Matt Fradd
Spirituality/Belief • Books • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Pop-Cultured Catholic #22: One Scene Included in Rankin/Bass’ “The Return of the King” That I Would Have Also Liked in Jackson’s Version

For this week, I am going to finally focus on an adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s work. It is a long time coming, seeing how Tolkien is both an acclaimed Catholic thinker and a major contributor to pop-culture, through his Middle-earth stories that pioneered new standards for modern fantasy. And today, I am going to focus on one scene he wrote and how a more obscure adaptation brought it to life.

Decades before Peter Jackson’s live-action Lord of the Rings trilogy, Tolkien’s Middle-earth stories were first adapted to film thrice in animated form, by the Rankin/Bass production company and Ralph Bakshi. It began with Rankin/Bass’ adaptation of “The Hobbit” in 1977, followed by Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 film adapting “The Fellowship of the Ring” and parts of “The Two Towers”, and then Rankin/Bass’ 1980 adaptation of “The Return of the King”. To first sum up the common consensus of Bakshi’s film, it is an imperfect but still respectable first attempt at adapting TLotR, which reportedly inspired Peter Jackson to make the live-action trilogy. I will even include a link to side-by-side comparisons. As for Rankin/Bass’ “The Hobbit”, I feel similarly and perceive it to have many opposite strengths and weaknesses compared to Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. For example, the Rankin/Bass version drastically trims down or entirely cuts out a few iconic scenes, characters, and subplots from the The Hobbit book. Meanwhile, the Jackson trilogy has so much content that many felt it got bloated at times, with the third movie in particular having arguably a lot of filler. Besides that, one’s mileage will vary between whether they prefer a more straight adaptation of the Hobbit book, or a LotR prequel trilogy which draws its main source material from the events of “The Hobbit”. If one prefers the former, then I think the Rankin/Bass version better captures that feel, with its more whimsical tone, art style evoking a children’s storybook, and use of musical numbers mostly pulled straight from the book.

Regarding the Rankin/Bass duology, “The Return of the King” was a significantly more flawed end product than “The Hobbit”, in my opinion. The Rankin/Bass movies go straight from “The Hobbit” to “The Return of the King”, skipping over “The Fellowship of the Ring” and “The Two Towers” entirely. Therefore, the viewer is starting on the final chapter, without having the Rankin/Bass versions of the Fellowship characters set up first. Ralph Bakshi’s LotR was made right before this, but that is unrelated to the Rankin/Bass films and there are still some events of “The Two Towers”, which Bakshi did not get to and Rankin/Bass skips over. Besides that, the Rankin/Bass film only has a 98-minute runtime to adapt the whole third book. And even with its short runtime, I feel the film does not make good use of its exposition and choice of scenes to deliver a fleshed-out and well-paced narrative. When I once watched it at my uncle’s house, I remember my mom stating that she would have had trouble following it, if she had not seen the Jackson trilogy. Also, while Jackson‘s RotK arguably makes more changes from Tolkien’s book, for better or worse, the Rankin/Bass version botches a few major parts. For example, I recall Aragorn only marching on the Black Gate after Frodo and Sam have already reached Mount Doom, robbing the former of its story purpose and dramatic weight. Not to mention that everyone has mocked how the Witch-king of Angmar's otherwise intimidating presence is ruined by his voice sounding cheesily like Skeletor, Starscream, or Cobra Commander. That is jarring compared to how Rankin/Bass’ previous Hobbit film makes great use of Richard Boone’s voice for Smaug the dragon. I once even did my own fan-edit trying to make the Witch-king far more menacing by swapping his voice with that of the Horned King in Disney's "The Black Cauldron". There are some good parts, though, like the moody and atmospheric background art, the portrayals of certain other characters like Samwise Gamgee, a couple nice sentimental moments, various parts faithfully recreated from the book, and certain scenes entertainingly growing on me like the orcs’ “Where There’s a Whip, There’s a Way” musical number. Yet, there is one more positive aspect I want to focus on in this post.

Despite its faults, Rankin/Bass’ “The Return of the King” does have one unique part I really gravitated towards, its portrayal of the book’s scene where Samwise Gamgee is tempted by the One Ring. It takes place after the unconscious Frodo Baggins is found by orcs in the mountain pass of Cirith Ungol and taken to their tower. Meanwhile, his loyal companion Samwise follows behind and plans to rescue him. However, Sam is stalled by temptation, for he has taken the One Ring from Frodo’s person, having initially feared that Frodo was dead. In his brief time experiencing the burden of ring-bearer, the cursed ring attempts to brainwash him.

I have my copy of “The Return of the King” book with me, and here is how Tolkien describes the following scene. “Already the ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dûr. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be. In that hour of trial it was the love of his master that helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.”

The Rankin/Bass film not only portrays this part faithfully, but also makes for an entertaining spectacle and adds its own complementary details, yielding an unexpected gem of a scene in my opinion. Besides incorporating all of the book’s details, regarding both Sam’s vision and the afterwards reveal of how he overcame the temptation, I think it does a good job with the animation and especially the score. The music achieves this perfect balance between sounding majestic and triumphant on the surface, suiting Sam’s fantasy, while also having this sense of madness and danger growing underneath until it erupts and crescendos. Right after Sam beholds “The gardens of my delight!”, he then declares in a megalomaniacal tone, “So shall I transform the world!”. The dream sequence closes on a newly added detail, where he forcibly transforms all the orcs into various animals for them to populate his new gardens. “All could be mine… if I but claim thee, Ring!”.

Whether such thought was put into it or not, I say the Rankin/Bass scene’s added details tie it even more closely into Tolkien’s themes and lore, regarding the Dark Lord Sauron’s former master, Morgoth. I have still not yet read my copy of Tolkien’s “The Silmarillion”. But I have heard that Middle-earth’s backstory involves Melkor, one of the angelic Valar who rebels against Eru (God), tries to sing by his own disharmonious tune, and renames himself to Morgoth. Sauron is originally one of Morgoth’s servants before becoming the last dark lord in Middle-earth. A common theme in Tolkien’s work is how Morgoth could not create his own evil beings from nothing, but merely take already-existing creatures made by Eru and corrupt them into twisted mockeries, like the orcs being a parody of the elves. This is often cited as an example of Tolkien inserting his Catholic worldview, that evil can only exist as a privation, distortion, hollow counterfeit, or misuse of the good things God has made. Whether intentional or not, it seems the Rankin/Bass portrayal of Sam is not only being tempted with glory, victory, and a majestic garden like his book counterpart, but also the opportunity to emulate Morgoth... or the temptation promised by the devil to Adam and Eve. In the dream, he vows to transform the world to his liking and further twists the orcs into creatures they were never meant to be. As many YouTube commenters have pointed out, this clashes with a moment during the “Leave Tomorrow Till It Comes” music number, where Rankin/Bass’ portrayal of Frodo fantasizes about a world where even the orcs are redeemed and on friendly terms with them.

Also, the way some people have reacted to that imagery of a corrupted Samwise Gamgee reminds me of Tolkien’s thought experiment, where he answered what would happen if Gandalf had claimed the One Ring and allowed it to corrupt him. “Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ‘good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). [In the margin] Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left ‘good’ clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil”. Reading what Tolkien reportedly wrote about the subject reminds me of one arguable reason why Jesus in the Gospels was often the harshest towards individuals among the Jewish high priests. Other sinners’ actions at least would not muddle the difference between virtue and vice so much or twist what it means to be a righteous and Godly man. Also, I remember people like my mom and various religious speakers saying that, if the devil cannot tempt you to deliberately embrace evil, then he will try to take one of your noble qualities or good intentions, then misdirect them towards a detrimental end.

In Jackson’s version of “The Return of the King”, the closest we get to that is the scene where Sam hesitates to give Frodo back the Ring, and I would have liked to have seen more of that recreated, even if it is not necessarily as grandiose. For example, as the sound of Elijah Wood’s Frodo requesting the Ring becomes muffled and foreboding music plays, Sean Astin’s Sam could be shown hearing chants for “Samwise the Strong” in his head. Then, there could be brief flashes of imagery, like the visions Frodo has when he looks into Galadriel’s Mirror. They first show an orc-infested Mordor, then the armies of orcs all painfully turning to wood, as Sam raises a flaming sword before them. Next, roots, branches, and flowers sprout from the wooden orcs, and the dark clouds are dispersed by a surreally colorful aura. Mordor now looks like an enchanted meadow with Sam in the middle of it all, wearing the One Ring. But the coloring and wildlife look subtly unnatural and off-putting, like a scene out of 2018’s sci-fi cosmic horror film, “Annihilation”. We finally see Sam’s face looking around in the vision and realizing something is wrong, right before the real Sam moves the Ring towards Frodo, who snatches it away. As the two later walk into Mordor, Sam could mention that the Ring tempted him with a garden, but it would have been too big for him to tend with his own hands anyway.

I wanted to share my thoughts on this one part of the Rankin/Bass film, which I felt warranted a great deal of appreciation, even amidst the rest of the movie’s flaws. And now here are some supplementary links to the clips and quotations…

1.) Rankin/Bass' Samwise the Strong Scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PE-5ETUtW4

2.) Rankin/Bass' "Leave Tomorrow Till It Comes" Scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_274z9AO6Q8

3.) Quote in Tolkien's Letters About a Ring-Corrupted Gandalf Cited By Humphrey Carpenter:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9762789-gandalf-as-ring-lord-would-have-been-far-worse-than-sauron

4.) Peter Jackson's Closest Equivalent to Sam's Temptation Scene:
https://youtu.be/qQZKLIexcVk?t=128

5.) "The Lord of the Rings Side-by-Side: Ralph Bakshi ('78)/Peter Jackson ('01-'03)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t7KSarpfFM

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Boundaries in Conversation - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Hello! Ever unsure of where to spend your time? I was thinking about this recently apropos of responding to emails and engaging in conversations. I'm not sure that I've come up with tight conclusions yet, but I have at least begun to formulate some principles. I hope that it's helpful for you! Cheers!

00:24:04
Nine Years In - Taking Stock of My Priestly Life - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was ordained on May 21, 2016 . . . as I celebrated an anniversary this past month, I prayed a bit about what the Lord has done, is doing, and might do in my life. What gives life? What deals death? And then, well, I pushed record. Here's what come out : )

00:19:22
Sneak Peek: Tammy Peterson

This Wednesday I'll release my interview with Tammy Peterson here on Locals. Thanks for being a member of Locals.

00:00:58
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent
New Clip Channel! (Please Sub!)

Hey beautiful people!

Starting August 1st, we’ll be posting all our Pints With Aquinas clips on our new channel: https://www.youtube.com/@morepintswithaquinas

We've done a lot of research and believe that this is a smart move for the algorithm and for y'all.

It will help keep everything more organized—and make it easier for you to find exactly what you’re looking for.

Go give it a follow so you don’t miss out!

Quote of the Day
"You change your life by changing your heart."
St. Benedict of Nursia

Today's Meditation
“Every human being is infinitely loved and infinitely precious. We haven’t earned that divine dignity; it is a gift. Nonetheless, we convince ourselves that we must somehow show ourselves worthy of God’s love–that if we are charming or charitable or brave enough, He will feel obliged to reward us. Self-abasement is the antidote to this delusion. It is the practice of reminding ourselves that we are nothing without God’s grace and will never earn it. Ironically, this healthy sense of nothingness, understood correctly, brings with it a deeper sense of confidence and freedom.”
–J. Augustine Wetta, O.S.B, p.101

Daily Verse
"For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens. Thy faithfulness endures to all generations; thou hast established the earth, and it stands fast. By thy appointment they stand this day; for all things are thy servants."
Psalm 119:89-91

St. Benedict of ...

post photo preview
20 hours ago

Happy Saint Benedict day. Let his cross be our guide and protection against our unholy thoughts and behaviors. May he intercede for us to our Lord, give us strength and will to fight evil within ourselves and all around us. May the Holy Cross be my light
Let not the dragon be my guide
Begone Satan
Never tempt me with your vanities
All that pours from you is evil.
Drink your own poison. Amen. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

post photo preview
post photo preview
Welcome to Locals!

A big and hearty welcome to all who have joined our Locals community!

Here's what to expect:

  1.  Interviews one week early (before they hit Youtube)
  2. The opportunity to ask my guests questions
  3. Exclusive biweekly spiritual direction videos from Fr. Pine
  4. Access to video courses such as:
  • 7 part series on St. Augustine's Confessions by Dr Chad Engelland (here).
  • 5 Part series on Salvation History by Dr Andrew Swafford (here).
  • 5 Part series on Flannery O'Connor by Fr Damian Ferrence (here).
  • 6 Part series on Love and Responsibility by Christopher West & Matt Fradd (here).
  • 5 Part Series o Aquinas' 5 ways by Dr. Ed Feser (here).

5. Occasional livestreams with me.

6. Knowing that you're supporting the work of Pints With Aquinas.

Thanks!

Read full Article
post photo preview
Life is very, very simple, actually.

There is a lot going on. We are confused about many things. Embarrassed that we are confused. Pretend not to be. Have a few soundbites we can rely on when the conversation turns to Trump or the state of the Church or what is going on in Israel and Gaza or the AI revolution. We hope they don’t press us because we know enough to answer two or three questions before they will hit bedrock and we will have nothing.

All of this can lead us to believe the lie that life is complicated. And since we cannot figure it out, we should either quit, or numb, or pretend, or run ourselves ragged trying to understand everything we think we should understand.

And yet life is simple. Very, very simple. There is very little to figure out.

Love what is good. Hate what is evil. But how? When I have willingly habituated myself to do the opposite. Pray. Repent. Keep turning away from distractions. Don’t hate yourself for failing. Hope in the good God who is better than you think He is. Who cares for you more than you think He does.

What are your duties? Do them with joy and attention. Don’t hate yourself when you fail at this. Pray. Repent. Have a sense of humor about your littleness. You are incredibly loved after all, remember?

Turn away from what is useless and petty and vulgar and think about what is excellent.

Say “Your will be done” 100 times a day, especially when things are bad or seem meaningless. Your headache. Your bad night sleep. The house you can’t seem to get around to tidying.

Be patient and gentle with stupid people who can’t seem to make themselves love or want to love what is good, yourself first and foremost.

Jesus, help me want to want to love you. Help me want to want to hate anything opposed to you or your kingdom.

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is Knowledge Possible (No ... And Yes)

I want to begin by admitting that I’m an amateur when it comes to epistemology. I do have a master’s degree in philosophy, but epistemology wasn’t my area of focus. Some of you reading this will know more about the subject than I do. And to be honest, I’m a little nervous about the comments. There’s a good chance that if you engage with what I’m about to say in any real depth, I won’t understand you and it will be my fault that I don’t.

Okay, with that admission out of the way…

 

We've long assumed that knowledge requires three criteria: (1) belief, (2) truth, and (3) justification. In other words, to know something is to believe it, for it to be true, and to have good reason for believing it. That’s the classical definition: justified true belief (JTB).

And just real quick, if you’re wondering why knowledge can’t be defined by just the first two criteria, it’s because believing something that happens to be true is more like getting lucky than knowledge. Imagine I say it’s raining in Adelaide, but I have no reason for thinking so. I didn’t check my weather app or ask anyone who lives there. If it turns out that it is raining, I was right, but only by chance. That’s not knowledge. To genuinely know something, you need more than belief and truth, you need a reason for thinking it’s true. You need justification.

Okay …

Along Comes Gettier

Now, for a long time, this three-part definition held up well. But then, in 1963, Edmund Gettier came along and broke everything in three pages. You can read that paper here.

Gettier presented scenarios where someone has a belief that is both true and justified, yet we still hesitate to call it knowledge. Why? Because the belief turns out to be true by accident.

One of the most well-known examples (though not from Gettier himself but often used to illustrate his point) is the case of the stopped clock. A man glances at a clock that has stopped working, sees that it says 2:00, and forms the belief that it is 2:00. And it just so happens to be 2:00. His belief is true. He used a normally reliable method, checking the time on a clock. And yet, the method failed. The belief was correct purely by coincidence.

Can We Save “Knowledge”

Now, some have tried to save the classical definition by saying, “Well, that wasn’t really justified. The clock was broken, so the belief was faulty from the start.” But that kind of move just shifts the problem. If we start redefining justification every time we hit a weird case, we risk making it so strict that it no longer resembles what anyone would call a “justified belief.”

Others, like Alvin Goldman, proposed ditching the concept of justification entirely. Maybe knowledge isn’t about having reasons, but about using processes that generally lead to truth. This is called reliabilism: if your belief comes from a trustworthy process (like vision, memory, or scientific inference) it counts as knowledge.

But again, the clock case poses a problem. Even if the process is usually reliable, it clearly failed here. So are we back to calling this knowledge, even though it was true by luck?

Still others have suggested that knowledge is less about having the right reasons or processes, and more about the person doing the knowing. This is what’s known as virtue epistemology: the idea that knowledge is a kind of intellectual success rooted in intellectual virtue: careful thinking, honesty, openness to evidence. On this view, knowing isn’t about checking boxes; it’s about doing something well. Like an archer hitting the bullseyes, not by accident, but through skill.

That’s compelling. But even here, questions linger. How do we measure intellectual virtue? And isn’t it still possible to do everything right and end up wrong—or to be wrong for the right reasons and still, somehow, stumble into truth?

An (Initially) Unsettling Realization

Which brings me to a more unsettling thought.

If a belief like “it’s 2:00” can be true, feel justified, come from a reliable process, and still be the product of a broken clock—what else might we be getting wrong without realizing it? Maybe the deeper problem is that we can always be deceived. Even our best faculties (sight, memory, reason etc.) can betray us. And if that’s the case, maybe knowledge (at least in the strong, philosophical sense) is impossible. Or if not impossible, impossible to know if and when you have it.

David Hume once said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” That strikes me as a sane and honest approach. The question isn’t whether I can be absolutely certain about what I believe, but whether I have good reasons for believing it—and whether I’m open to changing my mind if those reasons fall apart.

Some might find it unsettling—even scandalous—that we can’t achieve a God’s-eye view of the world. But honestly, what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should.

Maybe that’s why I find myself leaning toward fallibilism—the view that we can still know things, even while admitting we might be wrong. That kind of knowledge isn’t rigid or absolute, but humble and revisable. And that, to me, feels much closer to the way real life works.

So no, I’m not sure we need to cling too tightly to the word knowledge, at least not in the abstract, capital-K sense. What matters more is the posture we take toward the truth. That we pursue it carefully, honestly, and with a readiness to revise our beliefs when the evidence calls for it.

At least, that’s what I think I know.

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals