Movie Characters Revisited: Gollum/Smeagol

[Boromir88]

A few questions about Gollum's character this week, but first I wanted to point out I think Andy Serkis was a great casting choice. They could have given Gollum pants though, not sure why they just strapped a loincloth on him.

Speaking of Serkis, in interviews he has often compared the Ring to a very strong drug addiction (or more generally to any strong addiction). Too simple? I'm not sure if I'm entirely happy with this comparison, because it seems too simple, but it is still accurate enough.

Another thing that comes through with Gollum in the movies is an apparent split personality. There is "Gollum" and "Smeagol" and one scene in particular where the two personalities are arguing with each other. Again it seems simplified, but I haven't read the books in quite a while to truly remember if this existed in the books.

Last thing I noticed here is I think the movies make you believe (or try to) in Gollum's redemption more than the books. In the books, really only Frodo appears to be holding out the chance, and actually displays a trust towards Gollum. Sam never trusts him, neither does Faramir. Aragorn admits to be rough with him when he was captured, and Gandalf seems to think more as a utilitarian with Gollum. Gollum still has some "part to play." He may still be of use, not that he necessarily believes Gollum can be healed. I think on-screen though, until Gollum believes Frodo betrayed him, the movies do a good job of in TTT showing the possibility of a redemption, or healing. One that really doesn't seem possible in the books, even though I suppose it exists.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

They could have given Gollum pants though, not sure why they just strapped a loincloth on him.

I may be the only one, but I think a loincloth was better than pants. I can't imagine Gollum skulking under the Misty Mountains for hundreds of years and keeping his pants intact.

Originally Posted by Boro

Another thing that comes through with Gollum in the movies is an apparent split personality. There is "Gollum" and "Smeagol" and one scene in particular where the two personalities are arguing with each other. Again it seems simplified, but I haven't read the books in quite a while to truly remember if this existed in the books.

I rather like that scene too. Nicely done. Very nicely done. There is something similar in the books - Book 4, The Passage of the Marshes, toward the end of the chapter. That is also the first time that Gollum refers to "her" (Shelob, as we find out later). I'm not sure about how strictly the script follows the book in this spot, but the idea is the same.

Originally Posted by Boro

Last thing I noticed here is I think the movies make you believe (or try to) in Gollum's redemption more than the books. In the books, really only Frodo appears to be holding out the chance, and actually displays a trust towards Gollum. Sam never trusts him, neither does Faramir. Aragorn admits to be rough with him when he was captured, and Gandalf seems to think more as a utilitarian with Gollum. Gollum still has some "part to play." He may still be of use, not that he necessarily believes Gollum can be healed. I think on-screen though, until Gollum believes Frodo betrayed him, the movies do a good job of in TTT showing the possibility of a redemption, or healing. One that really doesn't seem possible in the books, even though I suppose it exists.

Well, I don't know. I think that some parts of the redemption were done well, but some wer simply not there. And of course I like the book better (), but I'll leave that aside for a comparisson. The first bit of redemption comes with the name "Smeagol". I love Gollum's reaction in the movies. I cannot recall his reaction to when Frodo took off the Elven rope in the movies if my life depended on it, so I can't compare this one, but in the books Gollum remembered this kindness for a while. But then, after Gollum's victory over Smeagol in the scene mentioned in the previous paragraph, he just stays Gollum. What I miss most of the bits that were missing is this little bit:

Originally Posted by The Stairs of Cirith Ungol, TTT

Gollum looked at them [the sleeping hobbits]. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee - but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.

And then Sam wakes up and calls Gollum a sneak.

In the movies, what happens is that Gollum, instead of having this near-complete redemption moment, scatters lembas crumbs over Sam, and throws the food out, to leave both hobbits angry and starving.

Well, first, I'm not happy that this scene was simply left out. It brings out the Smeagol to an extent no other scenes do, which makes it important for his characterization, if naught else. And it's simply beautiful and touching. Secondly, in the scene that we get instead, Gollum deliberately and actually acts against Sam. In the books he never does that, although he would have loved to, but he restrained himself out of respect for Frodo. That is, up to that point when he felt it was a good time for his Gollum side to show his colours, in Cirith Ungol. Also, this way of putting a wedge between Frodo and Sam is a bit too much intrigue and scheming from Gollum. He is sneaky, yes, but he is not cunning when it comes to human interaction. Last, but not least, this justifies Sam's accusation (sneak). In the books, we feel that Sam is doing wrong, and is unwittingly ruining everything, but we cannot blame him really. And we feel sorry for Gollum and for that missed chance. In the movies, we feel angry at Gollum and doubly sorry for Sam - both because of Gollum and Frodo's reaction.

I just can't get over this scene.


I suppose it is very hard to play the different moods/personalities of Gollum; in the book we get his character described to us, with all the subtle differences. In the movies, you have to show examples to get the personality across, and with all those subtleties it is a very hard thing to do. I have to say that Serkis did his best, and though I think it's not brilliant, I appreciate the difficulty of this role and he did what he could. I think that overall he was a good choice.


PS: as for the comparisson of the Ring to drug addiction, I think that the missing element is magic. They are indeed similar, on a very flat and basic plane. This puts the Ring down a few notches, since it is like saying that it's as much of a scientific/chemical formula as the result of drugs on our bodies. But it's not so; it's not that simple; the Ring has no formula, and it's not just a bunch of shiny chemicals mixed together to form this round addictive thing that is just one step away from being an extacy pill. It's magic. That's the whole point of it.

[Morthoron]

Gollum was the best actor of the entire series. That he was CGI was meaningless. There was more expression and pathos from that CGI character in one scene than Legolas and Elrond managed in three movies of wooden emoting.

"Our acting skills have grown a bit th-i-i-i-i-n."

[Boromir88]

Aww, no more love for Gollum? Or maybe the character was just done so well there's not as much controversy as there is with Frodo? (Gollum was one of the few on my list that I would say was portrayed about as good as can be hoped for...and certainly better than most others). It seemed to me in the popular media too, Gollum became somewhat of a cult classic, surpassing way beyond the silly Jar-Jar Binks of Star Wars.

Originally Posted by G55

Well, first, I'm not happy that this scene was simply left out. It brings out the Smeagol to an extent no other scenes do, which makes it important for his characterization, if naught else. And it's simply beautiful and touching. Secondly, in the scene that we get instead, Gollum deliberately and actually acts against Sam. In the books he never does that, although he would have loved to, but he restrained himself out of respect for Frodo. That is, up to that point when he felt it was a good time for his Gollum side to show his colours, in Cirith Ungol. Also, this way of putting a wedge between Frodo and Sam is a bit too much intrigue and scheming from Gollum. He is sneaky, yes, but he is not cunning when it comes to human interaction. Last, but not least, this justifies Sam's accusation (sneak). In the books, we feel that Sam is doing wrong, and is unwittingly ruining everything, but we cannot blame him really. And we feel sorry for Gollum and for that missed chance. In the movies, we feel angry at Gollum and doubly sorry for Sam - both because of Gollum and Frodo's reaction.

That's interesting, because I believe instead of Sam misunderstanding Gollum's "pawing" which I believe Tolkien called the crucial point when Gollum's redemption was gone...Jackson makes the crucial point when Frodo leads Gollum into being caught by Faramir.

I don't mind this being the crucial point in the question of can Gollum be redeemed, because I think the build up in the movies is nice and it makes sense. We see Gollum gradually, slowly getting better beginning with Frodo calling him "Smeagol" but once he perceived Frodo betrayed him, that's the crucial point. I don't mind that bit, because you can actually see and follow the story being told in the movie. But all the lembas, and scheming to pit Frodo and Sam against eachother...yeah I can't get over that either.

[alatar]

Gollum was well-done. Using mo-cap was the best of both worlds - having Serkis ground the character so that we get its expressions/actions correct, and using CG to make Gollum look like I'd imagined. There was even the whole tado after FotR where (methinks) PJ got more pixels, and the details of the character's visage got that much better.

"The scene" was just brilliant, and remember my illiterate sister thinking for a moment that there were two Gollums/Smeagols. Andy Serkis' voice also fit well with the character.

That said, one never gets the impression that Gollum is truly a vile creature. In the Books there are hints that he may have stolen babes for food, but in the Movies he appears to have done murder but once, and that on his birthday. Also it's Faramir that turns him, not his own screwed up noodle. And sadly, Gollum gets his gotcha scene where he goes over a cliff in RotK (hmm, where did I see that before?).

In summary, I think that Gollum was one of the better character portrayals, loin cloth and all.

[Feanor_genious]

Gollum/Smeagol, is the best character of all the characters in middle earth second to perhaps Fingolfin or Feanor, but thats another story. The split personality of Gollum/Smeagol is essential a mirror of what could happen to Frodo if the ring was to consume him. True, I believe that it was almost an incentive for Frodo to destroy the ring, though Gollum plays a critical role in all the plot line to the destruction of the ring. Putting into perspective the finding and destruction of the ring is approx a paragraph in the Silmarillion. Though all things lead to another, if bilbo had killed Gollum like he intended to apart from the pity in his heart a out killing the wretched creature, there could have been a strong possibility that Sauron could have destroyed middle-earth and retaken the Ring, though we must take into account how the ring abandoned Gollum, perhaps this could have happened to Bilbo, therefore it could have eventually found its way into the hands of one of the Men or Arnor, and possibly the hands of Aragorn future king of Gondor. In the film Galadriel says something along the lines of the smallest of us will sway the balance of the future, or whatever, most people believe this was Frodo and Sam taking the ring to Mordor, but Gollum was a essentially a Hobbit, Bilbo was a hobbit, Frodo and Sam, lo' and behold, Hobbits as well.


Anyway back to Andy Serkis, he is my favourite actor alongside Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart.

Andy Serkis, committed like no other to make his character equal to that amazing character from the Novel. Dont believe me? Just watch the extended edition appendices from two towers, in fact watch all of the extended editions for all the films, will give you a greater understanding of the shear epic scope of the making of these three extra-ordinary trilogy.

Cannot wait for THE HOBBIT to come out bring me the summer.

[Jolly Cotton]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I may be the only one, but I think a loincloth was better than pants. I can't imagine Gollum skulking under the Misty Mountains for hundreds of years and keeping his pants intact.



I rather like that scene too. Nicely done. Very nicely done. There is something similar in the books - Book 4, The Passage of the Marshes, toward the end of the chapter. That is also the first time that Gollum refers to "her" (Shelob, as we find out later). I'm not sure about how strictly the script follows the book in this spot, but the idea is the same.



Well, I don't know. I think that some parts of the redemption were done well, but some wer simply not there. And of course I like the book better (), but I'll leave that aside for a comparisson. The first bit of redemption comes with the name "Smeagol". I love Gollum's reaction in the movies. I cannot recall his reaction to when Frodo took off the Elven rope in the movies if my life depended on it, so I can't compare this one, but in the books Gollum remembered this kindness for a while. But then, after Gollum's victory over Smeagol in the scene mentioned in the previous paragraph, he just stays Gollum. What I miss most of the bits that were missing is this little bit:



And then Sam wakes up and calls Gollum a sneak.

In the movies, what happens is that Gollum, instead of having this near-complete redemption moment, scatters lembas crumbs over Sam, and throws the food out, to leave both hobbits angry and starving.

Well, first, I'm not happy that this scene was simply left out. It brings out the Smeagol to an extent no other scenes do, which makes it important for his characterization, if naught else. And it's simply beautiful and touching. Secondly, in the scene that we get instead, Gollum deliberately and actually acts against Sam. In the books he never does that, although he would have loved to, but he restrained himself out of respect for Frodo. That is, up to that point when he felt it was a good time for his Gollum side to show his colours, in Cirith Ungol. Also, this way of putting a wedge between Frodo and Sam is a bit too much intrigue and scheming from Gollum. He is sneaky, yes, but he is not cunning when it comes to human interaction. Last, but not least, this justifies Sam's accusation (sneak). In the books, we feel that Sam is doing wrong, and is unwittingly ruining everything, but we cannot blame him really. And we feel sorry for Gollum and for that missed chance. In the movies, we feel angry at Gollum and doubly sorry for Sam - both because of Gollum and Frodo's reaction.

I just can't get over this scene.


I suppose it is very hard to play the different moods/personalities of Gollum; in the book we get his character described to us, with all the subtle differences. In the movies, you have to show examples to get the personality across, and with all those subtleties it is a very hard thing to do. I have to say that Serkis did his best, and though I think it's not brilliant, I appreciate the difficulty of this role and he did what he could. I think that overall he was a good choice.


PS: as for the comparisson of the Ring to drug addiction, I think that the missing element is magic. They are indeed similar, on a very flat and basic plane. This puts the Ring down a few notches, since it is like saying that it's as much of a scientific/chemical formula as the result of drugs on our bodies. But it's not so; it's not that simple; the Ring has no formula, and it's not just a bunch of shiny chemicals mixed together to form this round addictive thing that is just one step away from being an extacy pill. It's magic. That's the whole point of it.

There are still little snippets of Gollum's character in the film where the viewer can spot little bits of humanization on his part, but I do agree, that Gollum moment shouldn't have been left out