Q: Why Are Saruman, Radadgast, and Galadriel in The Hobbit?
ANSWER: The inclusion of the characters Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel in Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of “The Hobbit” continues to rankle would-be Tolkien purists and critics. The most common complaint I see is that people still believe Peter has unnecessarily expanded the story so he could make three movies. I have already stated my position on the Padding Controversy: I think the Hobbit story is indeed worth three films. I also stand by my statement that “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is a terrible movie.
Whenever a fantasy book is adapted to film people inevitably find reasons to be disappointed. Defenders of books and movies (including me) often cite the difficulty in transition from printed word to screen, but that’s not the only reason why film-makers change stories. In Peter Jackson’s case he had many reasons to change “The Hobbit”. Maybe you or I don’t agree with all his decisions, but he certainly had reasons to make changes to the story.
But one of the changes that continues to draw fire (up to this month) is the inclusion of Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel in the Jackson storyline. For some reason people just want to use these characters as a justification for moral outrage. I’m not sure if they are outraged because “Tolkien’s story has been changed” or if they are outraged because “this story was too short for three movies”; maybe it’s both. But you know what? Technically they ARE included in The Hobbit by authorial fiat.
We always exclude Galadriel from the list of female characters included in The Hobbit but she has been there since October 1955, the month that The Return of the King was published. Yes, that’s right. J.R.R. Tolkien placed Galadriel in The Hobbit in 1955. He used a bit of authorial magic to accomplish this feat, bypassing all publisher obstructions to his purpose. He did this by waving his hand (via the appendices) and declaring that Galadriel was a part of the White Council and that the White Council was the “council of wizards” that drove Sauron from Dol Guldur in the same year as the Battle of Five Armies.
And that means Saruman was retroactively inserted into the story of The Hobbit. Of course, Radagast was already there (by name) and fans (and scholars) are still not unified in declaring Radagast to be a member of the White Council. Personally, I am disappointed only in not seeing Celeborn included in the solemn deliberations; but what really amuses me is that the White Council meets so far from Lothlorien, where the real action was taking place. I guess it was just too expensive to include that kind of detail in the first movie.
So, is this authorial legerdemain, screenwriter fan fiction, or simply another of Mad Martinez’ bizarre speculations (with no basis in fact or support from the books — never mind the fact I just referred to the Appendices in The Lord of the Rings)? I’ll concede that the first two points are somewhat valid, but as usual I am not making up stuff.
The question of Peter Jackson’s faithfulness to J.R.R. Tolkien’s work will always haunt these movies. No rationalizations for faithfulness will convince everyone that these films incorporate more Tolkien ideas than most people give them credit for. It’s not just the obvious departures we all agree upon, such as use of characters like Tauriel and Azog (the latter of whom is at least mentioned in Tolkien’s story). There are compressions of events (such as the intervention of the eagles, the trek through Mirkwood) and the bizarre alterations in character (such as Beorn becoming an inhuman bear-man-thing). When you go looking for violations of the Tolkien canon in these movies, there are many.
But the inclusion of characters like Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel in “The Hobbit” does not violate the Tolkien canon because he says they were there. Heck, I don’t think Viggo Mortensen’s reason for not appearing in the movies was valid, either. Obviously he could not play a 10-year-old Aragorn scampering about Rivendell but if Peter is going to include scenes concerning events after the restoration of the Kingdom Under the Mountain I would not mind seeing the old Ranger crossing paths with Gandalf somewhere along the way. It would be tough to justify including Arwen in a post-restoration scene, but you know what, filming Aragorn and Arwen’s first meeting in Rivendell would be a heck of an excuse to bring back Liv Tyler (of course, many of you objected to including Liv in “The Lord of the Rings” so perhaps I should not play this card).
If the inclusion of characters that Tolkien said were there is not wrong, then why does it feel wrong? My opinion is that Peter did not use these characters well. First of all, I think Saruman should be more reasonable. I am sure that — if the third movie shows the White Council moving against Dol Guldur — Saruman will give in on some point. But in Tolkien’s timeline everyone knew by now that the Necromancer was really Sauron, and that Dol Guldur was a fully restored fortress (not something hidden by illusion). Gandalf’s visit to Dol Guldur could have been shown in flashback mode (goodness knows, these movies have no problem including flashbacks). The drama in the White Council meeting could have been more about whether to take action than whether Sauron had returned. I think that would have worked just fine and it would not have interfered with the insane barrel ride down the Forest River in the least.
But you know, I wasn’t consulted on how to adapt the story to film. Nor would it have been a foregone conclusion that my opinion would have ruled, or that movie audiences would have agreed with anything I might have influenced. The criticisms directed at these films are all valid at least in that they represent the feelings of the people expressing them. But like Abraham Lincoln said when he wasn’t killing vampires, you can’t please all the people all the time.
The decision to include Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel in the events of “The Hobbit” is reasonable, in my opinion. The execution was less than perfect. If, in the future, someone else makes another “Hobbit” film they may take the story in a different direction; and there will be critics of such a project, too. People are way too trigger happy with some of their complaints (and they may feel that way about my own complaints). For example, people natter over why the eagles don’t carry Thorin and Company all the way to Erebor. It’s just crazy how people hack at both the books and the movies for not making the eagles into transporter beams. Middle-earth’s eagles are not a continent-spanning taxi service. Their involvement in stories is rare because that is how the author saw them; it’s time to stop objecting to everything in the story simply because the eagles didn’t show up to cut to the chase.
And people should not be upset about the inclusion of Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel in the movies. J.R.R. Tolkien said they were there. Peter Jackson is just embellishing the story a little. You get to see three very fine actors put some credible performances in a fantasy movie; trust me, I grew up with tons of fantasy movies that never went that far. I am still not ready to forgive the film industry for making “Ironmaster” and “Barbarian Queen” (or myself for being stupid enough to go see them in the theater — but those were different days).
I know the last movie is called “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” but, frankly, I’m not sure I want to see another 45-minute battle sequence from Peter Jackson and company. I HOPE (truly HOPE) that we’ll see much more of Saruman, Radagast, and Galadriel. I can only take so much Orlando Bloom sliding around the green screen like Superman on steroids (I love Orly as an actor, I love Leggy as a character, but enough is enough with the hyperacrobatics). The story from the book really is long enough to justify three movies. Maybe it doesn’t justify these three movies for everyone, but I believe everyone would have been much less happy with the result had Peter done only 1 or 2 movies.
If the confrontation between the White Council and Sauron is presented as I hope it is, a lot of people will eat their words and say, “Oh … that was all necessary setup. Doh!” Some people argue that the White Council subplot is not vital to the story but it really is, even if Tolkien only used it to explain Gandalf’s absence. At least in the book it gives Gandalf some depth; Thorin’s adventure is only one of the many concerns of the wizard, and Tolkien introduced Gandalf as exactly the type of character who is involved in a lot of stories (Elrond, too). Peter’s use of Elrond and Gandalf is far closer to Tolkien’s intentions than most people acknowledge.
If the “Lord of the Rings” movies had been more faithful to Tolkien’s history for Middle-earth I would have been all up for Peter doing some more movies from the appendices (like the founding of Rivendell). Hugo Weaving deserves an opportunity to do something more than act like an innkeeper on the Middle-earth Road to Adventure. Elrond is a complex character, and I would go see an Elrond biopic. Definitely, I would go see it.
In the immortal words of Christopher Walken: “I coulda used a little more White Council … Explore the space; I like what I’m hearing … I got a fever! And the only prescription is more White Council!”
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
If JRRT said the white council was a council of wizards then you would hope there was more than two – perhaps Radagast was part of the council to make it three wizards (perhaps I am being to literal with the istari ;-). I loved seeing all three of the characters in the films and would have been disappointed by their non-appearance and I have thoroughly enjoyed PJ’s exploration of Gandalf’s disappearance even though it differs from cannon and my own thoughts. And yet the differences have provided material that add to my imagination of how things were in MiddleEarth even if the details are different. I loved seeing Sauron in DG and I was absolutely addicted to Smaug – he oozed charisma even if he got his lines and actions canonically wrong 😉 I was absolutely besotted and am very happy there is still more of him to come. Of course, it goes without saying, there will be more Bilbo too!
Hahaha … Truth, truth.
“More White Council! I need more White Council!” 😀
Well, the impression that I get is that some people were looking for any excuse to trash PJ. I remember people saying of LOTR, “Why didn’t the eagles just carry Frodo to Mount Doom?” So there you go – and doing so certainly wouldn’t be in accord with “canon” in either instance. Yes, there is enough in Tolkien’s book to merit three movies. Which suggests that there would have been enough in LOTR for five or six movies. Which, looking back, I think is true. There was, in fact, a lot of material filmed for LOTR that was never used – like the first meeting of Aragorn and Arwen, for one, and the journey of Legolas and Gimli to the Glittering Caves for two. PJ has spoken about possibliy doing an expanded 25th. anniversary boxed set, which in my view we can only hope for. Also, btw, much of the material that was cut from DOS for the theatrical version, like the extended intro of the dwarfs to Beorn and Bombur falling in the stream and being carried by the dwarfs, has been included in the Extended Edition of the DVD. BTW, wasn’t the Beorn of the book an “inhuman bear-man-thing”? He was certainly a “were-bear,” and that could be pretty much the same thing. I really like the Beorn of the movies much better than he of the book, who was more consistent with the character of a children’s book, I thought. An Elrond biopic – great idea! How about an Elrond and Galadriel biopic? I could handle more of Cate Blanchett as well as more of Hugo Weaving! 🙂
Tolkien described Beorn as simply a man “and a bit of a magician”. He would have looked completely human.
“Whenever a fantasy book is adapted to film people inevitably find reasons to be disappointed.”
Sometimes, without cause. I think Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS was, for the most part, such a movie (trilogy), one which by and large faithfully and vividly captured the story Tolkien tried to tell.
Sometimes, there *is* cause. Jackson’s THE HOBBIT has turned out to be, too often, a bloated trainwreck, a production that tries to do too much, trying to incorporate too many narratives, too many amped up special effects sequences, and it goes far, far beyond “embellishing a little.” It has edifying moments, here and there, but…it strikes me that what gets lost in Jackson’s THE HOBBIT is Bilbo and his story.
It’s nice to see Christopher Lee’s Saruman in action again, and to meet Sylvester McCoy’s Radagast. But I don’t think an adaptation of THE HOBBIT was the place to do it. Tolkien kept them off stage for reason, and not just because they had not been as fully fleshed out as they would become in the composition of the LORD OF THE RINGS a decade later: THE HOBBIT wasn’t their story. THE HOBBIT was Bilbo’s story.
I myself was very disappointed by portrayal of White Council in Hobit movies, they were awfully incompetent in their job, not even able to stop few dwarves from going under their very noses (which is strange to begin with that the council would actually object to, I think that for them the cause of Thorin would be justified and they would support it) after all bookElrond from The Hobbit, did support it, eagerly giving them advice and preparing them for further journey even if he did not approve of dwarven desire for gold. White Council in movie really did not look or acted in any way that would show to us that here are the wisest and most powerful individuals in Middle Earth, the council would make good adding more members too (like Cirdan or Celeborn and some other Elves) Saruman was more of an obstructive bureaucrat (sure there were already signs of his fall in that he searched for the Ring and delayed actions of the council but even he was finally poised to strike) and in the same time there is little screen time for them to actually advance their subplot, weird. I also hated portrayal of Radagast, but no further comment.
beorn is not hulk he is as sane and reasonable in his bear form as when he is a human.
For my part I’d love to see The Children of Hurin on screen, especially the debate between Hurin and Morgoth. If Jackson or whomever would keep it faithful to the legend (the Lay) it would be a great film – the illicit love between Turin and Neinor; Turin’s upbringing in Doriath; seeing Melian; and Beleg Strongbow, and imagine finally the greatest sword ever created – The Black Thorn – Gurthang – and Glaurung!! And then a hint, maybe, of the Final Battle – Turin and Gurthang v. Morgoth! Can’t wait!