On September 1 of this year—after much anticipation and some consternation—Amazon began to release what is so far the most expensive television drama ever produced. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power was accumulating an amount of chatter that likely no TV show—and a minority of films for that matter—that hadn't been released yet has ever received. From what I could observe, the buzz preceding and following the beginning of its release was both positive and negative. The bulk of the praise and criticism—or at least mainly that which has been the most vocal—hasn't made sense to me.
I will note that I have not watched a single second of the program, apart from what content was available in the trailers. Some may be swift in claiming that this forfeits any reasonable position I have in discussing the show, in whatever capacity. If that is what you think, fine. I don't care. Go for it. I will return to that near the end. Meanwhile, my observations are mainly focused on the show's reaction and the background of the production.
Regarding the animosity it has received, I found most of the show's initial detractors (before it was even available for the viewing public) fell into the category of people who find “wokeness” to be the world's most imperative issue. It was through the show's diverse casting which made the detractors cross and that the show would be trammeling upon J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I, myself, take issue with most things “woke”—I also hate that term but here we are—but I found the claims in opposition to the apparent woke overtaking of elven and dwarven screen extravaganzas to be ridiculous.
First, if there are black elves, dwarves, and what-nots in a TV show, who cares? I recently re-watched Kenneth Branagh's 1996 adaptation of Hamlet. Branagh set his adaptation in 19th century Denmark, while also including black actors among the cast. That doesn't fit in with the historical context regarding 19th century Denmark, but does it matter for Hamlet? Of course not and it didn't hinder the film in any way, or at least in any way a sane person would be concerned. At the time, no one made a fuss as far as I know and it would be sensible to produce the film as such, as to not exclude the many black actors of Britain in the 1990's.
Pertaining to Tolkien's purported legacy, most of these critics—residing on YouTube—didn't even appear to be acquainted with his actual work at all, or some only with The Lord Of The Rings, and not with The Silmarillion, in which the second part of that book is what the new TV show's plot is, so I understand, very loosely based off of. One of the recreationally anti-woke commentators had behind him his library of video games: a common sign of the well-read. After watching some of these videos—videos were all I could find on this side of this debate, if you can even call it that—it became clear that Tolkien's legacy was their perception of it primarily through the lens of the Peter Jackson films. Christopher Tolkien—The author's son, curator of his works, and the primary editor of his posthumous releases—took much issue with the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings film trilogy; he found it to be a stain on the legacy, if you will. Maybe the late professor would have had some alarm were he to find out some of his most ardent defenders have only a pedestrian familiarity with his writing.
There were also implications that politically Tolkien would have his reservations about the program's direction. It is hard to think exactly how his political convictions would even interface with modern politics in the Anglosphere considering he was born in the 19th century and even for his time, his politics were quite particular, being somewhat of a distributist, akin to Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton.
My main contention with the production's direction, upon hearing about the premise of the show a few months after it was announced, was that it would be based solely upon the section concerning the Second Age of Middle Earth in The Silmarillion. That constitutes a whopping, albeit dense, twenty-three pages (or at least in the edition I have on hand). The initial Jackson film trilogy was an abridgement of the around 1100 page The Lord Of The Rings into around eleven hours of cinema. Jackson's subsequent film trilogy rendition of The Hobbit turned an around 300-page children's novel into only slightly less screen time, bloating the tale way out of proportion. Now there is to be a whole multi-year series based upon a meagre twenty-three pages. But, come now, it's the rotund black dwarf that is the issue.
Putting aside the limited amount of material, Amazon having to go off of the type of content in the book is a larger issue. The Lord Of The Rings, and even more so The Hobbit, are basic linear narratives that almost anyone can read through; given that you aren't bored to tears, which applies to many, although, granted, not to this nerd, yours truly. The Silmarillion reads more like scripture. Also, in The Silmarillion, the reader can see more thoroughly how Tolkien's writing is mainly a pastiche of Beowulf, The Eddas, The Kalevala, and Mallory. Even though his approach had its many detractors, perhaps most of all Edmund Wilson in his 1956 article for The Nation titled 'Oo, Those Awful Orcs!' (see what I've done there), I enjoyed this literary approach combined with his linguistic input in which he utilized his academic expertise in philology to construct whole new languages, syntax and all. So, how could one take his most dense form of antiquated literature; format it for the screen; stay true to the initial writing; all the while inputting a billion dollars with the expectation of a return? Your guess is as good as mine.
All that said, this makes me wonder how someone could anticipate this being a loyal rendition of the initial works in the first place? I can only infer that those who were irate from the initial stills and trailers weren't overly concerned with the source material, but with wanting more material akin to the Jackson films and were cynically propping up Tolkien to accommodate their own insular displeasure; along with the perpetual pursuit to over-examine every woke transgression, no matter how trivial.
I did find among the cavalcade of grumpy, anti-woke, and mainly white YouTubers one frustrated black American YouTuber. Of all the commentators, this man looked to be the only one that had actually read all the material in question. Whether one agrees with him or not, he related to the books in a way in which he viewed the story and characters to be derivative of northern Germanic culture. He wanted consistency in that regard to correlate with how he viewed everything in his readings of the books. For that he expressed that the show was falling short, and he felt like the show's direction was patronizing. Take from that what you may.
To grant some fairness to the detractors, the show's viewer reviews have not fared well. Shortly after it aired on Amazon Prime, Amazon halted the viewers' ability to review the show as to contend with the large influx of negative reviews on Amazon. The same happened on IMDB, which is owned by Amazon. The best measure of general opinion, as far as I can tell at this point, is through reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. There it has had, sort of, the reverse effect as to what happened with some of Dave Chappelle's comedy specials—yet a little less extreme—where those were panned by the critics but were favoured by the general viewers. For The Rings Of Power, the audience score is presently at 39% and the critical score is at 85%. The critical praise is unsurprising considering in the immediate PR building up to the show's release, it was being lauded for its conformity with the tenets of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and the commentariat have obliged the program accordingly. For whatever reason, the broader audience—beyond the angry vloggers—have not felt the same. Whether that's for feeling the opposite regarding it's claimed social virtues or for the overall quality. I'm guessing the latter, but who am I to say.
On that note, regarding the show's praise, the first issue, as mentioned, involves that much of the show's initial promotion was being hinged upon its DEI credentials, rather than its actual content. Then after the show was released, it became, of course, imperative for the critics to rally around the program as to defend the contemporary brand of chic egalitarianism. There were many articles telling of the horrors of the racist backlash exerted at the cast; yet, among the many exposés on these attacks, I couldn't find them giving any examples of what the racist attacks specifically were. This is unsurprising given that now racism can be anything constructed in one's mind upon a whim, regardless of intention. It was also claimed—without evidence—that the show was being “review bombed”: implying there were bad actors quickly giving the show a poor review based on nefarious convictions, not the show's quality. This dismisses that the show could simply be rated poorly due to it actually being poor. This simply is a show that must be liked.
This has happened before. When Jordan Peele's 2017 film Get Out was released, I couldn't make heads or tails of what the film was actually about from all the chatter. It was heralded as one of the greatest films in recent times by some and the gushes of its deep profundity constantly overran any attempt I could discern as to why it was so great. I decided not to care at the time and watch it later on my own accord, and not do so urgently amidst the noise.
Years later when I did see it, I could hardly believe how—not even mediocre—but abysmal the film was. The allegorical component of the film is what got everyone riled into a tizzy. Using a typical American horror as a backdrop, it presented how all white people, with a focus in the film on the liberal and well meaning, are all the same: they're always using and abusing black people for their own collective means. If you strip away the political agenda, you have a poorly written and banal American horror shock-fest: a dime a dozen. It is worse yet with the insufferable political angle.
It was nominated for many awards and won actually quite few—not so great for the sanctified decade's greatest film. Numerous Academy members noted this was “not an Oscar film”. Not only that, but I would also imagine it's the worst film ever nominated for Best Picture, and I don't exactly hold the Oscars in high regard. One Oscar voter felt coerced to vote for it, as to avoid being deemed racist. Now, almost six years on, how much do you hear about Get Out and its great influential legacy, as most truly great films do offer? Exactly.
What makes the circling of the wagons around The Rings Of Power more grotesque is that its contrived accolades are to bolster the production choices in the name of this supposed equitable benevolence. I could grant that, if it wasn't for the self-aggrandizing performance art on display in promoting it and taking into consideration who is making the series.
Amazon is one of the world's largest companies owned by the world's second wealthiest person. Much of its accrued capital has come from vicious retail practices. They crowd out smaller businesses out of both online and storefront markets, as well as partaking in worker exploitation. Much of Amazon's wealth is dependant upon utilizing mass wealth inequality to have workers work for little pay, and also under conditions of micromanagement and surveillance likely never seen before. Many of these exploited workers in the US are black. But the more important sense of black representation and accommodation is how many black people from the Actor's Guild are cast to be an elf. As with hundreds of other instances in this age, this style of progressive ideal presents itself for what it is: a farce focusing only on the nominal and the fashionable. It is about what nice words the coastal affluent can say and what causes they verbally support; so, then they may proceed to pat themselves on the back and look down on others for their insufficient piety.
The converse type of reactions are also happening within TV and cinema. There was the aforementioned panning of Dave Chappelle's stand-up specials. Also, the backlash over the audacity of Scarlett Johansson deciding to play the role of transgender person—the reason for that being only transgender people can play a transgender character—and Bryan Cranston daring to play a quadriplegic. I'm surprised there aren't yet attempts to strip Daniel Day-Lewis of his first Oscar for his excluding portrayal of Christy Brown.
Presently—albeit it's only the minority opinion of critics so far—there are claims of fatphobia regarding Brendan Fraser's upcoming role as a morbidly obese man in Darren Aronofsky's The Whale. The claims are that the filmmakers should have done their casting only within the confines of who is available among actors who weigh over 500 pounds. It was also stated that Fraser's role is looking down upon the obese through his actions in the film. I think this is the critic's own projection of himself looking down on the obese and his ignorance regarding the severity of the ailment. I suppose I'll see for myself soon enough how the portrayal is in the film. Overall, this manner of backlash for output not being adequately woke has been limited so far. That is something to be slightly optimistic about.
Finally, both The Rings Of Power and Get Out exist as they do to trumpet a path forward for a new social ethic. Although, there is already a greater diversity—as any real sense of diversity extends beyond racial diversity through an Americanized lens—within the film industry, as many more places around the world are making quality material than was the case decades ago. That is diversity. If there was a sober aim toward diversity in film and a broader attempt to be inclusive there would be a greater spotlight put on some of the great films coming out now from, say, Thailand, Lebanon, or Croatia. Wouldn't that be more equitable? Instead, the former are heavily promoted to the benefit of the film industry in the US and the UK. Progress has become rather parochial it would appear.
As one can now see across the marketing industry, the new egalitarianism is a money making scheme. It is for the affluent and it panders to the affluent. It does nothing to resolve any real problems. What does Jordan Peele's thesis on race accomplish to the benefit of any poor blacks in his country, much less those worldwide? These concepts line his pockets via his entirely self-serving commercial venture and cater to the flippant sentiments of those well off. Among the many absurdities in Get Out is the paradox where it is trying to condemn white liberals for their ignorance and abuse, all the while the film and Peele are partaking in a larger ideology of ignorance, neglect, and exploitation.
At the end of the day, how many people who are actually watching The Rings Of Power actually give a shit about any of this? I can imagine most of its detractors simply don't like it for it lacking in substance or for having wavered from the written works and haven't invested much or any thought in how it tickles their anti-woke vexation. Equally, I'm sure most of those who are quite enjoying the series were looking forward to something with grandiose costumes, sparkly colours, magical creatures, and clanking swords, all combined with a simplified version of Tolkien's antediluvian English and have no investment in any of the politically motivated critical approaches.
Earlier, I mentioned Branagh's Hamlet. If this were made today, there would be a tribe of basement-dwelling YouTube pundits prophesying that the end is nigh because of a black Francisco and Voltimand. At the same time, maybe GQ, Salon, and The Guardian would be writing hot takes about how those castings are praiseworthy, but that Branagh may be riddled with some yet lingering white supremacy for not extending such casting decisions to reflect upon the actors playing Polonius, Ophelia, and Laertes.
Near the beginning I mentioned that I haven't bothered to watch Amazon's new fantasy endeavour, nor do I intend to. The reader may use this to heap whatever manner of derision on to me as they see fit. With not seeing the program, I didn't offer any play-by-play dissection nor any contempt toward whichever character angle. It was not necessary for me to subject myself to the punishment of watching this. I couldn't help but to observe with bemusement the excesses offered by the show's two most vocal variety of commentators.
My advice to anyone is that if you think this show qualifies as a worthwhile way to consume time, have at it, I suppose. I'd imagine there are thousands of better things you could do but go for it. If you find yourself wrapped up in how pestered you are with what this show has done to the Middle-Earth franchise or if you're mad about a black troll, or whatever, I recommend that you get a life. If the woke crazy people wrecking your dream of an all-white TV action-fantasy series was squashed—and really, it would have been a festering pile of crap either way—I think you should take some time to do some deep breathing exercises and rethink your life. I actually recommend scotch for that, but I do like to keep my ear to the trends these days. After that, maybe go draw something, go jogging, read a novel, play a song, call your grandmother, take your ferret for a walk, or get shit-faced and go to the park. However best to live your life. The same applies to those who think that anyone disliking the show is racist and that black hobbits are the pinnacle of social progress.
I've certainly invested enough time into observing people getting hysterical in multiple different ways over a vapid TV show; in the future if I see anything about this (it appears there will be future seasons and therefore the howling may continue) I will be pressing “close”. I recommend for anyone else to do the same, as to maintain some of their sanity.