The Humanization of Evil in Amazon’s Rings of Power

                                                             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 6^th 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. 

An Analysis of Violence within Jackson’s Adaptation of The Lord of the Rings

 Violence as a Tool for Emotive Resonance and Defining Morality

An Analysis of Violence within Jackson’s Adaptation of The Lord of the Rings

In the scene, “Saruman the White” (FOTR, 0:46:44) in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf travels to Isengard where he meets with and becomes aware of Saruman’s treachery. A dramatic battle ensues as both wizards throw each other with magical attacks, concluding with Gandalf being flung to the top of the Tower of Orthanc, later revealed as being held prisoner on the tower. In Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings there is no mention of a fight between Gandalf and Saruman, and Gandalf is simply described as being imprisoned on the tower (258-261). The vagueness of Tolkien’s description of the imprisonment, would prompt questions. How was Gandalf imprisoned? Was he apprehended by Saruman’s guards or magically imprisoned? Did he resist the imprisonment? Allowing for an opportunity for Jackson to create his own suspenseful adaptation of the scene. The scene becomes more intense than the passages in the book, and Saruman is rendered a more active antagonist, highlighting the potential of film to intensify and expand on moments from Tolkien’s original the source material.

            The intensity that film provides was described by Hugo Münsterberg in 1916 in his book The film: A psychological study; the silent photoplay describing the first films as an “incomparable intensity when not a lifeless photograph but a moving picture brings it to the screen” (22), highlighting the ability of film to “stir up our feelings and emotions” (72). Subsequent years would lead to the further intensification of film through the incorporation of auditory and visual experiences in one product allowing for a multifaceted form of art.

Violence and Art

The topic of artistic depictions of violence has garnered significant discussion due to its emotional resonance and purported effects onto society (Ferguson and Kilburn). The increasingly vivid and dramatic depictions of violence in film and video games have become especially targeted in this regard. Yet violence in art can be used as an artistic tool to convey messages and invoke emotions. It is because of this that the translation of violence through adaptation is a topic worth understanding.

This essay will compare violence as it exists in Tolkien’s 1954 novel with Peter Jackson’s cinematic adaptation. Through this understanding violence can be understood as tool, that serves to intensify emotion as well as translate Tolkien’s theme of morality. It is not in the spirit of this paper to argue that Jackson’s adaptation is more or less violent than Tolkien’s novel, but rather to demonstrate Jackson’s usage of violence. Before continuing it must be noted that this essay will concern only an assessment of physical violence. Other forms such as psychological and emotional violence will not be examined.

Tolkien and Violence

It is undeniable that Tolkien’s novel contains depictions and allusions to significant violent acts. Having served in World War 1, Tolkien did not seem to express any significant anti-war or pacifist sentiment throughout his life. Yet it would be unfair to characterize Tolkien as gratuitous or excessive in his descriptions of violence. He is not vivid in descriptions of violence, preferring to be brief. Moreover, his thoughts on war are largely neutral and can be most poignantly shown in the character Faramir, the knight of Gondor whom Tolkien himself identified as the closest character to himself in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (Carpenter, 250). When speaking to Frodo the knight says, “War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all” (672).  Violence for Tolkien is necessary to defend existential values of good. Yet violence itself is not to be glorified as Faramir expresses, “I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend” (672).

Violence is not a significant theme in Tolkien’s writing and is rather something that is inevitable in cosmic conflicts between good and evil. Morality remains a more important yet intricate theme. In Tolkien’s Middle Earth good and evil are clear distinctions and violence is seemingly justifiable for the greater good, yet the question of potential redemption and genuine evilness of the Orcs poses a dilemma in Tolkien’s work. Furthermore, morality is projected onto violence by Tolkien. The excessively violent acts of the novel (torture, beheadings, eating other races of Middle Earth) are all described as horrific acts that the villainous or abject characters engage in. Even descriptions of violence have a projected morality. When Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas come upon the bodies of dead Orcs who had been slain by Uruk-hai, it is not enough that they are just described as hewn but “hewn with many cruel strokes” (421). It is often the morally abject characters that find themselves on the receiving end of gruesome and undignified violence from equally morally abject characters, as demonstrated in Sharkey’s death at Wormtongue’s hand, and the many fights among Orcs throughout the novel. Excessive violence becomes a manifestation and ending to the morally abject. On the contrary, significant depictions of restraint occur among the morally good as shown in Gandalf opting to stand his ground rather than aggress the Balrog, similarly shown with Frodo and the Nazgul, and Frodo with Sharkey at the end of the novel. The morally just characters are only shown to be engaging with in violence against their adversaries when they are being aggressed and when there is no other option.

Jackson and Violence

Peter Jackson’s early film career was the opposite of restrained when it came to graphic depictions of violence. In Peter Jackson: From Gore to Mordor Lawrence McDonald describes his first three films as “a gore-nucopia of comedy horror”(56). Jackson’s third film Brain Dead would be so excessive in its violence, it would be desensitizing, being described as laughing in the face of death (Atkinson, 79) as every character except the protagonist and his love interest are brutally killed. Jackson’s aptitude in the splatter and horror genres would remain in Jackson’s filmmaking arsenal as he would adapt The Lord of the Rings. Moreover, Jackson’s film making career prior to The Lord of the Rings, included nuanced depictions of violence as seen in his fourth film, Heavenly Creatures (1994). Based on the true story of the 1954 Parker–Hulme murder case, the film employs a circular narrative and is enclosed by the movies only murder of Parker’s mother, Honorah, however the film is not truly about the murder, rather it is about the increasingly fantastic friendship between the two high school girls as a defense against the constraining nature of their sociological environments. The tragic killing of the mother represents a violent and perhaps misguided revolt against the societal oppression and constraints on the two young women’s friendship. In when writing about Heavenly Creatures Peter M Chumo II notes that the “increasingly violent fantasy life becomes both a reaction to their community (upright, authoritarian schoolteachers and well-meaning but ineffectual parents) and a path to murder itself” (70). Heavenly Creatures may easily be Jackson’s most nuanced portrayal and usage of violence in film. Though Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings does not deal with as nuanced of a depiction of violence, the usage of violence as an emotive and tragic tool will be employed. In Jackson’s adaptation these two opposites of violence: gratuitous and senseless, and tragic and meaningful are invoked for unique purposes. In comparing Jackson’ adaptation to Tolkien’s original fantasy epic, divergences, augmentations, and complementary inclusions of violence will be demonstrated and examined.

The Physical Nazgûl

Tolkien’s Nazgûl are known as the first significant menacing threat introduced in the novels. They are effectively the only antagonists of the first book of the first volume. To Tolkien the main weapon that the Nazgûl employ is “the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts)” (Carpenter, 292). They are first written in the novel as voices speaking in a “strange, and somehow unpleasant” and “shrill” voice to Hamfast Gamgee, not yet physically defined (69). These Black Riders will gradually grow in prominence in the first book both descriptively and narrative-wise. The gradual definition of the Nazgûl can be attributed to their unexpected conception, with Tolkien originally attributing the Black Rider encountered by the hobbits as Gandalf (Tolkien, “The History of Middle Earth”, 1317). There is no immediate physical threat suggested by the Nazgûl when they are introduced, they become progressively more sinister and violent as the novel advances. They are only described as armored and having swords in the 11^th chapter of the first book.

In Jackson’s adaptation this terror is much more physical and immediate. In the first scene of a hobbit interacting with a Nazgûl (FOTR, 0:34:20), the Nazgûl’s pointed gauntlets are emphasized relating the Nazgûl with sharp weaponry. The sinister score by Howard Shore introduces a high-pitched theme contributing to a scene more menacing than Tolkien’s interaction with the curt and resolute Hamfast Gamgee. A few scenes later, before Frodo and Sam embark on their journey to Bree, a scene is shown were a Nazgûl cuts down a hobbit watchman (FOTR, 0:40:25), immediately rendering the terror of the Nazgûl physical and deadly. This deadly violence is later shown as the Nazgûl, invade the town of Bree (FOTR, 1:03:32), trampling the town’s doorkeeper in a sensationalist fashion. They then proceed to enter the Prancing Pony with swords brandished and very methodically, stab the empty hobbit beds. In this scene Jackson allows for a subtle inclusion of splatter horror through sound effects of flesh being pierced and the suspenseful camera cuts from the Nazgûl’s raised swords to Samwise sleeping, further accenting the physicality of the Nazgûl’s terror. The scene like much of the first half of the film is frightening and an effective adaptation in conjuring up a sense of terror and suspense. In this sense Jackson superseded Tolkien in the terror that the Nazgûl brought to the story through an augmentation of violence through the immediacy and physicality.

Tragic Violence

Viewing violence through film arouses neural networks associated with emotional regulation (Murray et al.), moreover, exposure to violence and tragedy towards characters that the audience empathizes with can allow for an appropriate release of emotion (Goldenberg et al.). This is a by product of violence and is seen in Tolkien’s novel and Jackson’s adaptation. Yet just as Jackson’s adaptation augmented a sense of horror and terror through the physicality of the Nazgul, an emotional and tragic element is augmented through violence.  

Boromir’s death is an example of emotion intensification through violence. In both the novel and film Boromir’s death is framed as a redemption for his tragic flaw (pride). Yet the novel and the film depart on many accounts. Boromir’s death in the novel is brief. He is found by Aragorn having been pierced by arrows and after 1 line of dialogue in which he repents for his attempt to take the ring he dies. Though Aragorn is described as “bent with weeping” (414), the event is remarkably short. In the film Boromir’s death and struggle are depicted on screen (FOTR, 3:08:44). He is seen fighting Uruk-hai as he is shot by the arrows of Lurtz. The film’s audio falls silent as the first arrow is shot. Merry and Pippen witness in shock and distress. They function as audience proxies demonstrating how the viewer should feel. Boromir’s death is accented, the film slows down, yet he continues to fight in defiance, but the audience, just like Merry and Pippen know this is his end, yet his death is prolonged, and he becomes an object to be shot by arrows capturing the violence done to his body in a dramatic spectacle. The interaction between Aragorn and Boromir is significantly more emotive and prolonged in the film as well giving more value to his death. This augmentation or rather insertion of death and violence can be seen in the similar slow motion, emphasized death, of Haldir during the battle of Helm’s Deep (TT, 3:00:31). The character’s death is unique to Jackson’s adaptation and would allow for the battle to have a recognizable casualty similarly allowing for the second film to have a somewhat tragic and bittersweet climax.

Another, minor but unique scene in Jackson’s adaptation that demonstrates the tragic element of violence, is shown in the scene “The Burning of the Westfold” (TT, 0:21:59) in which two children become separated from their mother to escape Saruman’s pillaging army. Meant to evoke a sense of tangible destruction to the everyday lives of the people of the Westfold. The scene conjures up violence to augment a sense of tragedy and emotion. Jackson is not afraid to say that war, violence, and death are tragedies and the encapsulation of violence as meaningful towards the protagonists in these moments allows for Jackson’s adaptations to gain emotional resonance through violence.

The Good, and the Bad and Ugly

How violence is itself depicted in Jackson’s adaption can be seen as a demonstration of morality through film. In Jackson’s adaptation violence enacted on the good, morally scrupulous characters is typically seen in slow motion, with demonstrations of agony emphasized through camera cuts to the face. The previous tragic events as well as the two stabbings of Frodo are examples of this. Furthermore, the bodies of the good characters are not seen mutilated or dismembered when they are killed. The bodiless human heads which are catapulted by Orcs during the attack on Minas Tirith may seem like a potential anomaly, but they are more of an indictment of the cruelty of the Orcs (ROTK, 2:00:01). The actual act of decapitation is not shown on the good characters. This can be contrasted with the vivid and swift hacking and dismemberment of Orc bodies throughout the series. Just as in Tolkien’s novel, atrocious acts of violence are performed by the more villainous characters. Yet in Jacksons adaptation as the story leaves the Shire and Orcs are introduced, this principle is slightly altered, and it is the villainous characters who become on the receiving end of swift often gratuitous impersonal violence, not only enacted amongst themselves but by the morally good characters. This may be due to the increasing prominence of warrior type characters (Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, Gimli, etc.) who are absent during the beginning of the film. Perhaps one of the more excessive demonstrations of this violence occurs when Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron during what is effectively a parley (ROTK, 3:19:15). This scene in the novel is perhaps the most effective demonstration of Tolkien’s morality and approach to violence. The passage reads “though Aragorn did not stir nor move hand to weapon, the other quailed and gave back as if menaced with a blow. ‘I am a herald and ambassador and may not be assailed!’ he cried. ‘Where such laws hold,’ said Gandalf, ‘it is also the custom for ambassadors to use less insolence. But no one has threatened you. You have naught to fear from us, until your errand is done” (889).  This interaction demonstrates that the Mouth of Sauron acknowledges Aragorn’s power and potential for violence yet is not able to comprehend that he would restrain from demonstrating it. The restraint that Aragorn displays is emblematic of Tolkien’s moral principle that goodly characters would not aggress in violence even against a seemingly irredeemable enemy. In Jackson’s film the Mouth of Sauron’s categorization of an irredeemable henchman of evil permitted his brutal death to be it justifiable for Jackson and the audience. His death is a cathartic indulgence in violence and assertation that the evil are not worth redeeming, demonstrating a major deviation and infraction on Tolkien’s depictions of morality and just usage of violence.

Although there are significant augmentations and insertions of violence against the antagonists in Jackson’s adaptation. Jackson’s portrayal of violence against the antagonists should not be looked as always demonstration that he inserts. It can be seen as a simplification of Tolkien’s moral dilemma pertaining to evil. Violence and death can be seen as auxiliary concepts that compliment Tolkien’s theme of morality. The dilemma of whether Orcs are inherently evil or just corrupted men and elves makes their impersonal deaths questionable. This has remained an unsolved issue to Tolkien scholars. Tolkien seems to paradoxically assert that Orcs have the potential for redemption, yet they are the spawn of evil (Shippey, 265). This dilemma remains unsolved, as it is uncertain as to whether Orcs have the potential for redemption. The impersonal nature of killing enemies can be seen in the killing competition Gimli and Legolas have during the battle of Helm’s Deep, an incident maintained in Jackson’s adaptation. In this sense the impersonal kill counts of these antagonists can be seen as faithful to the portrayal of war as necessary, yet the violence enacted by Aragorn on the Mouth of Sauron would not be seen as justifiable to Tolkien. Likewise, the emphasis on brutal swift deaths for the irredeemable Orcs and the overly emphasized deaths of the good and tragic characters can be seen as a simplification of Tolkien’s morality in demonstrating morality through violence.

The deaths of Saruman, Denathor and Gollum remain different from the previously mentioned. Unlike the Orcs and other fell creatures previously mentioned their deaths are not curt and impersonal yet they perish in a dishonorable and tragic fashion, succumbing to their tragic flaws without redemption. They all die in someway by their own doing emphasizing their sentience and potential for redemption. Saruman, the representation of the Fallen Angel, dies a curt death in the novel, while in the film it is a spectacular and lengthy death as he is repeatedly stabbed and falls off his tower to be impaled in a theatrical demonstration of cosmic punishment (ROTK, 0:16:32). It is through these two poles of death and violence: meaningful and tragic, and meaningless and impersonal that Jackson can further potentiate Tolkien’s morality on screen. Furthermore, the redeemable but dishonorable occupy a space in the middle of this spectrum of morality.

The translation of Tolkien’s story into film allowed for Jackson to employ various tactics to play with the concept of violence. Violence was demonstrated as a tool to intensify and augment emotions through the physical terror of the Nazgûl and the violence and death depicted to good and morally neutral characters. Furthermore, violence was used in a similar vein as Tolkien, to demonstrate morality, with antagonists being seen as violent entities committing atrocities. However, Jackson demonstrated a deviance to Tolkien’s depiction of morality by ascribing to the idea that Orcs and the fell creatures of Middle Earth are irredeemable, a sentiment that is never fully endorsed by Tolkien. Jackson demonstrates the irredeemable nature of these creatures through brutal, swift, meaningless and occasionally unjustifiable violence towards these creatures. Tolkien’s complex and often contradictory morality was difficult and perhaps unfeasible to demonstrate on the screen and his notion that excessive violence is only enacted by evil characters was deviated. Perhaps owing to the medium differences between novel and film, Tolkien’s complex morality as depicted through violence was difficult to fully capture and portray on film. Likewise, the differing portrayals of violence may indicate cultural and philosophical deviances between Jackson and Tolkien. 

Works Cited

Atkinson, Michael. “Earthy Creatures.” Peter Jackson: From Gore to Mordor, Plexus, London, 2005.

Carpenter, Humphrey, et al. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2012.

Chumo II, Peter N. “It’s All Frightfully Romantic!” Peter Jackson: From Gore to Mordor, Plexus, London, 2005.

Ferguson, Christopher J., and John Kilburn. “The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review.” The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 154, no. 5, 2009, p. 759–763, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033.

Goldenberg, Jamie L., et al. “The Appeal of Tragedy: A Terror Management Perspective.” Media Psychology, vol. 1, no. 4, 1999, p. 313–329, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_2.

Jackson , Peter, director. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition. New Line Home Entertainment, 2001.

Jackson , Peter, director. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Extended Edition. New Line Home Entertainment, 2002.

Jackson , Peter, director. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Extended Edition. New Line Home Entertainment, 2003.

MacDonald, Lawrence, “A Critique of the Judgement of Bad Taste or Beyond Braindead Criticism: The Films of Peter Jackson.” Peter Jackson: From Gore to Mordor, Plexus, London, 2005.

Murray, John P., et al. “Children’s Brain Activations While Viewing Televised Violence Revealed by Fmri.” Media Psychology, vol. 8, no. 1, 2006, p. 25–37, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0801_3.

Münsterberg, Hugo. The Film: A Psychological Study; the Silent Photoplay in 1916. Dover Publications, 1916.

Shippey, Tom. The Road to Middle-Earth, HarperCollins, New York, NY, 2012, p. 265.

Tolkien, Christopher, and Tolkien J R R. The History of Middle Earth. HarperCollins, 2002.

Tolkien, John R.R. The Lord of the Rings. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2014.