Don’t you mean American Eye-dol?
And I still think either Clear Eyes or Visine is missing a great marketing opportunity. Just get a deal cut with the Tolkien estate and New Line. Imagine, Ben Stein with the Eye behind him, intoning: “For dry, itchy, red eyes use Clear Eyes.”
Bwah!!! You guys are killin’ me! I guess the rumors are true. There is no place like The Dope. 
You don’t have a problem interpreting the Eye of Sauron [in the movies] as non-literal or physical in form, even if the director intended [apparently] it to be?
Again, looking for confirmation.
Dammit!
:smack:
That’s suppossed to be "even if the director intended [apparently] it to notbe. P.J. is saying that it is, literally, Sauron.
Jackson made a good choice.
Sauron is not a good cinematic character. He doesn’t show up for either of the climatic scenes – Mt Doom or the gates of Mordor .He just stays in his tower, managing events from the back office, never taking the field. He never even comes face to face with the hero. Bad form for a bad guy.
But if Sauron did get involved in the action, the fans would howl. And rightfully so. It would be a bigger change in the storyline than any of the other choices Jackson made.
Making Sauron into the eye partially solves the problem. Since he doesn’t have a solid form, the filmgoer doesn’t feel the visceral expectation of seeing him in physical action. But he still gets to have a presence. The heroes face him every time they look at the tower. Best of all, he is an integral part of the action at gates of just by being prominent on the screen during that scene. We, the audience, as well as the forces of Gondor can see hi there directing his forces, even while he is still at the tower as in the original story.
Strangely, it appears that this choice was not a deliberate change, but rather a misinterpretation of the books. :eek:
I havn’t been able to find the actual interview, but multiple sources are stating this is true.
In any event, it looks like I have answered my own question:
The giant, lidless, eye atop Barad-dur, in the movies, is Sauron!
Despite this, I still love these movies.
Thanks for all of your help guys!
Yeah, well, apparently George Lucas thinks Greedo should’ve been the first to shoot in the cantina, too, but that ain’t how it actually happened.
PJ can tell me what the Eye is supposed to represent, but there’s enough ambiguity there that I’m comfortable with my interpretation.
I agree with Sauron (although, ugh, that sounds like a horrible thing to say, me of hobbit-blood and an elf-friend). I thought of the Eye as a filmic representation of magic at work, Sauron’s vision/thought, and that interpretation holds up and is consistent through the three movies. The notion tht the Eye is Sauron Himself is inconsistent with the shot of Gollumn being tortured – wouldn’t the lighting be red?
The books constantly have Gandalf trying to read what Sauron is thinking. The movies don’t do that, it would be much too talky. (Extended version of TWO TOWERS has one such scene, Gandalf talking to Aragorn.) Hence, the Eye is used as a visualization of where Sauron is looking (and by implication, what he’s thinking about.)
I never trust what the author/artist has to say about the meaning of his work. I’ve had too many first-hand examples of film directors who lie, whether deliberately, or from a bizarre sense of humor, or from not wanting to look deeper into their work, or from just being interviewed too often and so responding with silliness. “Trust the artist, not the tale.”
The work should stand on its own. If there are multiple interpretations of what something means, then so be it, and the artist saying “There’s no symbolism whatsoever in that movie, except the last shot of a train entering a tunnel, that’s a phallic symbol” [Hitchcock] is irrelevant.
Interesting points ** C K Dexter Haven**.
I see what you are saying. It’s similiar to Tolkien himself claiming there is no allegory in his works.
The Saruman quote in the movie still bothers me however:
he isn’t yet able to ‘take physical form’.
Bah, oh well. I’ll let it go.
Ever consider the possibility that Saruman might be, you know, lying to Galdalf? What with him being a devious, scheming bad guy and all.
Just my idea about what Sauron “really” looked like.
I think that in the book at least Sauron is more a symbolic character than a physical one. Tolkien realized that any description would ruin the suspense. I agree.
It’s stronger than that, I think, furryman. See, Sauron is described as the Ultimate Evil, and we have the image of a Great Mastermind, a towering figure of power and intellect. But when the final confrontation between good and evil is fought, Evil is not Sauron but Gollum – nasty, sneaky, petty, small. Tolkien’s message is that we think of Satan as a great powerful worshipful lord, but true evil is the opposite, it’s petty, filthy, nassssty.
The same happens with Saruman, of course, when his ultimate role is Sharky and Wormtongue… doing petty wickedness in the Shire.
So, it’s critical to the thematic development that Tolkien NOT let us meet Sauron face-to-face.
Is it possible that he was unable to take physical form at the start of the Fellowship, but by the time Gollum was captured, he was able to? As his armies grew, his own stature grew, the eye being an embodiment of him, but not the only one.
sorry if this has been answered later down the thread, but as far as I understood, no humanoid form is present for Sauron because he was not able (at least up until this point) to ‘gather’ himself/his power sufficiently to be able to concentrate it and ‘put it into’ a humanoid form 
once again, apologies if this has already been attended to, but it was my understanding, that in both cases (1. after the destruction of Numenor, and 2. after he lost the ring when it was cut off by Isildur), that his power was sufficiently diminished, that although he was not destroyed/killed, he was no longer able to ‘maintain’ a human form or shape for a looooong looong time
I first read LOTR in 1977 or so and I watched ROTK for only the second time tonight and I have to say I love this interpretation. Evil IS ultimately sneaky, petty and small.
In the context of the movies, evil, in the end, is seen in the eyes of Sauron’s servants as they realize with horror that they are about to be defeated by the Men of the West.
Incorrect, and my OP clearly states why.
So, we have references to a physical, humanoid form in the book, and we have confirmation from the man himself in one of his letters.
Don’t feel bad however. Even Peter Jackson, apparently, arrived at the same conclusion you did.
From Wikipedia:
Jackson envisions Sauron as being a spirit-like being who cannot (yet) take bodily form. Sauron’s only physical presence is as a giant disembodied red eye, seen in the second and third movies as floating above Barad-dûr (or perhaps suspended by its twin parapets). This differs substantially from the situation in the books as described above, and interviews with Jackson imply that the difference is based on an honest (and understandable) misreading of Tolkien’s intent.
It was obvious to me from the start that Jackson intended that floating Eye to be Sauron in the movie. Jackson, say what you will about him, sought to tell a consistent story in his Lord of the Rings epic that wouldn’t demand that people keep referring back to the books. Every filmmaker does this, inevitably – the film has to stand on its own. I’m amazed that he was able to keep as true to the books as he did. But he did make changes. A lot of peiople have commented on them.
One that I haven’t heard any comment on is that , in The Fellowship, Gandald never touches the Ring. This differs from the book, but is, I think, even more consistent with the underlying premise of how dangerous the Ring is. In the film, Gandalf dare not even touch the Ring, lest he be corrupted by it. Although Tolkien was careful to keep the Ring out of everyone’s touch (except for Tom Bombadil – but that’s another story) for the rest of the book, he let Gandalf touch it here. I kinda like Jackson’s treatment better.
In any event, in Jackson’s re-imagining Sauron lost his body when he lost the Ring, and he pretty clearly can’t get it back until he reclaims the Ring. It’s not Tolkien’s vision, but it’s clear and consistent in the film, and I picked up on it early enough.
I’m not sure if this is inconsistent – this line from Saruman is in the first film, and , IIRC, Sauron doesn’t appear as the Flaming Eyeball atop Barud Dur until the beginning of the second film. So: Sauron couldn’t yet take physical form at the time Saruman said so, and later he could, when he had grown stronger.
Similarly, in the first film the Barad Dur is under construction; in the second, it’s complete, with flaming oculus perched above. Message: Sauron’s power had grown.
Gandalf touches the Ring in the film – right after Bilbo drops on the floor and departs, Gandalf comes back into Bag End, stoops and touches the ring, and gets bitch-slapped by a vision of the Eye.
Gandalf certainly never holds the ring, but he does touch it that once.
He does not touch the Ring. You see a POV shot of him reaching for the Ring, then the image of the Eye. You never see him touch the Ring.
You may interpret it as him touching it and getting “bitch-slapped:”, but I thi8nk that it’s just proximity that triggers the warning of the presence of Evil (I don’t think the Eye is “bitch-slapping” him – the Ring would love for someone of Gandalf’s power to wield it). That’s consistent with Jackson’s vision.