Rethinking Film Adaptations: How Can “Rings of Power” Enrich Tolkien’s Legacy
As we approach the series premiere of “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power,” viewers and critics prepare for an anticipated streaming blockbuster that is set to bring back Tolkien’s legendarium to our screens. But, as more trailers and information surface on the internet, die-hard fans of Tolkien continue to criticize the series for an apparent lack of fidelity to the original work. From the story to the casting, the “Lord of the Rings” fandom seems concerned with an unsatisfactory series that fails as an adaptation.
I believe they are overly concerned about this aspect because film adaptations are too intricate to offer perfectly accurate representations of written works. Narrative fidelity might be not only unattainable but also undesirable. At the same time, Tolkien’s work is very much based on myths and mythical entities, which can be reinterpreted and experimented with in modern-day cinematic storytelling. My final argument, presented at the end of the article, is that the supposed billion-dollar Amazon project ultimately has a chance to enrich the beloved Middle-Earth lore and inspire a new generation of fans. But let’s start with the big talking point!
The Problem With Narrative Accuracy
Adaptation plays an odd role in filmmaking. Whether directors wish to direct their favorite books or studios want to cash in on a best-seller, fans of a novel will more often than not welcome screen representations of their beloved characters and stories. Still, the concern for narrative fidelity always seems paramount, which diminishes the craft and effort of cineastes and portrays the source material, and implicitly literature, as superior.
So why is accuracy judged so rigorous when it comes to film adaptations of novels? I think that reading a story and then experiencing it on the screen tends to alter our perception because the book presents a certain degree of importance. This is also related to the more significant aspect of adaptation: the notion of narrative accuracy is subjective. Readers develop a false sense of ownership and perceive any cinematic experience which doesn’t converge with their interpretation as incomplete.
Looking at the specificities of literature and film/TV, it’s clear that fidelity is an illusionary concept, as their form can’t be stripped from the narrative content.
First and foremost, the two mediums communicate differently. While novels present a story through written words, cinema and television are based on several “channels” such as photography, image editing, music, etc. Acting in itself offers a noteworthy intertextual interaction: the character’s portrayal intersects with the actor’s sensibility. For example, how can one judge the narrative accuracy of Aragorn in Peter Jackson’s trilogy? Not only is the character seen through the director’s cinematic eye, but also through Viggo Mortensen’s performance, who might have his particular understanding of Aragorn and offer insight specific to his acting style.
The two mediums also present different modes of developing a story. While cinema is commonly focused on how a fictional world is perceived, literature starts with the written motivations and values from which perception is elaborated. This aspect goes back to the fact that a written story persuades our viewpoint, and we tend to attach ourselves to the narrative. Sifting through “Rings of Power” trailer reactions, I found many comments stating that the series does not “feel” like “Lord of the Rings,” with some going as far as saying the series will damage the “spirit” of the books. But, fans must realize the new series is an expression of Tolkien’s work through the sensibility of a significant number of cineastes, starting with showrunners J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay. And, of course, critics of the show must remember that as cinematic means develop over time, so does the scope of adaptations.
Tolkien the Mythmaker
Recently, I have started reading “The Silmarillion,” Tolkien’s intricate book about the creation of the world and the first two ages of Middle-Earth. I was struck by how much it reads like mythology, departing from the somewhat classical fantasy storyline of “Lord of the Rings.” From the description of the Valar, powerful entities which resemble Greek gods, to the Maiar, demigods which will shape the course of history in the ages to come, Tolkien’s legendarium includes many characters of substantial symbolic meaning. His writings provide a vast array of myths that can be expanded and reinterpreted in a new esthetic context which is what the showrunners pledged to do.
While the series is set to treat a more dynamic age of Middle-Earth and less the story of the Valar and the beginning of the world, there is still room for interpretation and narrative experimentation. In the Amazon series, Tolkien’s vast mythology seems to serve the same purpose as Norse mythology in the case of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and video games such as “God of War” (2018). These enduring myths are borrowed and blended into stories of intersecting legends and fantasy, which offer larger-than-life visual experiences.
Cultivating Middle-Earth’s Legendarium
On a personal level, I believe the series has the potential to add value to Tolkien’s lore and not only succeed as a “Lord of the Rings” TV show but stand as a testament to the writer’s talent and imagination. Moreover, I think the series is set to bring a new audience into the fandom, which might not have grown up with Jackson’s trilogy but share a love of fantasy through more recent adaptations such as “Game of Thrones” (2011–2019) and “The Witcher” (2019-present).
The Amazon series may encourage newer viewers to pick up the books by making a spellbinding but dense mythology accessible through a rich cinematic esthetic. This is the effect Peter Jackson’s trilogy had on many viewers after its release (including me). And before you point out that Jackson is a die-hard Middle-Earth fan, here’s a list of innumerable grievances expressed by Tolkien fans before the release of “Fellowship of the Ring.”
Ultimately, “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” is not an adaptation of one single book, as it traces its inspiration in Middle-Earth appendices, the main trilogy, and parts of Silmarillion. In my opinion, this is an excellent opportunity for the showrunners and cineastes since they have the narrative liberty to develop a story that is not reverential to Tolkien’s work but acts as a fitting companion of his timeless lore.
