"The Rings of Power 2" -- Culture wars or mere streaming-era TV?
"The Rings of Power 2" -- Culture wars or mere streaming-era TV?
You tell me. It was hard to pay attention while packing my life into moving boxes
First, a confession. I watched Season 1 of “The Rings of Power” and I gave it a grade-inflation-era B. I was the only person in my J.R.R. Tolkien-loving family (Picture a wedding cake with a line of the Orthodox wedding rite translated into Elvish) who was that generous.
The problem, of course, was that the series needed to find cable-TV screenwriters who could produce dialogue that to some degree sounded like it was written by Tolkien. To put this in political terms (yes, from events several decades ago), some of us “Lord of the Rings” fans of a certain age were tempted to say: “I have read J.R.R. Tolkien. I feel like I knew J.R.R. Tolkien. It was like J.R.R. Tolkien was a friend of mine. Young screenwriter, you’re no J.R.R. Tolkien.”
OK, who understood that reference? If you didn’t get it, click here for some background.
This brings me to Season 2. Every time I sat down to try to dive into it, I thought to myself: “Who are you kidding? You’re trying to pack the life of your family into moving boxes while downsizing about 50%. You don’t have time for this sprawling product of streaming-era television.” And that was before hurricane Helene hit our mountains.
Thus, I confess that I have not watched more than a few moments of “The Rings of Power 2.” I have, however, continued to follow the culture warfare about whether the series veered even further over the cliff into the madness of diversity, equity and inclusion doctrine mixed with Strong Female Character wokeness.
In other words, it’s easy to view “The Rings of Power” as yet another clash between “red” culture and “blue” culture in a bitterly divided America. And let’s face it, there is no way around the fact that Tolkien represents a more traditionally conservative, Catholic approach to life, faith and truth — so much so that a few deep-blue chattering-class types have labeled him the patron saint of the “far right.”
That’s why this post — written in a flood-zone house that now has WiFi, but no HVAC system (and it’s getting chilly) — includes two examples of the raging YouTube debates. I went with the refined, gracious offerings of the “Nerd of the Rings” channel and the raucous, often not-safe-for-work stylings of “The Critical Drinker.” Were these guys watching the same series?
Early on, I filed away this print review from critic Joseph Holmes of Religion Unplugged, whose work always offers solid information as well as his own opinions. In this case, he was cutting against the grain by being positive. The headline: “‘Rings Of Power’ Season 2 Review — Dramatic Finale Offers Up A Mixed Triumph.”
Readers: I know that you are probably busy, but I would love to read some comments-section remarks from those of you who (a) watched Season 2 and (b) are especially interested in the Christian, moral and cultural themes in Tolkien’s complex sub-creation work in the “Lord of the Rings” universe.
First of all, Holmes states the obvious:
To say that “Rings of Power” is controversial would be an understatement. Since its premiere, the series has fallen afoul of the culture wars online, with many giving it high praise and just as many calling it a “woke” insult to everything Tolkien stood for. Reactions to the second season have been no less controversial. …
Some critiques of the season by its detractors — and the series overall — I do agree with. Anytime the writers try to emulate Tolkien’s poetic style or noble speeches it is gratingly awkward and cheesy. Plot contrivances and head-scratcher plot holes show up with annoying frequency.
Obviously, the “Rings of Power” creative team stretched their narrative thin at times and they were — for legal reasons — limited to using materials from Tolkien’s world-building work that were rich in history, but without the rich characters and language of the actual novels.
It’s hard to fake the work of a master. Is anyone else out there nervous while we await the arrival of Netflix Narnia?
Here is Holmes again:
The series often feels like non-Tolkien fans are trying to make a show that is faithful to Tolkien, but clearly somewhat alienated from it. Like how deaf people feel when non-deaf actors try to imitate how deaf people sign. You can see this most clearly when they rip off moments or dialogue straight from “Lord of the Rings” to try to “recreate” that same feeling the original had, but missing the context.
Let me stress that his review offers more positive comments than negative. Read it for yourself and you’ll see what I mean.
This brings me to the fierce, heated discussions of how this series has handled the life of the young Galadriel, a figure who, in the “Lord of the Rings” novels is portrayed as a saintly “Lady of Light” figure — an almost Marian figure in Tolkien’s fictional world.
However, it’s clear that this is a woman who, in the past, has been tempted by power and those temptations and defeats forged her into a uniquely powerful force in Middle Earth.
The problem is that Tolkien discussed these realities in the life of the young Galadriel, but we do not have precise, well-crafted descriptions of those events and of the mistakes in her past. Thus, in many ways, the “Rings of Power” culture wars often boil down to whether the “Lady of Light” has been cynically turned into a girlboss cartoon, for commercial and even political reasons.
Thus, I will end with this Holmes quote — which I think is quite fair.
… I’m always surprised how the show never gets credit from its critics for how thoroughly the show deconstructs the “girlboss” feminist trope that has become so prominent in a post-“The Force Awakens” world. Galadriel was the feminist character fanboys hate, who are always right and all the silly men are wrong. Except in “Rings of Power” it's this very stubbornness that leads her to bring Sauron back to power. And of course, it’s her insistence on the rings that will bring about the rings in the end. The story is about her learning humility and wisdom, and how she can still be a hero despite not always being right.
In other words, Galadriel made mistakes and, to some degree, was broken by them. She learned humility the hard way. She learned that she needed to embrace a different kind of power.
Was that clearly expressed in “The Rings of Power” 1 and 2?
What think ye? To what degree is this whole project a flawed attempt at a worthy goal, as opposed as a twisted, modernized take on a a classic work of pre-modern imagery and values?
What I find interesting about the show is that it's only aesthetically "woke," in that it employs colorblind casting (so does most theater, and no one would claim that say, the Kenneth Branagh Much Ado About Nothing is "woke"). It is, in general, very much respectful of natural law and Christian morality. My issues with it are largely with its craft, rather than its philosophy. They should be banned from inventing metaphors.
However, consider how it approaches the natural order. It clearly doesn't tip the scales such that women are more enlightened or powerful than men (Galadriel keeps finding rakes to step on); it is deeply grounded in an "enchanted" view of the universe where faith and prayer are rewarded by a benevolent deity and his servants; creation is a form of worship unless it is creation that is twisted against the will of the Creator.
Something that no one seems to appreciate is that there's not a single sexually perverted character. There's not even a hint of it. Compare this to any other major franchise show or film right now. In Marvel, the characters are platonic coworkers for the most part. In Star Wars, there's a strong theme of found family, but little romance.
Now, on TV, it's never the expectation that male and female characters will "naturally" fall in love with each other. I haven't seen the "five minutes into knowing each other a man and woman character start to flirt" trope in YEARS, and while I understand that it's dismissed as a cliché because "real life doesn't work like that," the reason it was a trope in the first place was because heterosexual marriage was considered a normal and even inevitable part of growing up. I was baffled that superfans complained that the show's female dwarves didn't have beards. We're in a different world from the one Tolkien lived in--it's a win that they made the dwarves look female.
Another element of the program that shows the creators' love of Tolkien is their use of Adar as a sort of "dark Aulë." In the Silmarillion, Aulë created the dwarves because he was impatient with God's timing--he wanted to precipitate the coming of men. Rather than punishing him, God accepted his repentance and granted life to Aulë's creations. Adar is to Sauron as Aulë is to Eru. Now, the way Adar's storyline played out--his twisted desire that the orcs might become more like the Children of Ilúvitar--doesn't really work. Orcs are just too monstrous, and orc families are a comical thought. But I see what they were trying to do. It really was an inconsistency that Tolkien couldn't figure out himself--if the orcs were merely tortured elves, how do they keep making more of them? I see this as an error of craft, but one grounded in a true desire to play with Tolkien's ideas in one of the most fraught subjects in his work.
Notably, one of the creators of the show is Mormon--maybe both of them. One could see why they might come to the wrong conclusions about sub-creation, though their error is one of degree, not kind (they're right that sub-creation is good when submitted to Christ, but they're wrong about just how "god-like" we can actually become because they're wrong about who Christ is).
The most interesting element of this season, of course, was Celebrimbor, whose seduction by Sauron could have been scripted by Screwtape himself. It's shockingly Christian in its assumptions. There's great wisdom in portraying moral corruption as the procession from peccadilloes into white lies into evil. It's a process of self-deception, as Celebrimbor says to Sauron himself. I felt convicted just watching it, seeing how the Great Deceiver plays on our vanity.
In conclusion, Christian conservatives need to appreciate when the culture hands them a W, even a flawed one. If you have to complain about it, be wise enough to recognize that its problems largely don't stem from wokeness, but from Mormonism and writing that just isn't as clever as it should be.
My wife and I finished Season 2 recently. We really appreciated how the show portrays good and evil.
Do any of you have ideas on why Amazon would spend so much money on the series? I doubt they've made it back. The best answer I can come up with is that when you are a billionaire, you can leverage massive piles of cash in order to influence culture. Cultural influence on this scale can be more potent than political or economic power.
It is clear to me that global tension is rising and amazon is aims to serve government and department of defense contracts. Bezos owns the Washington Post, has a house in DC, and has recently purchased a second headquarters right outside the Pentagon. With all this in view, perhaps he views it as a good investment to remind the world that there is a difference between good and evil and to show that being all you can be, fighting for the good against the evil can be a noble and glorious pursuit.