such Gandalf might have, but I don't recall any direct references to it having this power. Rather than a ring of strength, it is a ring of power in that it boosts the will of others around (the opposite of the one ring which erodes the will of others and corrupts oneself aside from its true master. Remember the 'through me it would do great evil though I intend good', from Gandalf?) and increases the ability of its wielder to inspire courage and hope, while assumed to naturally give off this aura to all forces of good, children of Eru and Ainur alike.
I believe the flame aspect is more of a reference to the secret fire itself (or flame imperishable) and how the elves whom created the rings (namely the craftsman Celebrimbor, a great hero of the SA) had a reverence for Eru and the gift of free will (which the secret fire is) bestowed upon them. All of the Elven rings are intrinsically tied to this as they are of Celebrimbor rather than Sauron, though still being subject to effects and fate regarding the one.
This ring seems to be the most tied to the concept of free will in the concept of the secret fire, and it seems perfect to be bestowed upon a character who is supposed to inspire people of their own free will to commit to good and courage as Eru intended, rather than bestow impressive magical ability or raw strength to an individual.
All in all, the ring seems to merely boost Gandalf rather than tangibly add to his abilities of strength and pure machination of the natural world.
@@cynicaltheastrocreep4504 Fyi, Both Sauron and Saruman are apprentices of Orome, the valar of craftmanship. You just wonder his judgements of taking these kind of maiar under his tutulage. Both went into darkness. Sauron made the ring of power. While Saruman made the industrialization of Isengard.
Aule, not Orome. ;)
@@TolkienLorePodcast I stand corrected. I just heard that from other youtubers.
@@evenstar1608 also doesn't mean they have anywhere near the same abilities or focus.
On the point of staves wielded by the Istari:
I have always interpreted them as being a mark of their station and their mission. The staves themselves are not, inherently, any more magical than any other object in Middle Earth. Rather, they mark the Istari as members of their order, and perhaps more importantly, they divert attention away from the nature of the Istari themselves.
Their power is not their own, it flows from the authority and faith vested in them by the Valar and indirectly by Eru Illuvatar himself. By using a staff to produce "magic" they are essentially removing themselves as a source of power and authority and proclaiming that what they do is ordained by a higher power. If they just went around snapping their fingers to do things, as they could, then they would be seen not as guides and wise men, but as gods and lords. This is why Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, the latter had abandoned his purpose and his cause was no longer that of the Istari, so he could not be allowed to carry a mark of that station.
I don’t know if you get video ideas from comments, but this was something that came to my mind when I came across your video about hobbits and others heights. I’m not sure if you’ll see this, but if anyone else has any insight, I’d love a comment back.
If Frodo wasn’t fat, or that fat, how did Fredegar "Fatty" Bolger who stayed behind in Crickhollow fit in his clothes? And how fat to skinny were the main hobbits in comparison? I know Sam is portrayed as fat, but if I remember from the texts, he wasn’t ever described as being so, since he did physical work.
Gandalf’s description of Frodo to Barliman says he’s “a stout little fellow” and at the outset of his journey Frodo checks a mirror and notes he needs to get back into walking shape, so he seems to have become lazy and gained weight over the years. Sam, as you note, is probably the thinnest of the four, though as a potato lover I wouldn’t assume he’d be in athletic form either. 😂
@@TolkienLorePodcast Oh my goodness, I just got a notification an hour ago. I hope it wasn’t a trouble to answer, thank you for your response!
I was wondering that, just since Fatty was nicknamed Fatty, I was thinking perhaps he may have been fatter than most hobbits, going along with his lineage from his great-great-great grandfather, (if I understood that correctly) Otto the Fat, but maybe Tolkien thought it sounded better than Freddy. That sounds reasonable though, since Frodo was mentioned needing to lose a little weight and looking thinner as the story goes on. I’ve been trying to keep the Jacksonverse separate from the book-verse much as I can. :)
Thanks again! Keep up the great content!
Thanks! I agree, as usual the movies fall short in conparison.
I read into it that Tolkien depicts a different world view than what is or can be shown in the movies (to a large part for the time related reasons you adress, and to perhaps equal part that special effects are better for box office than subtle explorations of the metaphysical). Theoden can be said to be possessed by Saruman or the will of Saruman in a demonic way in the book too. But Tolkien depicts, with much more psychological realism, how demonic forces work. (He was a very classically well read catholic, he knew.) Just like you’ve pointed out how the Ring tempts people, how it parasitizes on their will and intellect and ego, becomes or is internalized and you can’t draw a clear line where the ”real” you stops and the external force begins. The Ring works on people through the lies they tell themselves and Saruman works on Theoden through the lies Grima tells him. I certainly believe these insights in how the demonic/evil/whatever forces of this world function is a big chunk of the wisdom Tolkien wanted to convey to his readers through his stories and lore.
My headcanon for Grima's thugs were that they were just the most greedy and myopic of the guardsman/foot soldier type guys in Rohan, so Grima bribed them and that's how they became his enforcers. Whereas Hama and Eomir represented the men of Rohan who either placed loyalty before greed, or sized Grima up for the weakling he was and figured it would be a bad bet in the long term to throw in with him.
Definitely prefer the books version of magic. Though throughout the hobbit and LOTR, Gandalf only ever seems to do any actual magic when it has to do with light or fire. I always thought that his personal abilities only ever extended to inspiring and informing, as he was originally doing. Any of the actual magic we see (which involves fire) I assumed came from him using the ring that he was given. Sarumans ability was his voice, Gandalf had inspiration, radagast had nature. I don’t think that they ever had other magic without using outside means.
Good stuff as ever. The movie scene was disappointing, but to be expected. I think always of two things with this scene, neither magical. Firstly Gandalf is like an old-fashioned nurse treating a mild case of depression, opening the curtains, getting rid of the dust and bullying/encouraging the patient to go out. The second is the Wizard of Oz. Saruman uses goetia against Theoden, with help from Wormtongue. Gandalf pulls back the curtain and shows that the great and powerful Oz is the silly little man hiding behind it. Thanks and keep up the good work.
"...bullying/encouraging the patient to go out..."
That may work for people who are "feeling down" due to circumstances, but is highly counterproductive to those whose depression is due to brain disfunction and not external circumstances.
@@tominiowa2513 As a mental health professional I realise, that for people with severe organic depression, this is no type of treatment. Indeed it is a doubtful treatment even for, as I said a mild depression. But it was an apt comparison. Which just strikes me in my reading of the book. But yes it is important not to create false impressions in relation to mental illness. Thanks for reminding me.
I remember being confused by the scene when I first saw the movies, then years later as an adult when I read LOTR in full (I had previously only as a child read bits and pieces up to Theoden's 'recovery') I remember being bewildered by the movie interpretation. Though I despise the movies, I understand the change to an extent, as they needed to make it more notable than Gandalf simply giving a pep-talk. That said, I won't comment on the thugs. So do understand PJ's dilemma with the scene.
Great video, am so glad to have listened to it and for you to have pointed all the discrepancies between the two interpretations. Tbh, Theoden's one of my favourite characters and his scenes with Gandalf in the book rank up there as amongst my favourite scenes in any piece of lit ever.
I think this scene was quite dramatic enough without the unnecessary drama. If you look at older movies such as Star Wars, The Godfather Parts I and II, and others, you find more dialog than most modern movies without the frantic racing from one dramatic moment to the next. Thin injustices done to this scene nearly rival the injustice done to Faramir, Boromir, and Denethor.
I always figured that saruman was just depressing theoden and grema was needed to give the suggestions that pushed him to do what saruman wanted
The thing is that since Gandalf is a Maia there is "some" level of "magic" in everything he does.
It would have been so cool to see Tony Jay play Theoden, Maria Sharapova as Éowyn, Aaron W. Reed as Eomer, William Dafoe as Wormtongue, etc! This is, yet again, an amazing video!
Willam Dafoe ever disappoint in any characters he portrayed?
@tolkienlore , Do you think we will ever get an onscreen iteration of “ Ered Gogoroth “( The mountains of Terror ) ?
Now that Christopher is dead, who knows? Silmarillion may be up for grabs.
Really liked your video. Excellent comparison.
The movie version is weak and ill adapted. While it is true that time is a limitation in films, you also have things that books don't: acting (actors' expressions and body language), music, camera angles and editing, which, in the right hands, can convey a lot of information and emotions. The problem is that Peter Jackson has the sensibility of a 12 year old and, ultimately, it tarnishes everything.
I was appalled by Jackson's enfeebled Gandalf. What he and his co-writers (?) failed to realise is that if they had kept he characters of Gandalf and Aragorn as powerful as they were in Tolkien's mind and yet STILL be mortally afraid of Sauron, who was only ever a distant but menacing shadowy figure, it made Sauron all the more dangerous - no need then for a stupid looking red lighthouse. Didn't they ever read that Barad Dur was almost permanently swathed in shadowy cloud, only occasionally pierced by a stab of red fiery light from the Great Eye?
I just got done watching the Lord of the Rings again last night. I watch it like once a year. And I like the scene. It is epic and Gandalf is so well played by Ian Mcellen. My question is if Grima had followers why weren't they punished alongside Grima?
Reading the books will help you to understand the Actual intentions of Tolkien rather than the unnecessary changes that led to your final question.
The films,
created Plot holes where there should have been none. I have been Steeped in Tolkien's written world since 1975 so of course I find the films Very difficult to watch, and Even the most benign of changes in plot and Character, I find to be quite Jarring on a very visceral level. Yes, gut wrenching would be the correct term here.
The 'thugs' were not loyal to Grima, but erroneously thought that their king was in danger. They were just faithful guards executing their orders to the best of their ability. Some, like Grima, trusted in the goodness of the visitors and did not think the king was in danger. At least, that is how I interpret the scene.
I don’t think that makes sense. They aren’t in the same garb as the Rohirrim present, bearing no insignia, and we see them manhandling Eomer as well when the only person he threatened was Wormtongue. And if you doubt that, PJ explicitly says they were Grima’s thugs in the bonus content.
I always thought that Wormtongue had the ability to place spells on people. He did escape Fangorn's imprisonment, and help Saruman takeover the Shire.
There’s no indication he accomplished anything though, especially in the Shire where he seems more like an abused dog than an independent actor.
@@TolkienLorePodcast I suppose that comes down to a question of what we should expect them to have achieved, absent any magic taking place.
I interpreted the relationship between Saruman and Wormtongue as one of abuse and dependence. It seems like Wormtongue can beguile people in a way that Saruman can not, but that he's beholden to the much more threatening wizard.
I hope that the Hobbits wouldn't have been so vulnerable merely to bad ideas and evil suggestions. I always thought that Saruman couldn't have set himself up there without Wormtongue poisoning people's thoughts with his own little power.
Beguile people in ways Saruman can’t? That’s Saruman’s stock in trade, so I’m not sure Wormtongue could surpass him there.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Fair point. To be honest, I've always felt that Wormtongue was duplicative, and I'm not sure how to interpret him.
If he's only meant to give bad council and represent the effects of doubt and fear, I think it would have been better to have a fairer -even truly innocent- character in his role.
And BTW thank you for your responses!
@@fnamelname9077 Duplicitous is the word you mean (double dealing, liar), not duplicative (doing things doubly, repeating something), like a change in the matrix.
Your other point does make one wonder where Wormtongue came from, when he got his nickname, et cetera. Maybe he began as a worthy counselor. The people of Rohan were not known to be litetate so they may have outsourced some things, idk. Saruman was once a friend to Rohan for all intents and purposes so far as anyone knew was he not? Here king, a present for you, a learned advisor to be by your side. Saruman can be very convincing.
I don't think the weather effects here can or need to be explained naturally. Even if Gandalf could foresee the storm, it would require a perfect timing to use it for his needs, and it would be too easy to fail if they arrive too late or too soon. But most importantly, I don't really see a need in such explanation. We know Gandalf can do magic, we see it before and after this scene. So why strip him of his ability to do so in this scene and try to find a purely natural/scientific explanation?
Do you ever see him using magic to control the weather though? He apparently couldn’t on Caradhras.
@@TolkienLorePodcast [Caradhras happened before his rebirth.] With just a few uses of magic by him altogether and them being quite different, I don't think we can make conclusions what he can _not_ do. But again, I just don't see a point in trying to find a natural explanation, it's like as if the goal were to prove he's not a wizard - then yes, I guess pretty much anything can be explained by rare natural effects and good timing, but why?
Probably related to the thugs from the Scouring of the Shire so there's evidence that Grima hires mercenaries?
Oh there is definitely no magic going on in the book. The idea that Gandalf was using magic on Theoden never even occurred to me. I mean, he uses magic to possibly demonstrate things with the weather, but he's not doing anything directly to Theoden (and I don't think Saruman was either; it was all psychosomatic on Theoden's part, at most enhanced a bit by poisons from Wormtongue, but he gets cured so rapidly I don't think that is likely).
It's possible that Gandalf does cause the actual thunderstrike, like, there's a storm there, and he is able to cause a lightning strike from it. Or, he's using magic to be aware of what's going on with the weather. That whole bit has always seemed a little weird to me, since it is unlikely that Gandalf controls the weather in general. Oh and I think at one point he knocks Wormtongue down, possibly by magic? "In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue’s voice: ‘Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!’ There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face."
However, we do see him use his staff the very first time we meet Gandalf the White. 'The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leaped to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and his grey rags were flung away. His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli’s axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame.' Note that he lifts his staff to fling Gimli's axe, light up Aragorn's sword, and burn Legolas' arrow.
I always thought the staff was psychosematic especially to Saruman. They did have rules. not showing their true form and power. Perhaps they believed the staff was neccassary to do their jobs and access their 'power'. But Saruman became obsessed with "things" which made him much more vulnerable to mental issues even illness. Because Saruman believed it was neccessary it becomes necessary. Like Theodan not thinking 'aged' and therefore he isn't. And maybe Gandalf got told something when he died and got sent back. Perhaps
Gandalf uses magic to cure Theoden. He uses the magic of his word to relight the fire in his heart. Gandalf maya power is that of the word.
Also, off topic have you ever discussed Shadowfax and what the Maera's are? Hope I spelled it right.
Bill the Pony is still *Best Equine* , even if we bring Nahar into the discussion.
What I never understood from the two towers movie was, Saruman throws a fireball at Gandalf knowing he has Narya? Gandalf pretty much has 99% resistance to fire!
Does he know Gandalf has Narya though? ;)
@@TolkienLorePodcast I believe so or at least he has a great suspicion as much! There’s a passage that states that the white knows grey was given the ring!
@@skilljoy9246 Where?
I can't easily believe that Saruman wouldn't have tried to take it from Gandalf when he was held captive.
Why did Galdalf allow himself to be manhandled (wizardhandled?) up to his open air dungeon? I think part of the reason was to keep the ring secret.
The staff has great significance. The Shepherd uses the Staff to guide his Flock to safety. This is why Gandalf has the staff - he is identified as the Shepherd while Rohirrim and Gondor folks are the flock. As far as Theoden is concerned, Gandalf the White gave Theoden 'Truth'. He pretty much 'deprogrammed' Theoden from the 'cult of Saruman'.
As far as the dying embers, the rains and thunderstorms, the grey cloak vs. white cloak, etc. - these are 'powers of Divinity' not 'magic' - theological interpretations of Dualism vs. 'reformed' Monotheism.
I like Rankin Bass Gandalf. Never phased. Always has the answers. The Batman of Middle earth.
Same, I really like his design and his voice is great! Though I also like Gandalf being abrupt, or easily annoyed to the point of anger by Pippin's antics
Like they say in the poem, "Swift in anger, quick to laugh"
I know you do book v movie comparison with Peter Jackson's trilogy v book. Have you compared 1978 Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings, 1980 Return of the King v books and Peter Jackson's trilogy maybe compare scenes from all three to the books to give different takes how animated version v live action v books. Because I think Peter Jackson was inspired in part by 1978 Ralph Bakshi version on some scenes not sure, but like your knowledge on the world.
I’ve done reviews of the earlier movies but haven’t done in depth comparisons yet. Probably will eventually though!
@@TolkienLorePodcast Will you review _Khraniteli_ (the 1991 Soviet/Russian screenplay of _The Fellowship of the Ring_ )?
Not sure I have it in me to do that one 😆
@@TolkienLorePodcast There is always the 1993 Finnish version where everyone looks like they just walked off stage from a rock festival - Bilbo's 1/14 share of Smaug's hoard would barely pay for the Aquanet used.
This might be a task, but was thinking since you do comparisons, theories, speak about Tolkien's works. Have you ever thought about doing a series about how you would have made the Lord of the Rings films, The Hobbit films, even what the Amazon series on the second age or the first age. Probably a big task, but I assume you don't pretecurly care for the films when you talk snd compare scenes. Would you want to do a series like that? It could be in parts. Because when I either read a book or watch a anime show or something I have in my head it play out like a film and yes change things, but from book, show, etc to film you can't keep it all. Just was thinking it would be interesting on how you would have adapted the books to series or film. Anyways keep up the good work.
I actually have an idea like that for the Hobbit movies. Maybe eventually LOTR as well.
What we perceive as magic in Gandalf is actually his innate power. This is where I disagree with how he is treated in the film. Being an angel of lower rank than the Ainur, he still has certain powers attributable to an angelic spirit. However, as Gandalf the Grey, the extent on how he uses his powers is limited, perhaps by the order of the Valar or by Eru himself. After his death and resurrection as Gandalf the White, he is bestowed rights to use his powers extensively as demonstrated in his healing of Theoden. In the book, he's powerful with or without his staff. Even the Witch King will probably have hard time dealing with him had not for a more urgent matter of Faramir. And he is the one who snatches Frodo's belongings from the Mouth of Sauron as the Black Numenorean cowers before him.
Hmmm, you overplay the inconsistency of the Meduseld scene in the movie. It's quite obvious Saruman wouldn't be able to control Theoden all the time. What he was probably doing in movie continuity is (with Grima's help) poisoning Theoden's mind, making hem more and more weak, aged and incapable, which would allow to possess him if necessary. So up to the point when Theoden starts to laugh at Gandalf, he probably wasn't possessed, and Saruman stepped in the game when Gandalf tried to dispel whatever Saruman did to Theoden. As for Grima's "thugs", I'd assume Grima was smart enough to prepare the emergency signal of a kind in case the situation with "the visitors" would come out of hand, it wouldn't be too hard to warn certain guards more loyal to Grima than Theoden, or disinform the loyal guards on the nature of events to follow, and try to use violent approach if diplomacy fails.
Didn't gandalf use his ring and staff in fighting the Balrog, also?
Oh yes, and I always loved how...in the book....Theoden calls for his sword, and Hama finds it in a trunk in Grima's room, along with many other people's things. Loved that Grima got so BUSTED out!
Yes for the staff (no indication as to the Ring) but he’s not the White then. ;)
Truth. In a books assists, but not solve. Otherwise Gandalf would have thrown the ring in that envelope in Mordor's direction and magic would carry it until it burns.
Theoden complains to Grima about his substandard leechcraft (medical care). The implication is that Grima has been subtly poisoning the king, then treating his symptoms with a therapy that leaves him worse off than before, so that Grima needs only mental poisoning, not physical to continue controlling Theoden. Gandalf refers to this as “an old device of Saruman’s.” Meaning he’s pulled this kind of shit lots of times before.
Okay. On whom? And if Gandalf knew, why’d he tolerate it?
So Grima has to keep treating Theoden to keep him in a state of mind liable to Saruman’s telepathic control. And the thugs are there to keep people from interfering with Grima’s leechcraft.
I think leechcraft here is a metaphor, not literal. As for it being an “old device” I can only assume Gandalf is referring to Saruman’s powerful ability to persuade or daunt.
The fight scene in Meduseld is all about character development for a one-off background character, Hama the Door-Guard. First he makes the Company disarm, and when Gandalf begs the use of his walking-stick, Hama gives a look which reads as “a likely story, but I can’t technically prove it untrue, so….” Then when the fight starts up between the Conpany and Grima’s thugs, one of the other Door-Guards grabs his sword, ready to ward the king, but Hama grabs his hand, gives him a look, and says, “Wait!” Then, when Gandalf urges Theoden to grasp his sword, it is Hama who hands it to him, his face full of hope. I don’t know if Hama was one of the people to hurl Grima down the steps later, but I wouldn’t put it past Peter Jackson.
Hama later gets his face bitten off by a warg for his troubles. And his son Haleth asks Aragorn if there is any hope left, because “the men say they will not last out the night.” Also, you know, his dad died earlier that morning.
The book is much better than the movies. It also applies more to real life, as dealing in with depression or other mental problems similar things might happen -- over a longer period.
The movie adaptation is understandable but completely unrelated to anything anyone might experience, coming down to a battle between two wizards.
A movie is a very different medium and different things work in a movie vs the book. I think the LOTR movies are good and certainly much better than they could have been but it's very difficult for me to be fair to them as an adaptation since I have such a strong impression left by the book.
I do totally get some of the changes like cutting characters and/or for example giving glorfindel's moment to arwen, some like this I find myself less understanding to I guess and I think it's unfair of me.
You're kind of unfair to the movie version of this scene.
First of all, even with the King's backing it's perfectly reasonable for Grima to recruit lackeys, and where they come from isn't really relevant. Grima can't be everywhere at once. It's just not to be expected that he would have no need or desire for henchmen simply because he has the King's backing.
Secondly, the movie version clearly shows that Saruman's possession primarily incapacitates Theoden. That Theoden's incapacitation fluctuates so that he speaks at one point and not another isn't a relevant objection. Most ailments fluctuate. The mind fluctuates. It doesn't need a specific explanation. How Theoden became possessed isn't relevant either.
Third, because the possession primarily incapacitates Theoden Grima is necessary to act as an effective mouth piece and front man who can push Saruman's will. The possessed Theoden is clearly ineffectual, probably because Theoden is resisting the possession, which would also go to explaining the fluctuations.
Whether this kind of possession is consistent with the rest of Tolkien's lore isn't relevant either. The three films are stand alone productions, and this issue never comes up again. It's a creative choice, and critically, it's not bad. It's a good scene. Saruman is NOT magic-ing Theoden into doing what he wants. Theoden is barely functioning. I wouldn't call that control. Saruman has incapacitated him.
By your own admission in another video the One Ring is based on Sauron's own power set. Sauron pours his power into the One Ring. Where does the mind control power come from? It comes from Sauron. It is part and parcel of what he was capable of without the ring. Saruman is a Maiar just like Sauron, and the idea that he would be capable of a weaker less useful form of mind control is totally reasonable. Based on where the powers of the ring originate it may be rationally inferred that influencing the minds of others is not off the table, and there is no reason why it should be.
Pretty much all of this stuff may be gathered effectively by inference. It doesn't require explicit explanation. It's called visual storytelling. What is happening and why may be inferred, and what isn't directly shown or told mostly isn't relevant.
The movie version is much more concise. It's a stronger character moment for Gandalf especially in a direct contest with Saruman, and it's just more fun to watch than all of that talking would have been.
I don't favor style over substance as a rule, but faulting the film for not holding your hand with exposition seems a little unfair. No, a person shouldn't write the movie for the film makers, but there's no relevant information missing from the film. I'm not adding to it. I'm just saying, it makes sense on its own. Further exposition to detail the precise mechanics of the possession, and Grima's role, and the nature of the henchmen is superfluous. It's pretty obvious if you don't expect to be spoon fed, no offense.
Having said all that, I do like the book version.
Sup DUDE!
I think this interpretation relies on too many coincidences. Did Gandolf just raise his staff hoping the storm would blow up and hoping that lightning would strike?
There’s a gray area between overt movie magic and absolute coincidence. I think this interpretation goes too far to the other extreme
He barely used magic in the movies.
Thugs? They were clearly shown as soldiers
With no livery, no armor, no insignia? No. Thugs. They clearly looked nothing like any of the other Rohirrim.
Good content. Shame you're out of focus and poorly framed!
My temporary setup isn’t the best, but it’ll improve in the future I promise!
You were charitable to Peter Jackson. That was one of the worst changes from the book to the movies.
I sense a plot to destroy Peter Jackson.
sorry but No you are just wrong and wrong in a way that says that you really do not understand the material.
Can you maybe back that up with an argument?
@@TolkienLorePodcast "Theoden's charge" is overtly miraculous. that alone should be enough to make the case that Gandalf not only healed Theoden but that the healing went MUCH further than simply reinvigorating an aging warrior king.
further Gandalf/O'loren is a healer and counselor by nature and not far short of the Valar themselves in this regard he is also in possession of Narya the ring of fire which is stated as having the power to sustain and strengthen along with the preservative powers common to the three rings.....you call this a "soft magic system" i doubt Tolkien would agree with that at all. IMO his reaction to such claims would either be that there is no "magic as such in his books" he intimates as much in the early exposition that takes place on the subject between the elves and the hobbits , or that the magic is quite well explained as being the power of the spirits of the characters he created.
Gandalf is not a “healer by nature.” His nature is to inspire (courage, artistry, etc.). But there’s nothing “overtly miraculous” about Theoden’s healing except in Peter Jackson’s movie; the book gives no hint that anything supernatural goes on as far as Theoden’s health, mental or physical.
@@TolkienLorePodcast have you ever actually read the books? or do you not understand the term Miraculous or is that you think that "grass flaming to life" under the hooves of theoden's horse was "natural" or that a human can just yell to an entire army and blow a horn so loudly that it explodes? find me a single line in that paragraph that is NOT supernatural.
The grass “flaming to life” is because of the sunrise. Practiced orators can make themselves heard by large crowds; it was common before the invention of voice amplifying devices. As for the horn, I see no reason to think that’s supernatural either since he goes into a battle frenzy immediately. Adrenaline does crazy things to the body and if he had a good set of lungs as implied by his achievement if a very clear and loud voice he could put out some serious wind. One could also read it as poetic license by an unreliable narrator, or maybe the horn was just fragile.