The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy - Power As Goodness
Thoughts On: The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (2001-03)
A consideration of the basic thematic discourse underlying the entirety of the LOTR trilogy.
The Lord of the Rings sits deep in my bones as a film fanatic in the way Star Wars does for so many others. The mythology gripped my young mind quickly; I was raised on the extended edition trilogy, and so the fantasy and adventure moving into my unconscious long before I could make much sense of it. I watch the trilogy, at the least, once a year, but it was not until the year that has just passed that I could watch it with much more than a child's eyes. Fellowship stands out as the best in the trilogy, but each film falls into a sequence of sublime storytelling. And it is for the first time now that I begin to really see below the surface of this narrative.
Whilst I believe much of the trilogy's brilliance emerges from Tolkien's work, this will not be made reference to. (Indeed, I haven't read the entire trilogy, so the novels have very little impact on my understanding of the film). I will analyse the trilogy as an isolated cinematic adaptation whose narrative is enclosed within the frames committed to the screen. It is having established this that very many questions emerge from the earliest elements of the narrative fabula. What is are the rings of power and why do they exist?
There is great ambiguity surrounding this point despite the iconic exposition of the opening. It is said that Sauron forges the ring of power, and, later, that Sauron gave the rings (those given to each race) to men. It was men succumbing to the power of the rings that Sauron gave them that turns them to the shadow, transforms them to Ringwraiths. Did Sauron give the elves and dwarves their rings, too? This is not answered explicitly in the films, but it seems apparent. The significance of this cannot be understated; this is the birth of a mythological narrative whose subtext is rather astounding. The rings appear to represent the coming of civilisation, or at least, a new form of civilisation, a new age, as it is the rings that gave each race's leaders the strength and will to govern their people. Alas, these rings are the work of Sauron, and so their power is a manifestation of evil. This is a key motif easily picked up on throughout the trilogy: power leads to corruption and evil. This narrative axiom is implanted by the misty history of the rings, which is to say, with Sauron creating the rings of power that birth civilisation, we are told that civilisation is a contrivance of evil. Alas, again--there is greater complication. The mythological discourse opened here is fascinating. We are told that civility is not just given by evil, but that power is a product of the world's shadow. It is in embracing the products of shadow that civilisations ascend, but, with their ascent comes the rise of opposing powers. The good and naive accept the gifts of the dark and powerful, only to empower their enemy - and vice versa. However, evil underestimates goodness, as the courageous wield their power against the will of the shadow.
There is a familiar mythological ring to this story of the origin of an age or of civilisation. Suggested here is the idea that people emerge from an act of embracing evil. For humanity, Prometheus stole fire and, in turn, saw Pandora release woes upon civilisation, bottling up hope, tasking men and women to contrive this themselves. Similarly, to forge their independent existence, Eve and Adam eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; they sin, and thus welcome the suffering that will make them human. The implication of LOTR's mythos establishes power as a preeminent force in the world. The force has a fundamental relationship with evil and is outlined by an ability to control others, to organise and to manifest civilisation. Such is a rather satisfying definition of a rather difficult word in 'power'. Often, power is used to describe something equivocal to a force--as an ability to enforce one's will. This description is relevant to the implications of LOTR, but strength and will are bound, importantly, to civility and a control over people. Such a relationship facilitates the forging of a path between good and evil. If power is singularly an ability to enact one's personal will, then a gauge for moral measurement is not necessarily available. We find this to be true in many stories about powerful beings. If one being becomes singularly powerful - the most powerful entity in the universe - then their morality becomes truth. This is what Sauron intends; if he alone rules, then he alone dictates the state of reality. This, I believe, is what characterises him as evil. Evil emerges from solipsistic moral isolation. Power, however, does not inherently exist in or facilitate the manifestation of the solipsistic bubble. As suggested, power is defined by an ability to govern people. Thus, power is an irrevocably communal device - one requiring hierarchy, a leader. Goodness emerges from this definition of power. Power is being able to lead people well. This is so because leading a large group of people in a wider collective civilisation requires a universal moral bubble - or, at least, this is how a peaceful and ideal world functions.
With reflection, we can realise that there are two conundrums that emerge from this definition of power. If one wants to be singularly powerful - thus evil - they must subvert civility. Alas, if one wants to be truly good, they must become powerful. The evil must risk civilisation to secure their singular power, and the good must risk falling down the path of evil in their pursuit of power. It is because of this that the dialectic between good and evil propagates as it does throughout LOTR's trilogy. Sauron wants power as an evil entity - that is to say, he wishes to enforce his will without regard for civilisation. Alas, he can never secure this power without himself building a civilisation. His plan was then to empower other races, to build armies, only to control them--transform them into mere limbs of his evil faculties. The risk he takes in doing this turns out to be his downfall. By empowering other races, he empowers collective moral being and goodness. Though this collectively moral race face their temptations and exist on the edge of corruption, they embody true power - a cogent confluence of will and collectivisation. This is why the powerful good are fated to overcome the powerful evil. Though they exist in a state of precarity, their foundations are strong. This is why there are numerous rings of the good, but one ring of evil. Though the many rings of good are weak, they represent many collective bodies. The one ring is one body, and easily thwarted is it - or at least appears to be.
So much emerges from these implications. It is because the powerful evil have weak foundations that they may be overturned by the slightest of touches. Thus, Sam and Frodo's journey to Mount Doom. Evil has many manifests, but one heart; evade these manifests and the heart is unguarded. Goodness has its manifests, but many hearts; these many hearts form into one, and so guarded they are, even with their manifests stripped. Such is translated to narrative language many times over with each film in the series depicting innumerable evils overcome by the joining of a few hearts of good; in Fellowship, it is the founding and cleaving of the nine that represent the coming together of differing people and the sacrifices that birth good hearts. The fellowship fractures with the end of the film, but the dispersion of hearts represents the spread of goodness and hope, for if each of the small factions did not separate, then the pathway towards triumph would not be possible. That is to say, if the fellowship stayed together through the journey to Mount Doom, then the kingdoms of middle-earth would not have been united and the manifestations of evil fended off. In fact, it can easily be argued that the journey to Mount Doom would be impossible if, first, the fellowship was not founded and fractured, second, if the fellowship did not gain the allegiance of Rohan, and third, if the fellowship did not unite Rohan and Gondor before the Black Gates. It is the unification of the men of middle-earth that stages a minor confrontation between one of the purest hearts (that of a Hobbit) and the darkest heart (Sauron).
Not mentioned thus far is the role of the individual among the collective. The reason why power is bound to morality and does not have to be inherently evil, is because, though one person may secure the ability to impose and propagate their will and strength, they are judged by their actions' impact on others. A good powerful individual is made so by those they serve. Such is why introspection and self-doubt is so key to LOTR. Aragorn and Gandalf, powerful though they are, fear themselves - as do so many wise entities. The only trust they have in themselves concerns their ability to serve others, to give hope as opposed to keep it for themselves (to use the words of Aragorn). This is what qualifies them to lead and to wield power: they do not want it because they understand it is not personally theirs. The same is said of Frodo. A manifestation of naivety and innocence, Frodo is not necessarily good. He is merely pure. His goodness, however, emerges from the fact that he never assumes he can be powerful and retains such humility even when the key to the greatest power imaginable is put in his hands. His introspection and self-doubt manifest via his relationship with Gollum. Gollum is a pure heart corrupted by power. Alas, Sam is a pure heart who (almost) never even comes into contact with power. This trio is essential. Each are pure hearts, and their drama symbolises the most intimate of conflicts between good and evil. Goodness fails this trio; the ring is only destroyed because of Gollum attacking Frodo - he had decided already to keep the ring. Alas, though Frodo's heart is bared and, indeed, he falls toward shadow because of Gollum, most important is the hand that catches him: Sam. It is only because both good and bad stand beside Frodo that he succeeds; that he is pulled appropriately toward shadow and then away from it.
Demonstrated with this internal battle between good and evil is the individual component of power. Staged in the wider constraints, the battle of men lead by Aragorn, is a discourse on the collective component of power. So whilst Aragorn unifies people, manifesting the courage to lead and manifest morality collectively, Frodo unifies himself, mustering the courage to step in and then out of shadow - with much help from Sam, of course; the good do not stand alone. Such completes LOTR's rumination on power. It is when civility and the individual bare their hearts before evil that true and good power manifest and all else is overthrown.
Far more could be made mentioned of, but, it is having made this somewhat brief outline that I leave you to watch the trilogy and ponder it yourself. So, with my part done, I leave things with you. What are your thoughts?
Previous post:
Why Do We Like Marvel Movies?
Next post:
The Blind Side - Orders Of Truth
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A consideration of the basic thematic discourse underlying the entirety of the LOTR trilogy.
The Lord of the Rings sits deep in my bones as a film fanatic in the way Star Wars does for so many others. The mythology gripped my young mind quickly; I was raised on the extended edition trilogy, and so the fantasy and adventure moving into my unconscious long before I could make much sense of it. I watch the trilogy, at the least, once a year, but it was not until the year that has just passed that I could watch it with much more than a child's eyes. Fellowship stands out as the best in the trilogy, but each film falls into a sequence of sublime storytelling. And it is for the first time now that I begin to really see below the surface of this narrative.
Whilst I believe much of the trilogy's brilliance emerges from Tolkien's work, this will not be made reference to. (Indeed, I haven't read the entire trilogy, so the novels have very little impact on my understanding of the film). I will analyse the trilogy as an isolated cinematic adaptation whose narrative is enclosed within the frames committed to the screen. It is having established this that very many questions emerge from the earliest elements of the narrative fabula. What is are the rings of power and why do they exist?
There is great ambiguity surrounding this point despite the iconic exposition of the opening. It is said that Sauron forges the ring of power, and, later, that Sauron gave the rings (those given to each race) to men. It was men succumbing to the power of the rings that Sauron gave them that turns them to the shadow, transforms them to Ringwraiths. Did Sauron give the elves and dwarves their rings, too? This is not answered explicitly in the films, but it seems apparent. The significance of this cannot be understated; this is the birth of a mythological narrative whose subtext is rather astounding. The rings appear to represent the coming of civilisation, or at least, a new form of civilisation, a new age, as it is the rings that gave each race's leaders the strength and will to govern their people. Alas, these rings are the work of Sauron, and so their power is a manifestation of evil. This is a key motif easily picked up on throughout the trilogy: power leads to corruption and evil. This narrative axiom is implanted by the misty history of the rings, which is to say, with Sauron creating the rings of power that birth civilisation, we are told that civilisation is a contrivance of evil. Alas, again--there is greater complication. The mythological discourse opened here is fascinating. We are told that civility is not just given by evil, but that power is a product of the world's shadow. It is in embracing the products of shadow that civilisations ascend, but, with their ascent comes the rise of opposing powers. The good and naive accept the gifts of the dark and powerful, only to empower their enemy - and vice versa. However, evil underestimates goodness, as the courageous wield their power against the will of the shadow.
There is a familiar mythological ring to this story of the origin of an age or of civilisation. Suggested here is the idea that people emerge from an act of embracing evil. For humanity, Prometheus stole fire and, in turn, saw Pandora release woes upon civilisation, bottling up hope, tasking men and women to contrive this themselves. Similarly, to forge their independent existence, Eve and Adam eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; they sin, and thus welcome the suffering that will make them human. The implication of LOTR's mythos establishes power as a preeminent force in the world. The force has a fundamental relationship with evil and is outlined by an ability to control others, to organise and to manifest civilisation. Such is a rather satisfying definition of a rather difficult word in 'power'. Often, power is used to describe something equivocal to a force--as an ability to enforce one's will. This description is relevant to the implications of LOTR, but strength and will are bound, importantly, to civility and a control over people. Such a relationship facilitates the forging of a path between good and evil. If power is singularly an ability to enact one's personal will, then a gauge for moral measurement is not necessarily available. We find this to be true in many stories about powerful beings. If one being becomes singularly powerful - the most powerful entity in the universe - then their morality becomes truth. This is what Sauron intends; if he alone rules, then he alone dictates the state of reality. This, I believe, is what characterises him as evil. Evil emerges from solipsistic moral isolation. Power, however, does not inherently exist in or facilitate the manifestation of the solipsistic bubble. As suggested, power is defined by an ability to govern people. Thus, power is an irrevocably communal device - one requiring hierarchy, a leader. Goodness emerges from this definition of power. Power is being able to lead people well. This is so because leading a large group of people in a wider collective civilisation requires a universal moral bubble - or, at least, this is how a peaceful and ideal world functions.
With reflection, we can realise that there are two conundrums that emerge from this definition of power. If one wants to be singularly powerful - thus evil - they must subvert civility. Alas, if one wants to be truly good, they must become powerful. The evil must risk civilisation to secure their singular power, and the good must risk falling down the path of evil in their pursuit of power. It is because of this that the dialectic between good and evil propagates as it does throughout LOTR's trilogy. Sauron wants power as an evil entity - that is to say, he wishes to enforce his will without regard for civilisation. Alas, he can never secure this power without himself building a civilisation. His plan was then to empower other races, to build armies, only to control them--transform them into mere limbs of his evil faculties. The risk he takes in doing this turns out to be his downfall. By empowering other races, he empowers collective moral being and goodness. Though this collectively moral race face their temptations and exist on the edge of corruption, they embody true power - a cogent confluence of will and collectivisation. This is why the powerful good are fated to overcome the powerful evil. Though they exist in a state of precarity, their foundations are strong. This is why there are numerous rings of the good, but one ring of evil. Though the many rings of good are weak, they represent many collective bodies. The one ring is one body, and easily thwarted is it - or at least appears to be.
So much emerges from these implications. It is because the powerful evil have weak foundations that they may be overturned by the slightest of touches. Thus, Sam and Frodo's journey to Mount Doom. Evil has many manifests, but one heart; evade these manifests and the heart is unguarded. Goodness has its manifests, but many hearts; these many hearts form into one, and so guarded they are, even with their manifests stripped. Such is translated to narrative language many times over with each film in the series depicting innumerable evils overcome by the joining of a few hearts of good; in Fellowship, it is the founding and cleaving of the nine that represent the coming together of differing people and the sacrifices that birth good hearts. The fellowship fractures with the end of the film, but the dispersion of hearts represents the spread of goodness and hope, for if each of the small factions did not separate, then the pathway towards triumph would not be possible. That is to say, if the fellowship stayed together through the journey to Mount Doom, then the kingdoms of middle-earth would not have been united and the manifestations of evil fended off. In fact, it can easily be argued that the journey to Mount Doom would be impossible if, first, the fellowship was not founded and fractured, second, if the fellowship did not gain the allegiance of Rohan, and third, if the fellowship did not unite Rohan and Gondor before the Black Gates. It is the unification of the men of middle-earth that stages a minor confrontation between one of the purest hearts (that of a Hobbit) and the darkest heart (Sauron).
Not mentioned thus far is the role of the individual among the collective. The reason why power is bound to morality and does not have to be inherently evil, is because, though one person may secure the ability to impose and propagate their will and strength, they are judged by their actions' impact on others. A good powerful individual is made so by those they serve. Such is why introspection and self-doubt is so key to LOTR. Aragorn and Gandalf, powerful though they are, fear themselves - as do so many wise entities. The only trust they have in themselves concerns their ability to serve others, to give hope as opposed to keep it for themselves (to use the words of Aragorn). This is what qualifies them to lead and to wield power: they do not want it because they understand it is not personally theirs. The same is said of Frodo. A manifestation of naivety and innocence, Frodo is not necessarily good. He is merely pure. His goodness, however, emerges from the fact that he never assumes he can be powerful and retains such humility even when the key to the greatest power imaginable is put in his hands. His introspection and self-doubt manifest via his relationship with Gollum. Gollum is a pure heart corrupted by power. Alas, Sam is a pure heart who (almost) never even comes into contact with power. This trio is essential. Each are pure hearts, and their drama symbolises the most intimate of conflicts between good and evil. Goodness fails this trio; the ring is only destroyed because of Gollum attacking Frodo - he had decided already to keep the ring. Alas, though Frodo's heart is bared and, indeed, he falls toward shadow because of Gollum, most important is the hand that catches him: Sam. It is only because both good and bad stand beside Frodo that he succeeds; that he is pulled appropriately toward shadow and then away from it.
Demonstrated with this internal battle between good and evil is the individual component of power. Staged in the wider constraints, the battle of men lead by Aragorn, is a discourse on the collective component of power. So whilst Aragorn unifies people, manifesting the courage to lead and manifest morality collectively, Frodo unifies himself, mustering the courage to step in and then out of shadow - with much help from Sam, of course; the good do not stand alone. Such completes LOTR's rumination on power. It is when civility and the individual bare their hearts before evil that true and good power manifest and all else is overthrown.
Far more could be made mentioned of, but, it is having made this somewhat brief outline that I leave you to watch the trilogy and ponder it yourself. So, with my part done, I leave things with you. What are your thoughts?
Previous post:
Why Do We Like Marvel Movies?
Next post:
The Blind Side - Orders Of Truth
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
