Matt Fradd
Books • Spirituality/Belief • 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
Spiritual Direction - Lessons Learned at SEEK - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was at SEEK in DC this past week. As is my tradition, I got hilariously sick and managed to learn some sweet lessons along the way : )

00:21:44
January 02, 2025
Studio Update Video
00:01:50
December 30, 2024
Quick short update
00:02:09
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

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Ryder Larson, a 16 year old who killed himself this morning. Please also pray for my nephew Pacer, Ryder has been his best friend since they were little and Pacer, plus the whole Rogers family, are very hurt by this. Ryder was LDS, so likely doesn't have people praying for him now.

Broken Catholic Man Needs Help. Today I reached an emotional and godless breaking point. I got angry at my wife, yelled at her, and our four kids between the ages of three and fifteen witnessed it. It was not quick or brief, but pervasive and prideful. It has been four hours since the tirade on my part and my wife and I are feeling awkward talking to each other. This does not happen more than once a year, and I want to effect change. Looking for prayers, and references to anger management books, teachings and even counseling with a Catholic foundation.

January 10, 2025
Studio update

Working away on the new studio. First step, covering up all these beautiful windows 😭

January 03, 2025
post photo preview
Did the Early Church Recognize the Pope’s Authority? A Socratic Dialogue You Can’t Ignore

Below is an imagined Socratic dialogue between a Catholic (Leo) and a Protestant (Martin). It is not intended to be an exhaustive argument but rather to help Catholics see that there is strong Patristic evidence for the early Church's belief in the authority of the Pope.

Special thanks to Madeline McCourt for her assistance in editing this article.

 


 

Martin: I’ve heard it said that the early Church gave unique authority to the Bishop of Rome, but honestly, I just don’t see it. To me, it seems like a later development rather than something the early Christians actually believed.

Leo: That’s an understandable concern, and one I’ve heard before. But if we take an honest look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, they seem to say something very different. Let’s start with Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote around A.D. 110 and called the Church of Rome the one that “holds the presidency.” Doesn’t that suggest a kind of leadership role?

Martin: Not necessarily. When Ignatius says that Rome “holds the presidency,” he could be referring to its importance as the capital of the empire, not as some kind of spiritual authority.

Leo: That’s an interesting point, but Ignatius doesn’t frame it that way. He’s writing to a church, not the emperor or the civic authorities. And he specifically praises the Roman Church for its spiritual character, saying it’s “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing.” Moreover, he commends them for teaching others and instructing the faithful. That’s not a description of political power—it’s spiritual authority (Letter to the Romans 1:1, 3:1).

Martin: Even so, Ignatius doesn’t explicitly say that the Roman Church has authority over other churches. He’s being respectful, but respect isn’t the same as submission.

Leo: Fair enough, but let’s consider Pope Clement I. Around A.D. 80, he wrote to the church in Corinth to address a serious dispute. He doesn’t just offer advice—he commands them to reinstate their leaders and warns them that disobedience to his letter would put them in “no small danger.” Clement even claims to be speaking “through the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63). Why would a bishop in Rome have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a church in Greece unless there was an acknowledged authority?

Martin: Maybe Corinth respected Clement’s wisdom, but that doesn’t mean they recognized him as having jurisdiction over them. He could have been acting as a wise elder, not as a pope.

Leo: That’s possible, but Clement’s tone doesn’t suggest he’s merely offering advice. He writes as someone with the authority to settle the matter definitively. And we see this pattern again with later bishops of Rome. Take Pope Victor, who excommunicated the churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter. Other bishops appealed for peace, but they didn’t deny that Victor had the authority to make such a decision (Eusebius, Church History 5:23:1–24:11). If the early Church didn’t recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, why didn’t they challenge his right to excommunicate?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
December 14, 2024
post photo preview
13 Rules for the Spiritual Life by St. John of the Cross

While reading the Mass readings in my Magnificat this evening, I came across a beautiful excerpt from St. John of the Cross. I won’t share the entire passage, as writing it out would take some time, but it’s the kind of text that reads like a series of aphorisms. The only thing I’ve added are the numbers, to present his words more clearly.

St. John of the Cross, pray for us.

  1. The further you withdraw from earthly things the closer you approach heavenly things.

  2. Whoever knows how to die in all will have life in all.

  3. Abandon evil, do good, and seek peace.

  4. Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

  5. The humble are those who hide in their own nothingness and know how to abandon themselves to God.

  6. If you desire to be perfect, sell your will, give it to the poor in spirit.

  7. Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil.

  8. Those who do not love their neighbor abhor God.

  9. Anyone who does things lukewarmly is close to falling.

  10. Whoever flees prayer flees all that is good.

  11. Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.

  12. Suffering for Gopd is better than working miracles.

  13. As for trials, the more the better. What does anyone know who doesn’t know how to suffer for Christ.

May the wisdom of St. John of the Cross inspire us to strive for holiness and draw closer to Christ, following his example of humility, prayer, and trust in God. Which of his insights struck you the most?

Read full Article
December 12, 2024
post photo preview
Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation

Morning, all.

Today I’ll attempt a socratic dialogue on Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."

James is the Protestant, Thomas is the Catholic.

 


 

James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”

Thomas: Alright?

James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.

Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?

James: Obviously, yes.

Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?

James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.

Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:

  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

  2. Jesus is God.

  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.

Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for God.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
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