Split Personality?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Galadriel was able to reject her own impulses. While others like Boromir and Gollum could not do so, either the Ring was too strong for them, or they themselves were too weak.

Or the impulse was too strong?

I do think you're on to something in your analyses of Boromir, Gollum, and Galadriel. Tolkien did make quite clear that the Ring was that powerful; it did in the end overpower Frodo's very strong will to do what was right and good.

So it seems we have a difference between one's will and one's impulses. Frodo's impulses were love of friends and community, and wanting to be left in peace, to name a few. It seems that the Ring used his impulses against him as much as it tried to overpower them.

So is there anyone who wants to argue in defense of Jackson's handling of Gollum/Sméagol in terms of the split personality? (Elempi is itching for a good debate, can you tell?)

[Sauron the White]

Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I have always viewed the entire portrayal of Gollum in the films as one of the slam dunks of the films. It was one of the high points. I refuse to engage in this endless "which was better the book or the movie" debate which some here seem to wallow in. A book is one thing with its own limits, boundaries and characteristics. A film is quite another thing with its own different limits, boundaries and characteristics.

LOTR is a story told by two different story tellers, each from a different perspective, each emphasizing some things and using different devices and approaches to tell that story.

Yes, JRRT wrote it and created the world of Middle-earth. And yes, when he sold the film rights he did so as a responsible adult with both eyes open knowing full well he was allowing someone else to take that world and make it their own on the screen. So we end up with two storytellers spinning the tale of LOTR.

I will say this again... and again until it sinks in ... its like comparings apples and cinder blocks. In the end the experts spend time studying both and then trumpet their results: apples taste better but cinder blocks make better building materials. And thats news?

[Finduilas]

I haven't read all posts, but I did read the first one...

I think that the way Jackson did it worked great for film. It got the message across. I have never disliked what he did with Gollum.

[Boromir88]

I haven't read all posts, but I did read the first one...~Finduilas

Maybe I should bring my old signature back from the dead than.

I was more impressed by Andy Serkis' performance than anything else. I got the sense that not only was he committed and liked doing what he did (eventhough if it meant wading down a quasi-frozen river several times until the scene was 'right' for Peter Jackson). But also when he talked about the Ring being like a 'drug' (or anything for that matter which creates an addiction) was a nice way of describing the 'lust' of the Ring. Basically, I got the sense that Serkis understood his character and liked what he was doing, so Gollum came off well. (I have no clue where Jackson - or whoever decided - got the idea for Gollum's appearance, but whatever).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Maybe I should bring my old signature back from the dead than.

I was more impressed by Andy Serkis' performance than anything else. I got the sense that not only was he committed and liked doing what he did (eventhough if it meant wading down a quasi-frozen river several times until the scene was 'right' for Peter Jackson). But also when he talked about the Ring being like a 'drug' (or anything for that matter which creates an addiction) was a nice way of describing the 'lust' of the Ring. Basically, I got the sense that Serkis understood his character and liked what he was doing, so Gollum came off well. (I have no clue where Jackson - or whoever decided - got the idea for Gollum's appearance, but whatever).

Yes, what brought Gollum to life was that superior performance by Andy Serkis - but then he is one of our best actors, and quite under-rated to my mind, mostly as he usually sticks to low budget films/TV - he is simply ace in 24 Hour Party People. I've been thinking recently that the CGI on Gollum is starting to look dated already! Which is not to say the CGI was bad (oh no) just that it has moved on in leaps and bounds since then - what will 'hold' the portrayal in years to come is the work of Andy Serkis. Funny to think that he based a lot of the voice on the sound of a cat coughing up a furball (whereas Viggo Mortensen no doubt did not have that in mind when he said Mordor/Morgul/Whateveritwas in that funny way).

But anyway...

To my mind, the portrayal of Gollum could have been done in any number of ways. We're discussing if PJ kept to the way it was done in the books, but none of us have ever, and will ever agree on Gollum's character anyway. The 'split personality' reading is one that some people get from the books anyway, as is the idea that the Ring was the primary corrupting force behind Gollum's drive.

Jackson of course was working in film, an unsubtle medium, and had to settle on a defined way of explaining Gollum and his motivation. Tolkien had the luxury of some 1,000 pages in which to be ambivalent.

I do find it fascinating that so many people I know who have never read the books, found the character of Gollum as seen in the films as 'cute'; surely there's some meat for discussion in that?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So is there anyone who wants to argue in defense of Jackson's handling of Gollum/Sméagol in terms of the split personality? (Elempi is itching for a good debate, can you tell?)

Can't say that I'll provide good debate, but from a novice point of view (alatar pretends to never have read the Books before seeing RotK), I think that Peter Jackson was showing the anguish of the murder of Deagol in Smeagol/Gollum. From what I viewed, Smeagol was just an ordinary hobbit that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure, he could have used some sun and cucumber slices on the eyes, but he had friend, and that seemed like a sign of good character.

So in the heat of the moment he kills Deagol. Think that a good loyer could get him off with time served. It was the Ring, not he, that compelled the deed. Note that bringing Sauron to the stand to verify the power of the Ring may be interesting, but even Gandalf said that the Ring had a mind of its own and was evil.

So Smeagol, in what started as a simple case of misunderstanding, ends up killing Deagol, and by the time they wrestled on the ground, Smeagol acted in self defense as there was no way he was leaving that glade with knowledge of the Ring.

So he leaves everything behind and punishes himself with a self-imposed banishment, and his outward appearance reflects his guilt, shame and remorse. He's so distraught over the deed that he develops a split personality that allows Smeagol to function - Gollum is the bad guy who wanted the Ring and murdered Deagol, not Smeagol, and this is the way he lives, alone, keeping the killer Gollum away from everyone - except fish.

A few hundred years later, S/G is robbed by Bilbo Baggins ("Hey, I found your Ring on your lawn. Let's play a game so you can have a slim chance of getting your property back.") Smeagol tries to find the Ringstealer and ends up in Mordor - where else would someone with that evil Ring go? This torture furthers his split personality, as it allows him to deal with the pain (see the pattern?). From Mordor Gollum emerges dominant and so pursues Frodo. Frodo, after initially harming Gollum (see how Sam drags the creature) shows him some kindness, and this sign of love brings Smeagol to the fore.

The debate where Smeagol wins shows that with Frodo's acts of kindness, Smeagol was ready to reenter society and help this 'Deagol' with the Ring. It's not until Faramir and his boys mercilessly beat the small wretch does Gollum come back yet again. It's not an internal struggle but the outside world that brings on the G.

After that, as I've said, everyone is fair game. Even so, Smeagol still struggles with acquiring the Ring, harming Frodo and potting down Gollum. It could even be said that Gollum did not intend Shelob to kill Frodo - if Gollum could pass through her lair without harm, why not the hobbit with which he identified?

In the end, S/G just wants the Ring back. Does he fear Deagolling Frodo, and so if Gollum reclaims the Ring, he can yet again keep it secret and keep it safe? When he gets it, Smeagol comes back, happy for a moment, then it's a fall into lava, bringing healing to this poor creature.

PJ's Gollum is more sympathetic. The evil creature comes when the world calls it, not when Smeagol wills it, and as far as we know, there's only the blood of Deagol and fish on the creature's hands.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar seems onto something here. I do think that Gollum suffers from a prolonged case (hundreds of years) of severe disassociative disorder. From too many movies, we get the idea that split personality is where two distinct personalities - almost two different people - can inhabit the same person. In many films, each of these personalities functions independently and with ignorance of the other. It is my understanding that such cases are the extreme of an extreme. Most disassociative disorders manifest themselves in far more subtle ways. The person is aware that sometimes they act differently but feel powerless to answer the question as to why. They sometimes develop complicated intellectual rationalizations or explainations for their behavior. Even in therapy, when confronted with the reality of a disassociative personality, the person still can seem puzzled and confused until they accept it.

I see the Jackson Gollum as someone who has undergone a stonge disassociative break and it has lasted hundreds of years. Frodo extends kindness and an offer of partial redemption to him and that causes the twinklings of the Smeagol personality to surface again after a long hiatus.

The debates with himself illustrate the conflict within the creature. Davem said it reminded him of the old cartoons with the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. That comparison suggests that there are three involved in that discussion - the good, the bad and the actual person in the middle who can then make a decision about which side to go with. In the Jackson films, there is no third in the middle. Its just a true disassociative disorder where one personality tries to control the person independent of the other.

One does not altogether cancel out the other. Even as Gollum extends a hand to Frodo on the stairway to Shelob - a positive gesture - , he looks at the Ring with wanton lust and desire. He could as just as quickly shoved Frodo off that winding stairway and climbed down to pick through his remains. But he did not.

Alatar mentions that the fall into lava brought healing to this poor creature. I would not agree with that characterization. That was not so much a healing as it was a simple finish to his life. A healing would have been the elimination of the Gollum side of his personality and a return to Smeagol. After hundreds of years and the effects of the Ring, that would have probably been impossible. Sam was probably right.

[Boromir88]

From what I viewed, Smeagol was just an ordinary hobbit that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.~alatar

In the films you are definitely left with that impression, but I don't think that is the right impression (of Gollum) to be leaving. Because not only does it create a wrong impression of Gollum but also misrepresents the Ring, and I also think causes some conflictions within the movie itself.

The Ring was without a doubt a factor with Smeagol. The Ring did take control. However, as Tolkien puts it in Letter 181, Smeagol would never have had to of endure such a test had he already not been 'predisposed' to evil:

'The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.'

So, I think davem's visualisation is dead on (with the little angel and little devil). But the little devil already existed within Smeagol before coming across the Ring, and along with the Ring the little devil takes control over the weaker angel. As muc has the Ring was a factor, Smeagol's own 'evil' played just as big of a role (if not bigger) in his corruption to the Ring.

The movies give of a more sympathetic view of a nice little hobbit, living his own life, and he is thrust into an unfortunate situation that he loses control of. The Ring is a factor, but it is only half the story.

I understand Jackson maybe wanting to show Smeagol in a better light, showing him in a more sympathetic way. But the art of Tolkien, was that not only does he present Smeagol as this vicious mean-spiritted character that is out to 'throttle' the Hobbits. But he is also able to strike up pity and sympathy:

'Gollum!' cried Frodo. 'Gollum? Do you mean that this is the very Gollum-creature that Bilbo met? How Loathsome!'
'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.'~The Shadow of the Past

We have Frodo come in, not understanding Gollum's full story, who just decides he's an evil wretch that should be killed. But, then Gandalf enters in with the sympathetic view of 'No, it's a sad story' and that this very think could have happened to others. Then Gandalf finishes up with, one day perhaps Frodo could understand:

'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' cried Gandalf. 'He hated and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'~ibid

The ring does take over Gollum's will, but Gollum himself is just as much to blame for that as was the Ring. Frodo does end up understanding, and why Frodo is able to pity him once he actually does see him. So, Tolkien does create a sympathetic view for Gollum, even amongst all the 'evil' Gollum committed, and the bad light Gollum is put it.

I think the way Jackson shows it is just too simplistic, yes it does strike up more sympathy for Gollum, but the whole 'little hobbit running into a wrong situation at the wrong time' is just too simple. Also, it creates some conflictions in the movie which leaves viewers rather confused.

Jackson talked about why he had Faramir bring the Ring to Osgiliath and not reject the Ring in Hennuth Annun like Faramir had done in the books. He said that he thought Faramir's rejection of the Ring (in the books) lessened the power of the Ring, and he didn't want to go in that direction. So we have the whole Osgiliath business. But, I take a different view from Jackson's interpretation, it's not that the Ring's strength was lessened by Faramir's rejection of it, but it shows how strong of a character Faramir actually was; as opposed to his brother who was supposedly the 'hardier and better' of the two...indeed the 'best in Gondor.' So, when I view the scene I don't think 'wow the Ring is just so strong and powerful' I think 'Wow, Faramir is weakened.'

Plus Jackson shows moments where the Ring was rejected (by Gandalf and Galadriel) and he also throws in a made up moment where Aragorn rejects the Ring and sends Frodo 'away.' So, we have conflicting moments here of Jackson saying he wants to show the power and influence of the Ring...and that's why he has Faramir originally be tempted by it, then he makes up his own scene of Aragorn rejecting the Ring. Just doesn't make any sense and leads to confusions (which is why there have been so many questions regarding the Ring in various forums...probably just as many as Balrogs ).

[Sauron the White]

The movies give of a more sympathetic view of a nice little hobbit, living his own life, and he is thrust into an unfortunate situation that he loses control of. The Ring is a factor, but it is only half the story.

In the film we see Deagol get the ring. Smeagol simply has to look upon it and the worse side of his nature comes out very quickly. Within moments he has murdered.

Question: why was Deagol not so negatively impacted by his possession of the ring? Why later is Bilbo not suddenly turned evil when he gets the ring in his possession? Why is Frodo able to retain his essential goodness despite having the ring?

Perhaps the answer is in the character of the one who has it. Smeagol was most likely not a very nice person to begin with -- of course in the film we know nothing of his background -- but it is interesting that the appeal to his darker nature is instant while with the others it does not happen that way.

I do not think Jackson needed to have big arrows and neon signs or a five minute additional backstory telling us that Smeagol was not so good to begin with but it is implied when you contrast the behavior of the other ring holders.

[Meriadoc1961]

Very interesting comments from all. My answer will be much simpler: I, too, thought the portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol was probably the best and truest to form adaptation from the book character into the movie. So I can not say I have a preference.

I hated that Hennuth Annun beating of Gollum, which is just another example of how Jackson ruined the Faramir character. Faramir, even more so than Aragorn, has always been my favorite man character in the books.

Merry