Assessing The Rings of Power at the end of season 1

The series’s problems continue to linger, but there are still reasons for interest and hope.

(Image: Amazon Prime)

There are powers beyond darkness at work in this world. Perhaps on days like this, we have little choice but to trust to their designs and surrender our own.”

So says Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) in episode 7 of The Rings of Power to young Theo (Tyroe Muhafidin), son of the healer Bronwyn (Nazanin Boniadi), following the devastating Orc attack on his displaced community. When Theo asks where the “design” is in this calamity, Galadriel must admit, “I cannot yet see it.” This is an exchange with resonance, not just for J.R.R. Tolkien fans, but for any person of faith.

It’s also an exchange with a limited secondary application, perhaps, for audiences of fiction, especially serial storytelling unfolding over months or years. A fictional world, for Tolkien, is a “sub-creation,” and the creativity of the human author is in some way a reflection of—and participation in—the creative activity of God. In the case of a derivative work like The Rings of Power—or even a relatively direct adaptation like Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films—we might say that, if Tolkien is the “sub-creator” of Middle-earth, perhaps storytellers adapting and expanding on his work, or artists visualizing it, are “sub-sub-creators.” Only what Tolkien wrote or drew himself is actually his own sub-creation; anyone else’s efforts (even artwork approved by Tolkien, such as some of Pauline Baynes’ illustrations for The Adventures of Tom Bombadil) are at best a reflection of Tolkien’s creative work.

A viewer watching the first episode of a series, or even finishing the first season of a multi-season show, cannot yet see the design of the sub-creators (or sub-sub-creators). While the audience has no obligation to surrender their own ideas and trust to the storytellers’ designs, even here there is a partial analogy. Any fair assessment of an artist’s work must at least begin with a provisional willingness to let go of one’s preconceptions and an open-minded receptivity to whatever the artist is trying to do. We must judge stories for what they are, not what they aren’t, or what we would have liked them to be. Stories succeed or fail first of all on their own terms.

Given all of this, what can we say about The Rings of Power at the end of season 1?

Mystery box miscalculations

We may not yet see the storytellers’ designs in full, but at this point we can at least see enough to say with confidence that some things fall flat. Flattest, for me, are the two revelations at the end of season 1’s preoccupation with J.J. Abrams-style “mystery boxing.” From the outset the biggest mysteries have been “Where is Sauron?” and “Who is the Stranger/Meteor Man?” One obvious suggestion, of course, was that the two questions were the same, but online speculation regarding the second question especially ran wild. Was Meteor Man good or evil? Could he be Gandalf or Saruman? How about one of the less familiar Istari: Radagast or one of the elusive Blue Wizards? One of the wildest ideas, pulling together esoteric strands of Tolkien lore, proposed that he was a Maia called Tilion—or, as he was known in Hobbitish doggerel, the “Man in the Moon.”

The problem with the ultimate reveal in episode 8 isn’t any real problem with the actual identification, which, within the show’s conflated, fast-and-loose take on the pre-history of The Lord of the Rings, makes more obvious sense than any of the other candidates. The problem is that the candidate that makes the most obvious sense is also, unsurprisingly, the most obvious candidate—any Tolkien fan watching the end of episode 1 must have thought immediately of Gandalf—and so a season-long mystery ends in anticlimax. Right to the end, there’s a sense that the showrunners are trying to keep us guessing, even attempting an eleventh-hour fake out, before revealing (or at least heavily implying) that, well, there was never much of a mystery in the first place. Well, then, why try to make a puzzle out of it? (Technically, it’s still possible for the show to pull a twist and make it one of the other Istari, but the level of misdirection that would involve would be lamer than the reveal as it stands.)

As for the revelation regarding Sauron, here the problem is less anticlimax than missed opportunity. The character ultimately identified as Sauron—Halbrand (Charlie Vickers), the castaway turned king of the Southlands—was more intriguingly linked in fan speculation to other candidates. At the end of the day, the Stranger makes more sense as Gandalf than anyone else, but there were more interesting possibilities for Halbrand than Sauron. Say, the king of the People of the Mountain who refused to join the Last Alliance, and were cursed by Isildur as oathbreakers—the king of the Dead who led the Shadow-host that were ultimately released after answering the summons of Aragorn. Or one of the lords of Men who were ensnared by Sauron through the power of the Nine Rings and became Ring-wraiths (perhaps their leader, the Witch-king of Angmar). At this stage, at least, these seem like potentially more interesting story choices than the one the showrunners actually made.

Something greater

Another problem, for me, with the revelation of Halbrand as Sauron (or, for that matter, the king of the Dead or one of the Nazgûl) is what it implies for Galadriel’s earlier invocation of higher power, in which she does claim insight into the designs of “something greater.” Back in episode 3 Galadriel tells Halbrand that their meeting “was no chance meeting. Not fate, nor destiny, nor any other words men use to speak of forces they lack the conviction to name.” There’s certainly a rationale for such dramatic language, for Galadriel was adrift in the Sundering Seas and would have died if not for a chance convergence with survivors of a shipwreck, one of whom was Halbrand. (Will we now learn more of Halbrand’s back story, and exactly what he was doing in that flotsam?)

The vanishing improbability of such an extraordinary meeting all but demands one to see a higher power at work…but what sort of power, if Halbrand is Sauron? Halbrand tells Galadriel that it was her faith in him that set him on his present course (for more on Sauron’s ambiguous status between the fall of Morgoth and the rise of the shadow in Mordor, keep reading). On this accounting, it would seem that “something greater” was at work specifically to turn Sauron back to evil designs and bring about his reign in Mordor, leading first to the War of the Last Alliance and ultimately to the War of the Ring. It’s one thing for a higher power to allow wicked choices or dire circumstances, but to orchestrate them by extraordinary means—only to later orchestrate their undoing, as by the finding of the One Ring by Bilbo and the Ring’s destruction in an accident—seems capricious.

On the other hand, the revelation of the Stranger as (presumably) Gandalf offers some vindication for young Nori (Markella Kavenagh) the Harfoot’s sense that she was “supposed to find” the Stranger, who “could have landed anywhere” but landed practically at her feet. Though briefly persuaded that her mother was right to scoff at the notion that “the stars reached down and touched” her, Nori regains her faith, and even her mother is persuaded. The case is even more compelling to viewers, who see here the beginning of Gandalf’s long association with Hobbit-folk, which will be instrumental in the providential finding and destroying of the Ring.

Evil and ambiguity

Given the prominence of the Gandalf and Sauron reveals (among other elements) in the finale, I have to say season 1 ended for me closer to the quiet end of the whimper-bang spectrum than I had hoped. Yet the highs of the season’s second half offer ongoing reason for sustained interest. Among these is the exploration of conflicting ideas about the nature of the Orcs—as seen, at least, through the eyes of Galadriel and the Orc leader Adar (Joseph Mawle). Adar’s name in Elvish Sindarin means “father,” and he is said to be one of the first fathers of the Orcs: an Elf captured, tortured, and corrupted by Morgoth to produce a warped race of slaves. Adar tells Galadriel that he rebelled against Sauron and that he wants the Southlands as a home for Orcs to live in freedom. Delightfully, he also repeatedly indicates that the Orcs “prefer Uruk,” their name in the Black Speech, to the Sindarin form “Orch,” or Orc.

This is a fascinating development. The nature of the Orcs was never definitively settled by Tolkien, who over the years offered various accounts of their origins. His first notion was that Melkor (or Melko) used sorcery to fashion them of rock and slime, with a subsequent gloss that he made them “in mockery” of the Elves. Later Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not create life, and proposed that Orcs were somehow bred from tortured and corrupted Elves. Still later he conceived of them as soulless beasts, or perhaps a mixed breed with some Elvish or human heritage. These conflicting ideas joust with one another in the dialogue of Galadriel and Adar. “Your kind was a mistake,” Galadriel charges, “made in mockery.” But Adar maintains that “we are creations of the One, Master of the Secret Fire, the same as you. As worthy of the breath of life—and just as worthy of a home.”

One of Tolkien’s guiding ideas was the Christian understanding of evil as a corruption of the good, and of fallenness as a corruption of originally good creatures. But of course corruption means very different things for fallen angels and fallen men. In Catholic theology, the sin of the fallen angels was an absolute choice that is without repentance or conflict, whereas good and evil struggle in the fallen human heart, and repentance and change are possible even for wicked human beings. Tolkien explored corruption and the possibility of redemption in connection with many characters and races: most prominently Boromir and Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, but also, in the larger legendarium, many of the Elves involved in the rebellion against the Valar (including Galadriel and the sons of Fëanor, leader of the rebellion). Even Melkor was pardoned by the Valar after feigning repentance, suggesting that he was at least theoretically capable of repenting. And Sauron himself, after Morgoth’s defeat in the War of Wrath, actually repented, though in fear rather than humility (Catholic tradition calls this “imperfect contrition” or “attrition”), and went half a millennium before returning to evil.

The idea of Sauron going through a period of remorse and self-exile—a surprising notion to many Lord of the Rings fans—is central to his portrayal so far in The Rings of Power. Yet while Tolkien allowed for the possibility of some degree of moral complexity even in his most villainous, even demonic characters, Orcs he was content to treat as very nearly the moral equivalent of demons. Or rather, if “content” is too strong a word, since he did have concerns about it, at any rate he did so. What makes this queasy is that we do glimpse signs of a kind of humanity in them; for example, Tolkien allows Orcs to dream of a life with “no big bosses,” i.e., the sort of freedom Adar wants for them. In an unsent letter, Tolkien conceded that “it would be going too far” to call Orcs “irredeemably bad,” but in practice he treated them as if they were. So far, The Rings of Power hasn’t gone beyond Tolkien in its actual depiction of Adar’s children, but the complexity of Adar’s views raises the possibility that it might.

Odds and ends

Among other strengths, I continue to enjoy the friendship of Elrond (Robert Aramayo) and Durin (Owain Arthur), and Durin’s wife Disa (Sophia Nomvete) remains a welcome presence. Yet there’s a subtle evocation of Lady Macbeth in her last conversation with Durin, and in her closing words about the mithril (“That mithril belongs to us, to you and me”) is a hint of the covetousness of the Dwarves “delving too greedily and too deep”—a connection overtly underscored by a dramatic shot swooping down into the depths of the earth for a glimpse of Durin’s Bane, shadow and flame. Battle sequences and combat—Arondir’s ambush at the Elven tower, followed by the Orc attack at the village of Tirharad and the last-minute arrival of the literal cavalry, the Númenórean army—are inventively staged and immersively filmed. (Note how director Charlotte Brändström and director of photography Alex Disenhof make striking use of torches in the distance as the Orcs cross a bridge or come over the crest of a hill. I did have one problem with the battle scenes: the near infallibility of the archers on both sides. Virtually every arrow hits its mark, and virtually every hit kills the victim instantly.)

The best of the dialogue places us persuasively in Tolkien’s world. “Despise not the labor that humbles the heart,” Galadriel tells Theo, adding that “humility has saved entire kingdoms the proud have all but led to ruin.” (I had to chuckle at a phrase borrowed from the Song of Songs—“terrible as an army with banners”—which has a completely different resonance if you know the context.) On occasion, the writers draw directly from Tolkien, with uneven results. I liked (though I can certainly see why someone else might not) Bronwyn’s domestic ritual utterance of a line of narration from The Lord of the Rings: “This shadow is but a small and passing thing; there is light and high beauty forever beyond its reach.” (When she goes on to say “Find the light, and the shadow will not find you,” I was reminded of Galadriel’s brother Finrod’s whispered saying about not knowing which light to follow “until we have touched the darkness.” Do Finrod and Bronwyn have contrasting ideas, or is this a lack of thematic coherence from the writers?) And while the Stranger’s “To shadow, I bid you return” is warranted both narratively and expositionally (to identify him as Gandalf), “When in doubt, always follow your nose” is a major groan moment.

The Rings of Power is not great television. At its best, it’s interesting, and at times it’s less than that. As an adaptation of Tolkien, it does a few notable things—I’m particularly intrigued to see where they go with Adar and the Orcs—but there’s a lot that fans must at best overlook. None of the episodes have left me on the edge of my seat, needing to know what happens next. And yet I appreciate its sincerity of spirit, its lack of cynicism, irony, or deconstruction. I don’t love it, but I enjoy it. In this sub-sub-creation is a real reflection of Middle-earth that I’m glad for having experienced, and I continue to be open to what the storytellers are trying to do.

Related at CWR:
The Rings of Power: Season 1 at the halfway mark” (September 15, 2022) by Steven D. Greydanus
The Rings of Power: Fantasy with Tolkienian roots, but not of Tolkien” (September 4, 2022) by Thomas M. Doran
“A new foray into Middle-Earth: The Rings of Power (August 31, 2022) by Steven D. Greydanus


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Steven D. Greydanus 50 Articles
Steven D. Greydanus is a member of the New York Film Critics Circle, a permanent deacon in the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, and the founder of DecentFilms.com. He has degrees in media arts and religious studies. He and his wife Suzanne have seven children.

24 Comments

  1. S. Greydanus: “… I appreciate its sincerity of spirit, its lack of cynicism, irony, or deconstruction.”

    LOL! Some of the show’s biggest problems are in fact its lack of sincerity and its cynical deconstruction of too much of Tolkien’s Middle Earth in order to promote some aspects of the woke BS agenda and a storyline that lacks Tolkien’s Catholic overall vision that any retelling of his work needs to make it a truly worthwhile contribution to the “Rings” genre.

    For a much more helpful, in-depth, intelligent, honest, and Refreshingly non-woke review of season one of “The Rings of Power,” see Erik Kain’s “‘The Rings Of Power’ Season 1 Review: Amazon’s Arrogant Betrayal Of ‘The Lord Of The Rings’”… published online at Forbes (October 18, 2022).

    As Kain rightly sets forth in the title of his review, Amazon’s offering is nothing but an arrogant betrayal of “The Lord of the Rings.”

  2. What the….? Is there any cultural authority before which Mr. Greydanus will not shrivel in abject obeisance in his passion to offend no one lest it might cost him? This overpriced catastrophe is an object lesson in the intellectual nullity of the so-called GenX, and the destruction that ultraradical wokeism wreaks in every space it occupies, no matter how revered the source. The only sincerity which may be witnessed in this billion dollar disaster is the profound sincerity with which the perpetual adolescents who create and run the show seek to destroy every fundamental value which informed Tolkien’s worldview and his beautiful imaginings. In a word, “garbage”.

  3. Pft. We live in an age that makes idols out of ‘Exploration of Conflicting Ideas’ and ‘Freedom’. I see no reason, based on this essay, to revise the comments I made on Dr Greydanus’s first post about this derivative melodrama which is fundamentally nothing more than a paean to those idols.

  4. A good review of a good, but not great, tv show that is based on the appendices of Tolkien’s LOTR. The appendices read more like history than narrative. It does give the creators of the show leeway when writing their scripts. Parts of the show works well while other parts could be better.

  5. Will Catholic World Report be publishing a review of Blonde? It’s one of the best films of the year, and it features one of the most brutal and honest depictions of abortion in film history. I wish that more Catholic publications were writing about it, instead of avoiding the film because of its NC-17 rating. I think that, far too often, Christian cultural commentators steer clear of good movies because they feature explicit content…and overcompensate by focusing too much on anodyne, family-friendly fantasy, comic book, and animated movies. (Nothing inherently wrong with those genres. Jackson’s LOTR trilogy is great. But CWR tends to focus on the less adventurous stuff.)

  6. Thank you for the review. I think one really important point you make is we need to take something for what it is, not for what it is not (I made this mistake with Obi-wan). I *might* say *also* take it for what it is. What it could/should be is an important consideration as well. Overall, although I like the review I think I can skip this show.

  7. LOL SDG is trying really hard to positively spin this dumpster fire of a show and the best he can come up with is “The Orcs are morally ambiguous now and that’s like, really interesting.”

    The SDG I remember reading when the original trilogy came out would have absolutely wrecked this show for its infidelity and sheer lack of imagination, among its many other issues. How times have changed.

    • [Note: I welcome opinions from all readers, including both friendly disagreement and pointed criticism. And all experienced writers, especially C.S. Lewis fans familiar with “Fernseed and Elephants,” fully expect those judging their work to invent motives and histories for their work—inventions that, as Lewis points out, are almost infallibly wrong. No matter, carry on. That said, it’s pretty insufferable for a reader to think he knows the critic (including the critic of 20 years ago) better than the critic himself. Even I don’t know for sure how I would have judged this series 20 years ago, but one thing I know for a fact: Your idea that I would have wrecked the show for its “infidelity” shows that (like the blowhard in the Marshall McLuhan scene in Annie Hall) “you know nothing of my work.” I have never, not once in my critical life, made a criterion of “fidelity” that way. On the contrary, I’ve always said that, while fidelity can be gratifying to fans, no adapted work has the slightest artistic obligation to be faithful to source material. (For example, if I thought of “fidelity” the way you suggest 20 years ago, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe would have gotten a C at best, and the others would have gone downhill from there.) – SDG]

  8. The RoP is just hard to like a lot. I like it a little. When I read the LofR back in the early ’70s, the first thing that struck me was the subtle way that the history of ME was suggested throughout the story. Tolkien must have known that creating these characters cold without depth would leave it as an adventure story and nothing more. The RoP decided to compress time and miss the special subtly of Tolkien. Within the hints and factoids of other kingdoms, place names, peoples and heroes in LofR, he was able to build hope in face of impossible odds. I think trying to make everything contemporary to each other in RoP reduced its power as an epic. I realize if we think we will see Tolkien’s underlying Christian sensibilities in his fiction here, we may be mistaken.

  9. I can understand that for purists, departures from the Appendix can be upsetting. I felt the same way with Peter Jackson’s addition of characters and changing the story line of the LOTH. Can we just enjoy it for what it is? A fantasy. Refreshingly it has been made with no sex, blasphemy or moments when you have to turn it off due to offense; and one which mentions words like “Faith” and other glimpses of higher values and Power. Some of the SE are overdone (too many waterfalls and monuments), but others are spectacular (Galadriel’s moving toward the Grey Havens). I am a huge fan of Tolkien, having read the LOTR multiple times starting in the 1960’s, when it was first published in the US market. (I am now 73) My fear was that it this rendition was going to turn into another Amazon Prime production. I am very pleased that they are so far staying true to JRR and the Tolkien family legacy.

  10. Rings of Power is fascinatingly mediocre. As I watch an episode I try to enjoy it and in the moment I often do. But then I think about the episode and am often scratching my head at the writing. For instance the cavalry charge in RoP makes little sense to me. How do they know where the battle is? Why are they riding at full speed while so many miles away? I want to find the positives and it seems that SDG does as well. I can only hope they find new showrunners for season 2 who can tell a more coherent story.

    • [Note: There’s probably no chance that the two showrunners, J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, will not see the series through. But the eight episodes to date were written by a variety of writers and writing teams, and season 2 could bring an infusion of new writing talent. -SDG]

  11. Shocked to discover that Steven went running to Twitter to complain about the comments section. Again. God forbid there be one venue where people can respond to his musings with their own criticisms. (Naturally, he’s still mad that some Catholics don’t hold BLM in high regard.)

    I didn’t care for the show. It’s on par with the “Hobbit” movies, which were overextended and boring.

    • [Thanks for following even my replies on Twitter so closely, friend, but you are bearing false witness. What actually happened (readers can verify this for themselves) is that a reader on Twitter tagged me in a discussion about the role of racism and sexism in hostility to The Rings of Power. I replied that I think that it does play a role, and offered examples from the combox of my first Rings of Power piece. As for Black Lives Matter, it’s silly to say that I’m “mad that some Catholics don’t hold BLM in high regard” (I’ve said many times that Catholics should not be involved in the BLM Global Network). The real point is that when readers complaining about The Rings of Power kick off their comments by inveighing out of the blue against Black Lives Matter, which I did not bring up and which was in no way relevant to the topic, and then talk about “black-on-black violence,” which, again, is in no way relevant to The Rings of Power or my article, then yeah, I think their hostility to The Rings of Power is pretty manifestly connected to their own racial hangups. But you keep on making it about me if that makes you happy. —SDG]

      • Don’t be disingenuous. People bring up BLM because that movement became a cultural monolith back in 2020. The Summer of George led to a secular Great Awakening that made the entertainment industry even more ideologically rigid than it was before. Only somebody who’s completely disingenuous would fail to recognize this.

        No, the only person who’s bearing false witness (both here and on Twitter) is you.

  12. “And yet I appreciate its sincerity of spirit, its lack of cynicism, irony, or deconstruction.”

    Then you must have been watching a different show. Rings of Power are cynical to an extreme, and their aim is precisely the deconstruction of Tolkien’s work in order to forcibly fit it into their postmodernist, Marxist narrative.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Starting Seven: October 21, 2022 - The Pillar - Catholic Colbert

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*