Sympathy
for the Evil?
The
Humanization of Evil in Amazon’s Rings of Power
“Nothing is evil in the
beginning”, is the first phrase spoken in Amazon’s The Lord of the Rings:The
Rings of Power (abbreviated as Rings) series. It is also a tagline of
the series and primes viewers to a core theme of the series: morality in
Tolkien’s Middle-earth. In Tolkien’s legendarium morality occupies a complex
debate among scholars. Tolkien’s morality has been criticized for as the
associations of the grotesque with the wicked, the alleged binary nature of
morality, and most frequently the issue pertaining to the sentience of Orcs. It is due to this that almost any major media
adaptation concerning Tolkien’s legendarium can be assessed by how it engages
with Tolkien’s morality, Amazon’s Rings is no exception.
The
task of creating an engaging yet faithful narrative concerning the Second Age
of Middle-earth was a difficult task for show-writers Payne and McKay. The roughly
100-page appendices which form the core of the show’s source material concern
impersonal chronicles, details regarding languages and specifications regarding
calendars among other details, painting a broad picture but hardly concise a
cohesive in narrative for the screen, leading to significant adaptational liberties
and condensation. Rings was released nearly seventy-five years after
Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings.Since then, significant
changes and developments have happened in how villainy is portrayed in the
media. The various adaptations of Tolkien’s work engage in the inevitable and
difficult struggle between depicting Middle-Earth through Tolkien’s moral
outlook and depicting middle-earth through an outlook that is much more
contemporary. This is a dilemma that can be seen evidently in Rings. It
must be stressed that only 1 season of the five planned seasons of Rings
has been released. Full progressions and developments of conceptions of evil
and characters have not been fully realized, and it is difficult to make
definitive statements about conceptions of evil, and redemption as they pertain
to characters if they have yet to happen. Yet the first season of Rings engages
with a humanization of evil that demonstrates a modern trend towards romanticizing
villainy through the usage of archetypes of redemptive and anti-villain characters
as well as anti-heroes, a portrayal that challenges Tolkien’s conception of
evil. By humanizing villainy in Rings, the show-writers not only create
more engaging characters that are more relatable to the audience, but they
prepare the show to develop a narrative theme that has plagued Tolkien’s
legendarium: whether the fallen and the wicked can redeem themselves. Through
an examination of Tolkien’s original conception, it can be seen that
this direction is challenging to the general morality of Tolkien’s world, yet
not possibility not incongruous.
Tolkien’s Evil
Much regarding Tolkien’s
conception of evil can be assessed in The Silmarillion. Though
the material of The Silmarillion was not garnered approval to be
adapted in Rings, Tolkien’s conception of evil which shades The Lord
of the Rings are most plainly demonstrated in the book. The beginning of The
Silmarillion establishes the creation of the World (Eä) through the music
of god-like beings the Valar, who themselves were created by the thoughts of
the omnipotent and omniscient supreme being Eru, the One. During the songs of
crafted, Melkor (later called Morgoth) a Vala described as one of the greatest,
consistently challenges the harmony of the original music seeking to “increase
the power and glory of the part assigned to him” (16). This hubristic challenge
leads to discord and confusion among the other Valar, yet the symphony
conducted by Eru is always shown to counterbalances this discord. Melkor’s
actions only allow for the greater symphony to gain greater emotional
resonance, “blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly
came” (16-17) establishing that Melkor, though a powerful Vala, is always inferior
to Eru. This creation account by Tolkien demonstrates his concept of
subcreation — the creation of a
secondary world or creations by a created being. The Supreme being Eru, is the
creator of the Valar, yet the Valar being creations from Eru themselves create
a sub-creation in the material universe, Eä, through their music.
The music of the Valar represents
a foreshadowing of the events in Middle-earth through a demonstration of
predestination. The harmony and discord
of the song forms the bases of Eä. Furthermore, the Valar themselves are provided
“with his own thoughts and devices” (15) through the endowment of the Flame
Imperishable, a power scholars have drawn analogues to the holy spirt (Hartley), true creation
as well as the endowment of free will (McIntosh). The compatibility of free will and
predestination has been a topic of discussion that has plagued many theological
perceptions including Tolkien’s mythology. But Tolkien seems to invoke a
similar argument as Saint Augustine, in that the misuse of free will is the
root of evil (Klautau). In regard to the non-mythical
beings of Middle-earth, Tolkien bestows, intelligent beings with free will,
however the usage of freewill for evil purposes leads to not only the
deterioration of that being’s goodness but also their own freewill as they are
rendered beast-like as Tolkien scholar Paul Kocher says, "Orcs,
trolls, dragons and their like... were free once but they surrendered their
will to Sauron and have become his slaves" (1972). Furthermore, Sauron is often described as
imposing his own will and domination on others. When describing the Nazgul
during the Siege of Gondor it is written “The Nazgûl came again, and as their
Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered
only his will and his malice” (847). The
Nazgul themselves have no autonomy or Free will, and descriptions of Sauron’s
evil depict an imposing and domineering evil, effectively nullifying the free
will of his subjects through fear.
Heroes and Villains
In recent media the
character trait of badness or moral ambiguity has been seen as an attractive
trait for viewers (Salgaro et al.). Furthermore, in recent developments the archetype
of the redeemed villain has gained significant traction. Characters such as
Darth Vader and Kylo Ren of the Star Wars franchise, are initially depicted as
unquestionable villains. This is especially true for Darth Vader, whose humanization
is subtly progressed throughout the Trilogy’s narrative, only to climax with
his redemptive and sacrificial vanquishing of Emperor Palpitine and his
subsequent unmasking and reconciliation with his son, Luke. Similar redemptions
can be seen with Kylo Ren in the recent Star Wars Trilogy as well as the sacrificial
death of Loki in Avengers Infinity War. The previously mentioned characters
were unquestionably villains during their initial depictions and for most of
the narrative that they existed in, it is only through a redemptive sacrifice (almost
always death) for the greater good against even eviler agents that the
redemptive villain is born.
This
type of villainous redemption is never seen in Tolkien’s mythology. The closest
to approach this is Gollum but his redemption in effectively falling down the
fires of Mount Doom with the Ring are not his own decision, and is more of an
cosmic irony. Furthermore, complex characters that strive to use their powers
for good but ultimately fail and cause suffering such as the Noldor Elf Feanor,
are not redeemed, whereas those who are redeemed after laspes of judgement such
as Boromir can hardly be considered villainous. In a similar vein, anti-heroes:
protagonists with often morally ambiguous or negative character traits, and
anti-villains: antagonists with positive character traits, have become
increasingly popular in modern media. Yet Tolkien does not use these character
archetypes, having more of an affinity with tragic heros ( Boromir, Thorin Oakenshield)
and corrupted good guys (Saruman, Feanor). For Tolkien villainy can never result
in redemption as it leads to a perversion of the will for evil purposes. Likewise,
portraying heroes with negative character traits is something that Tolkien does
not engage with. Yet humanizations of evil and moral ambiguity are contemporary
trends which are shown in Rings
Sauron and the Personification of Evil.
Sauron is not a tragic
figure like Feanor, Gollum or even Saruman. There is sparse humanization of
Sauron in The Lord of the Rings books. Being an immortal spirit, his
motivations do not steam from a fear of death as J.K. Rowling’s Voldemort or
Bram Stoker’s Dracula do. Likewise, Sauron’s evil does not seem to stem from hubristic
rebellion as John Milton’s Lucifer does, rather Sauron’s evil is a pure
unbridled need for power and dominance. Sauron is never seen to take human form
in the Lord of the Rings and Tolkien refrains from physically describing him,
however, it is strongly implied in the appendices that he takes on different
appearances often to deceive and seduce the other beings of Middle-earth, an
implication that is confirmed in The Silmarillion.
Within
Rings Sauron is played by Charlie Vickers, and for most of the narrative
he is known he is known to the audience as Halbrand, a conflicted lost king of Numenor,
invoking similarities to Aragorn however in the trend of anti-heroes he has
many morally questionable traits (thievery, arrogance, unnecessary violence). To
many viewers it becomes unknown that Halbrand is Sauron, until the finale of
the series. This allows for scenes which humanize Halbrand, depicting him in
typical human struggles such whether he should return to his supposed kingdom
of the Southlands. He is seen appropriately interacting and developing
alongside other characters most notably the series main protagonist Galadriel, with
whom many viewers seemed identify a romantic undercurrent. When reading the
appendices of The Lord of the Rings it is always known who Sauron is to the
reader, it is only the peoples of Middle-earth who are unaware. The appendices read
like a chronological account, there is no suspense or mystery. In this sense the experience felt by the
unsuspecting audience can be seen as immersive and accurate to the feeling felt
by the elves and humans who Sauron deceives in the source material. Whether Rings
will demonstrate Sauron’s elusive shapeshifting nature is yet to be determined,
but due to nature of acting contracts and the need to have a consistent human
face for a character, it is very likely that Charlie Vickers will be the only
host of Sauron. This diminishes the supernatural and cosmic element of Sauron.
Furthermore, whether the writers will continue to provide Sauron with humanized
traits and motivations remains another question, yet the avoidance of a
depiction of Sauron as absolute evil for an incorporation of anti-hero traits
into most of his portrayals, can be seen as an accurate adaptation of the charm
that he employs in the book’s narrative. This humanization allows for Sauron to
become contrastable other characters in the series, most notably as it concerns
morality, to Galadriel and the anti-villain Adar.
Adar and the Uruks
Perhaps the most
interesting addition in the Rings is Adar, the hybrid Elf/Orc. The
character oddly demonstrates compassion for Orcs, a trait that is very
antithetical to Tolkien’s conception of evil. Adar is first shown in the episode
Adar mercifully killing a wounded Orc (15:20). In the scene Adar does
not interact with the Orc as if it is a disposable brute, but with compassion
and a teary-eyed visage, demonstrating emotion that is never shown by Tolkien’s
villains. Crucial to Adar’s character is this compassion for orcs, consistently
referring to them by their native name, Uruk demanding a sense of courtesy and
dignity towards the orcs. Tied to his motivations are to recreate a world in
which the Orcs can exist freely, without the menace of sunlight. Before his
speech in the 6th episode Udûn he is seen scattering seeds
and muttering the elvish words “New life, in defiance of death” (3:28). He then
refers to Orcs as “brothers and sisters in our home!”, further humanizing Orcs
by assigning them human genders. This compassion for Orcs, establishes a
conflictual relationship with Sauron. Adar asserts that he was once a follower
of Sauron, however he became disillusioned by the lack of compassion that
Sauron demonstrated to the Orcs, subsequently claiming to have killed the Dark
Lord.
The
most important scene involving Adar and the theme of morality in Rings,
occurs during the episode Udûn when he is interrogated by Galadriel
(46:18). The scene is shot with titled camera angles to emphasize the unsettled
minds of both Adar and Galadriel. In the scene Galadriel asserts that Orcs “are
not children they are slaves” with Adar retorting “each one has a name a heart”,
stating that Orcs were also provided with the Imperishable Flame of “The One”,
asserting that orcs had free will at one point. As the scene progresses an
ironic reversal occurs, in which Galadriel oddly comes across as irrational and
heinous, and Adar comes across as restrained and oddly noble for a villainous half-bred
Orc. Stemming from her late brother’s death at the hands of Sauron and his
Orcs, Galadriel vows to commit genocide against the orcs proceeding to threaten
Adar stating, “before I stab my dagger into your poisoned heart…I will whisper
in your piked ear, that all your offspring are dead.” Adar then ponders that he was “not the only alive
who has been transformed by darkness.” This scene establishes Adar and Galdriel
as foils. Galadriel’s motives to vanquish Sauron are emotionally enforced by
her brother’s death to Sauron. Though her aim is an appropriate one her motive
is one out of anger that has been “transformed by darkness”, she is potentially
embarking on a path towards evil. Adar on the other hand has goals that are
detrimental to the betterment of Middle-earth, yet they seem to be motivated by
compassion, he can be seen as both a development of a more nuanced evil, an anti-villain,
who is ultimately still in the moral wrong but has positive attributes and
motives. Both characters seem to demonstrate a dislike for the domineering evil
of Sauron, yet their actions inadvertently allow for Sauron to gain power. Furthermore,
Adar seems to demonstrate a sense of free will, through his rebellion against
Sauron and his own unique motivations in creating a world that is compassionate
to the orcs. Through the usage of an anti-villain in Adar, the show-writers
have developed what appears to be the beginning of a plot line that concerns
discussions regarding the sentience and morality of orcs. The employment of this
type of villainy in Adar is not only non-canonical but may be challenging to Tolkien’s
stance of evil as a perversion of free will, yet his nature as half elf and
half coupled with his strong convictions it may be the very exception that
proves the rule concerning Tolkien’s morality.
Conclusion
Amazon’s Rings engages
with evil in a fashion that may be construed as challenging to Tolkien’s tradition
depictions of evil as a perversion of free will. The humanization of evil in Rings
represents a foremost need for evil to have a face and embodiment, a trend that
is consistent with visual representations of evil. Likewise, increasing trends
which extol the anti-hero, the anti-villain and the redeemed villain are used
to challenge incongruences with Tolkien’s morality. The humanization of Sauron
through an initial depiction of him as an anti-hero not only renders him much
more likable even if his actions are retroactively seen as villainous.
Furthermore, the personification of him through the actor Charlie Vickers makes
the mythical Dark Lord, a much more relatable character. Sauron represents the
closest thing to true evil in the narrative of Rings while the character
Adar represents a nuanced anti-villain, with a potential for redemption, whose
motives seem antithetical to the tradition villain. Adar allows for a
juxtaposition with Galadriel that challenges questions about whether motives
that are grounded in compassion or rage, can corrupt, or redeem one’s morality
and free will. The contrasts between the three characters of Adar, Galadriel
and Sauron as they relate to morality will likely be a continuous theme within Rings
in the following seasons.
References
Hartley, Gregory. “A Wind from
the West: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Tolkien’s Middle-Earth.” Christianity
& Literature, vol. 62, no. 1, 2012, pp. 95–120,
https://doi.org/10.1177/014833311206200106.
Klautau, Diego. “Tolkien and
Augustine - The Fairy Stories in The City of God.” Ciberteologia, 2007.
Kocher, Paul. Master of
Middle-Earth. Ballantine, 1972.
McIntosh, Jonathan S. The
Flame Imperishable: Tolkien, St. Thomas, and the Metaphysics of Faërie.
Angelico Press, 2017.
Payne, J. D., and Patrick
McKay. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, Season 1, Amazon, 1
Sept. 2022.
Salgaro, Massimo, et al. “A
Good, a Bad, and an Evil Character: Who Renders a Novel Most Enjoyable?✰.”
Poetics, vol. 87, 2021, p. 101550,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101550.
Tolkien, John R.R. The Lord
of the Rings. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2014.
Tolkien, J R.R. The Silmarillion. George
Allen and Unwin, 1977.
