Losing Gollum's Soul

[Lord of Angmar]

The following is an excerp from an article I found on the web:

Losing Gollum's soul
Jackson has completely undone the scene that Tolkien describes as the most tragic in the book. The fact that the director has moved it forward from The Two Towers to The Return of the King is not the problem. In the book, Gollum comes upon Sam and Frodo asleep in the Pass of Cirith Ungol. Frodo's head is in Sam's lap, the servant protectively shielding him with his hands. "Peace was in both their faces." Something in this sight of loving companionship touches the remnant of humanity that remains in Gollum's soul. This is the moment when Gollum and Sméagol are having an "interior debate" about whether or not to deliver up the hobbits to the dreadful Thing lurking ahead in the tunnel. Gollum reaches out, hesitantly, with a trembling hand, to stroke Frodo's knee, saying, "Nice master!"

But Sam is instantly awake. Vehemently and mercilessly he rejects Gollum, calling him "villain." Sam means to be protecting Frodo, but his lack of insight and his roughness have the opposite effect. Tolkien writes, "The fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall." This is the point, more than any other, when the reader will cry silently or aloud, "No!" One could hardly miss the significance of the opportunity and Sam's utter failure to seize it, yet Jackson seems to have missed it.

The loss of this scene is incalculable. In its place Jackson's writers have invented a bit of business where Gollum steals the lembas and arranges to have Frodo blame Sam for the theft. This shifts our attention to Sam's hurt feelings, rather than the true center, which is the tragic implosion of Sméagol's nascent love for Frodo. We are robbed of an opportunity to understand that Gollum is still recognizably human and capable of love. More important still, the crucial tension between mercy shown toward Gollum—such a central theme in the book—and what Gollum actually "deserves" is altogether lost. Since the center of the Christian gospel is God's mercy toward the undeserving, those who value Tolkien's implicit Christian message will feel bereft.

I posted it because I sort of felt the same way as this writer about this particular scene. The rest of the article, if you should choose to read it, could also provide some insight for discussion in the Good vs. evil: Downplayed, or overplayed? thread.

Thats all for now.

-Angmar

Edit: When I say I "sort of felt the same way" as the writer of this article, I do not mean from a purely Christian viewpoint; I simply feel that the film would have been better served had it stuck to the book with regards to this scene.

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting article, Angmar.

It seems to me that Jackson took the moment forward to the Smeagol/Gollum debate in TTT, when Smeagol banishes Gollum only to be "betrayed" (as he sees it) by Frodo at Henneth Annun.

Throughout most of TTT, there were aspects of Smeagol's character which evoked sympathy, but they are swept aside at the end. When we come to RotK, Smeagol and Gollum are in league (as the debate mirrored in the pool suggests) and there is preciousss little reason for the audience to have any sympathy for him. I think that this was intentional on Jackson's part, to minimise the sadness which might otherwise be felt on his passing.

I agree that this does somewhat detract from the value of Frodo's mercy, since it is effectively Frodo's mercy which gives rise to Smeagol's feeling of betrayal and the return of Gollum. But I think that it is still fair to say that, but for Frodo's mercy, they would most likely not have got into Mordor. And Gollum would not have been there at the end to seize the Ring and fall into the fire with it (and no, I do not believe that Frodo pushed him). It is for this reason that I was glad to see Frodo effectively forgive Gollum when he encountered him on emerging from Shelob's lair.

[Lord of Angmar]

When we come to RotK, Smeagol and Gollum are in league (as the debate mirrored in the pool suggests) and there is preciousss little reason for the audience to have any sympathy for him. I think that this was intentional on Jackson's part, to minimise the sadness which might otherwise be felt on his passing.

Well, let's look at it slightly differently - what if Gollum's last pool-mirrored debate had been about whether to repent or to continue with the Shelob plan (if my memory serves me correctly, the debate in the movie went more like "can we or can we not get away with it, preciousss?")? Then the "nice master" scene could have been inserted in place of the lembas scene. Sam could have gone off at Gollum as he does in the books, and thus the audience would be left with some doubt in their mind as to whether Gollum's intentions towards Frodo had turned good or bad. When the audience realized that Frodo had been betrayed, their sympathy for Gollum would be vanquished for good. It would maintain the audience's intrigue in the subtlety of Smeagol/Gollum's character a little longer, only to evoke an even more angry reaction with Gollum's betrayal of his master to Shelob.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, it could have been done like that. But then Sam would have been perceived as being to blame for the "loss of Gollum's soul". It is much easier for this to be portrayed as the misunderstanding which it is in the book than it would have been on film. I think that Sam would have come off badly from it from the audience's perspective, and that is the last thing that Jackson (or indeed Tolkien) would have wanted.

And, as I said, I think Jackson wanted Gollum as a villain throughout RotK.

[Lord of Angmar]

Well, PJ could have toned down Sam's reaction to make him seem less culpable for Gollum's betrayal, and Gollum's saying, "Nice master," could even be made somewhat ambiguous in it's motives. I agree that "Jackson wanted Gollum as a villain throughout RotK," but do you personally see this as the best possible way for Jackson to achieve the desired response in the audience? {Do you think it does justice to Tolkien that Mr. Jackson would leave out the scene he described as the most tragic in the book? (I do not mean to aim these questions at you in particular Saucepan, just any who happens to stumble upon this thread besides us... just so you don't think I'm trying to push your buttons.) }

{Text added in edit}

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I don't think Samwise really needed any protection from Jackson. Gollum, on the other hand, could really have used a booster (I mean, just look at the guy!). If they had done the scene as it was in the book, I don't think the audience would have turned on Sam. I think they would just realise the hopelessness of the situation and feel sad for everyone concerned.