The truth about the Saruman cut

Juan Aneiros · 5th January 2005, 01:14 PM

In a recent recorded interview, about 2-3 weeks ago, Mr. Lee said:

"Frankly, I do not know why that sequence, which is approximately seven minutes, was removed". "I was told this in October last year. An executive phoned me up. I wasn't given an explanation. I was shocked. It wasn't a question of an actor's vanity. I said: 'I'm not all that concerned about Christopher Lee the actor, but what about Saruman? The whole world is going to want to know what happened to Saruman.' I am told the entire sequence is back in the DVD. I'd be delighted to see it, because I have no idea what it looks like"

**Dave Hutchens** · 5th January 2005, 01:31 PM

No one knows why. It's inexplicable, and inexcusable. As I stated in a previous post, I'm more confused and outraged than ever after having seen the EE. It didn't clarify anything, it only deepened the mystery and aggravated the insult to us all.

**Helen Dyer** · 5th January 2005, 07:40 PM

The decision by film executives to cut an important sequence of the film is not only inexplicable and inexcusable but the main reason I dislike seeing movies made of books that I love. IF Saruman was such a minor incident to the story, Tolkien would have "cut" these passages to save paper. However, he didn't. I HAD considered LOTR to be an exceptional portrayal of Tolkien's work, but sadly the film executives "final" judgement wasn't as sound as their initial decision to film the Saruman sequence....

Starfire

Southern Beau · 6th January 2005, 12:45 AM

Here is a theory why they cut the character. It is based off of Spielberg's comment as to why he cut scenes out of 1941 (this includes the unexplainable disappearance of Capt. Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt). He basically said no cares about what happens to Klienschmidt or others. This comment is found on the collector's DVD version.

The executives probably feel the same. It isn't often that filmmakers buy the rights to books only to make the book. It is usually quite the opposite. After all, look at Sleepy Hollow. I found it to be a terrible film only because of my expectations based on the book. But as a whole, the film is well made for one who was not expected The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

The same can be said of fans for LOTR as well as fans of Christopher Lee. However, villains often take a back seat to leads in these kinds of decisions.

Just my theory.

---Beau

**Mike Schneider** · 6th January 2005, 05:01 AM

I'm a big fan of the trilogy in both book form and in film, but if seven minutes of the film were to be cut, why on Middle-earth would you cut the ones with Saruman. There were plenty of lengthy expansive scenery shots that could have been shortened a minute here and another there... I'll have to wait until I buy the 4 dics set of ROTK to see the Saruman scenes.

As everyone else that is a member of this site, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Lee, especially in this series of films. To agree with Mr. Lee, it isn't that he was cut out of the big screen version. That a character as integral as Saruman is to the story, that's what is so disappointing.

**Helen Dyer** · 6th January 2005, 05:44 AM

Your theory is a sound one. I agree that "villians" do often take a "back seat". And it is quite probable that the executives felt the scenes that were cut were not integral to the flow of the story. In a way it is sad though, because most of the students (university) I have spoken with have told me that they haven't read the LOTR series (didn't even know that there was a book called The Hobbit!), because it was "too difficult" to read...So where does that leave the heros and the villians?

**Dave Hutchens** · 6th January 2005, 06:54 AM

I can't accept any explanation at this point. If seven minutes needed deleting, the twenty-minute group hug at the end was the first place to start cutting.

I'm actually more inclined to agree with whoever it was suggested it was a marketing ploy for the EE. Wanna know what happened to ol' Saruman? BUY THE DVD!!!

nobby.c · 7th January 2005, 10:25 AM

well having listened to the director/writers comedy much discussion is had about this scene and the difficulty they had coming up with a good way of putting an end to Saruman and including it in the series. Why not put it at the end of TTT, why not include it in theatrical release etc etc.
I personally think the ROTK EE is not as good as it could be (say compared to TTT EE) with some very bizarre decisions made with scene inclusions and exlcusions. eg. The opening sequence is not my favourite thing and would have sat better as a flashback in the TTT EE where it originally intended to be (where Frodo confronts Gollum with his real name). However the Directors insist ROTK is a movie about the Ring and Frodo/Sams journey and so it features as opening sequence to bring the Ring back in as a character as well as give an origins story. So if ROTK is about the Ring et al, the killing off of Saruman adds nothing to the story (other than closure on the character) which unfortunately allows the scene to be removed. A tough decision but hey they made it and under a lot of pressure to get a reasonable length cut of the movie out on time.
Now as I said I was a little disappointed by the ROTK EE. House of healing felt like a music video, Mouth of Sauron was fine etc. but as an interpretation of a very hard book to film I would say it isnt too bad (understatement considering the 11 oscars :) )

SKRiDren · 8th January 2005, 05:36 AM

Just thought I would pop in to clarify that 'film executives' did not make the decision to cut Mr. Lee's footage. Film executives may have been the ones who called to inform him (which is odd -- the director should have called himself), but the director himself decided to cut the scene, and there is plenty of documentation on this in the DVD commentary and elsewhere.

Also, on a note of personal opinion, I think the time for anger or indignation on this has passed. Whatever you think of the original decision, the scene is back in now, and the Extended Editions are being increasingly regarded as the definitive versions of the films, so forever on Saruman gets his due, it was a temporary omission.

**Patricia Smith** · 8th January 2005, 07:27 AM

To be completely honest, I have to say these things about RotK:

1) compared to the other two movies, it was not as well done, and did not stay as close to the original story as the other two.

2) Not only could the "group hug" at the end have been shortened, the TACKY TACKY snogging of Aragorn and Arwen at the finale could have been completely eliminated. IIRC, that was NOT what Tolkien wrote, and it looked horrific and out of context in the film. (I am no prude, and totally dig "The Wickerman". However, "The Wickerman", this is not)

3) Though the books ARE quite violent, somehow, I still felt the battles were overly long, and quite over the top, and the later ones lacked the...how do I even say this...the sense of haste I felt in the novels.

4) I would much rather have seen more of Saruman, and had that depth that his villainy brought to the original novels added to the movie, than any more of the Hollywoodization that the drawn-out battles, blood-drenched battlefields, and over-wrought, over-used faux-Irish music contributed.

Now, please don't get me wrong; I didn't HATE this movie. I just simply didn't go completely ga-ga over it like so many people did. And, for the record, I DO think there are better stories, both on film, and in novels, than the stuff Tolkien wrote. *Dons flame retardant suit and runs like hell*

UKKiwi · 8th January 2005, 11:47 AM

I think that Peter Jackson had a tough decision to make. It was a hard decision to take the scene from the theatrical release but what else woiuld he have cut out to put that in? The 'group-hug' gave people who have not read the books (and there are a lot of them) a chance for closure. The Aragorn/Arwen scenes weren't even in the book but assigned a sperate chapter on their own in the appendices and the director had to find a way of inserting that story into the main as it was very important to the future of middle earth. I felt the future of Gimli and Legolas should have been mentioned but hey did we really want to sit there for 7 hours on a theatrical release?

The important thing is that the scene is back in the EE and we get a chance to see Sarunam and Wormtongue's demise. I felt the EE flowed and I am glad that Mr Lee finally got to see it.

**Luke Farookhi** · 8th January 2005, 12:48 PM

I agree about the film in that respect. I suppose the battles needed to be long enough to remind us that this is war - but did they really have to be so long? It didn't feel right that the gimmick that was being sold to the general audience was that 'the battles will be the biggest ever seen on screen'. The battles are nothing compared to the story. The groundbreaking special effects are brilliant, but it is only a matter of time before another film has even bigger battles. What will be remembered is the story, and I felt that the films put a little too much emphasis on effects shots. The third film felt the most like a 'blockbuter'; it lacked the majesty and essence of Tolkien that the other two, particularly the first, captured so well.
In terms of pacing, I think that many of the cuts made in the third film were largely the fault of the editing of the second film. The warg battle didn't need to be there; it basically seemed just to be an action sequence, and although it emphasised the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen when she revives him, that is emphasised enough. If they were going to leave half of Book 4 until the third film then they really should have got a head start with Aragorn's storyline rather than ending it at Helm's Deep. Peter Jackson needs to realise that a scene doesn't need to be a big battle to be exciting. The Voice of Saruman would have been an excellent conclusion to the second film - the defeat of the main villain of the film. His staff needed to be broken. How else will he 'have no power anymore'? He can't have been careless enough to have dropped the palantir in the water; only after the scene in the Extended Version of the third film does that make sense.
Not only that, but poor Grima doesn't even seem worthy of a mention in the theatrical cut. He may just be henchmen, but the characters, particularly Theoden, are unlikely to have forgotten him.
It was good seeing Mr. Lee and Brad Dourif in the film at last, but one can't help thinking the writers could have done so much more with the characters. It would have been very interesting indeed to have seen them in the Shire at the end; being a Scouring fan, I was longing to see the descent of Saruman from head of an order to bitter beggar. I don't think it would have affected the pacing of the ending in a negative way - indeed, the 20 minutes of 'happily ever after' had so many hugs and slow fade-outs that it needed a change in mood to keep the general audience's attention. I'm sure the book wasn't that soppy.

**Matt Gemmell** · 8th January 2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davehutchens

I'm actually more inclined to agree with whoever it was suggested it was a marketing ploy for the EE. Wanna know what happened to ol' Saruman? BUY THE DVD!!!

Thanks Dave . It's just my opinion but having seen the scene ( which is terrific ) and listened to the pathetic " reasons " for deleting it , I'm even more convinced .

TheWickerMan · 16th January 2005, 04:47 PM

I myself have always thought he was left out to make people buy the extended edition!

gyllenegevær · 1st February 2005, 02:03 AM

I would just like to post my comments here as I too am a fan of Tolkien and of the films. As a student in the film/animation industry I have had the delight of discussing with other film students upon this subject.

From what I heard, Peter Jackson is not a director who cuts out scenes in order to get more people to purchase the extended DVD. In an interview with Jackson, and others have referred to this, he says that the end of Saruman depicted in the book did not fit into the film. Nor did the sequence that was shot and later included in the final extended cut.

To defend the filmmaker's decisions I enjoyed the added drama of Aragorn and Arwen's romance. The theatrical release left a lot to be desired and I found it to be poor editing. If Jackson had not made it appear as if the film was ending five times over people might not have found it so tedious to sit through.

I have not seen the extended version yet but hope to soon as I dislike just reading spoilers - but not only does the audience wonder what happened to Saruman and Grima - but what about the confrontation with Gandalf and the Witch King - or the head Orc - or when Legolas runs through battle to aid Aragorn - or the horribly cut scenes with Arwen and her father Elrond. Too many lose ends.

I hope Mr. Lee is satisfied with the results. I for one enjoy this film trilogy even for its downfalls. Need I bring up the severe failure of the adaptation of Ursula K. LeGuin's "Wizard of Earthsea"?

GoldenGun