As we all know, movies usually change a lot from books. Usually these changes are pretty substantial. Sometimes, changes are dictated by time constraints or the difficulty of portraying inner dialogue, a significant issue in all adaptations of 'Dune', for example, including the recent one. But sometimes something is changed randomly, because a director doesn't really understand the source material and thinks his change is an improvement.

Let's look at one of those.

I wanted to compare the different usages of a single word in both the book and the movie of the first movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Fellowship of the Ring. The words are "shall" and "can". Fans of the work might immediately know to what I am referring. It is one of the most dramatic moments in both the book and movie, featuring Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog.

^{Gandalf and The Balrog by John Howe}

First, the book:

‘You cannot pass,’ he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. ‘I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.’

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.

Glamdring glittered white in answer.

There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back, and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.

‘You cannot pass!’ he said.

With the exception of the balrog itself (which didn't have wings in the book, and was described as being more man-sized than the giant demon of the movie), the movie version is virtually the same, with the exception of a single word. The second time Gandalf yells at the balrog about passing he uses the word shall, yelling "You shall not pass!"

(In fairness to Jackson, this is a debate among fans and scholars. The balrog fit into the smaller Chamber of Mazarbul where Balin was entombed eariler in the chapter, suggesting it was man sized or only slightly larger, and, upon close reading, Tolkien's description of the Balrog's "wings" seems very much a simile; he uses similar similes, making comparisons using "wings" many times in his works. I think scholarship leans towards saying the balrog was man-sized and had no wings, but it is worth noting that there is debate. (Interestingly, Christopher Tolkien, while likely knowing what his father intended, chose not to comment on the debate, preferring to let his father's text stand on its own.))

What's the difference? Tolkien was a linguist. He chose his words very carefully, often stressing for years over a single word in a passage, trying to get it perfect. You can see this on some of his changes with every draft of the text and with the intensity that he would argue with publishers when they would change what seemed like completely meaningless words without asking him. You can bet he used cannot instead of shall not in the passage for a reason.

What might that reason be? Let's look at the two words.

Shall not when used towards others is a command or perhaps a challenge depending on the intonation of the speaker and the confidence of the listener. In the movie, by saying "You shall not pass", Gandalf is commanding the demon not to move further.

Cannot is a statement of fact. Some people might use it as a command, but that is more common usage and not technical meaning. By stating that it is completely impossible for the balrog to pass, Gandalf is emphasizing how powerful he is, proclaiming that it is simply not possible for the Balrog to get past him.

Gandalf says the Balrog cannot pass, then states why (listing his cred, which basically means I will stop you because I am much more powerful than you can even comprehend), then reëmphesizes that it cannot pass.

One scene is much more powerful than the other.

There is some backstory that any one who hasn't read the books won't be aware of. That is that Gandalf is literally an angel, an Ainur, who was commanded by the gods, the Valar, to go to middle earth in the form of an old man and assist the people in standing against Sauron. The balrog is also an Ainur, one who was corrupted and joined with the first great evil of the world, Morgoth, so essentially this fight is angel vs corrupted angel.

As director and screenwriter, it was Peter Jackson's job to read the books or hire someone to do so. And he claimed he did read the books and loved them, knew them inside and out, and completely respected Tolkien. Yet he also made this change, from cannot to shall not because he thought it was an improvement (he's said as much in interviews).

Now it goes without saying that most movie fans don't care, and most book fans who do know the difference are ignored and decried for being too pedantic. I leave it to you to decide for yourself. It is interesting how one word can change so much when you actually know the source material and/or grammar.

David LaSpina is an American photographer and translator lost in Japan, trying to capture the beauty of this country one photo at a time and searching for the perfect haiku. He blogs here and at laspina.org. Write him on Twitter or Mastodon.

Posted using CineTV