The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - I fear that PJ has failed or : "The Gollum situation"

doug*platypus · 12-07-2003, 07:04 PM

A very good thread to start, Balin, cheers very much. Although on the surface it may seem that bookGollum and movieGollum are pretty much one and the same, there are subtle but very important distinctions. While I wouldn't say simply that "PJ has failed", you are right in thinking that he (or rather the three-headed scriptwriting team of PJ/FW/PB) have failed to portray the nuances of the character as they were given to us in the books.<P>After seeing TTT three things struck me the most about the movie character:<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Gollum's face altered to appear more human.<LI>Gollum's character strongly polarised.<LI>That loincloth is too damm small !</UL>The most important of these is the polarisation of his character. Yes, Gollum and Sméagol are two separate, recognisable facets of this weird little being. No, they are not completely separate entities inhabiting the same body. To imply this (especially in the classic, brilliant debate scene) is to refuse to admit that one person can have both these characters. The writers have torn apart these two parts of the character and given them a separate role. So in the movie we see a character who is fiercer and more terrifying, but at the same time more charming and yes even sweet. <P>The character in the book was not so strongly polarised or extreme. His personality did change depending on circumstances and on the stage of the journey, but it was more subtly done than in the movies. And the whole time there was an overriding personality, basic mannerisms and parts of speech that remained constant. The evil character in the book was never completely evil, likewise the good character was never completely good. In the movie Gollum appears to change to Sméagol with the flick of a switch, and no character has a trace of the other. In my opinion this is a dramatic alteration. The team's plans for ROTK only further prove this. It is absolutely ridiculous to have two significantly different character developments for what is undeniably one character.<P>The definitive appearance will for me always be the Alan Lee version. Gollum is emaciated, famisshed yes famisshed, with elongated features and unnatural eyes. Tolkien is always careful to describe him as not looking quite like anything else. He is described as frog like, spider like or even like a starved child (if seen by a passing bird). By the time Frodo and Sam encounter him, there is very little hobbit left in his appearance. Tolkien's characters resemble their appearance. Evil is usually ugly or marred in some way, and good (particularly the elves) are beautiful to all the senses. Changing the appearance of Gollum IS changing his character, and I don't believe that the movie representation is accurately taken from the books. Gollum should be pitiable, but not cute. He is not a mean old man, he is a twisted, evil, wretched but pitiable creature. At least he is in the books.

12-07-2003, 07:04 PM	#22
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	A very good thread to start, Balin, cheers very much. Although on the surface it may seem that bookGollum and movieGollum are pretty much one and the same, there are subtle but very important distinctions. While I wouldn't say simply that "PJ has failed", you are right in thinking that he (or rather the three-headed scriptwriting team of PJ/FW/PB) have failed to portray the nuances of the character as they were given to us in the books.<P>After seeing TTT three things struck me the most about the movie character:<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Gollum's face altered to appear more human.<LI>Gollum's character strongly polarised.<LI>That loincloth is too damm small !</UL>The most important of these is the polarisation of his character. Yes, Gollum and Sméagol are two separate, recognisable facets of this weird little being. No, they are not completely separate entities inhabiting the same body. To imply this (especially in the classic, brilliant debate scene) is to refuse to admit that one person can have both these characters. The writers have torn apart these two parts of the character and given them a separate role. So in the movie we see a character who is fiercer and more terrifying, but at the same time more charming and yes even sweet. <P>The character in the book was not so strongly polarised or extreme. His personality did change depending on circumstances and on the stage of the journey, but it was more subtly done than in the movies. And the whole time there was an overriding personality, basic mannerisms and parts of speech that remained constant. The evil character in the book was never completely evil, likewise the good character was never completely good. In the movie Gollum appears to change to Sméagol with the flick of a switch, and no character has a trace of the other. In my opinion this is a dramatic alteration. The team's plans for ROTK only further prove this. It is absolutely ridiculous to have two significantly different character developments for what is undeniably one character.<P>The definitive appearance will for me always be the Alan Lee version. Gollum is emaciated, famisshed yes famisshed, with elongated features and unnatural eyes. Tolkien is always careful to describe him as not looking quite like anything else. He is described as frog like, spider like or even like a starved child (if seen by a passing bird). By the time Frodo and Sam encounter him, there is very little hobbit left in his appearance. Tolkien's characters resemble their appearance. Evil is usually ugly or marred in some way, and good (particularly the elves) are beautiful to all the senses. Changing the appearance of Gollum IS changing his character, and I don't believe that the movie representation is accurately taken from the books. Gollum should be pitiable, but not cute. He is not a mean old man, he is a twisted, evil, wretched but pitiable creature. At least he is in the books. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.