Movie Characters Revisited: Gollum/Smeagol

[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.