I'd be interested to know other people's favourite scenes? Or the darkest? Here's a link to an old video I made about tips for worldbuilding ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2RwDXqFVSpg.html And this lil' link here be to patreon: www.patreon.com/mylittlethoughttree
Boromir's "final sequence" in Fellowship. I rationally know everything that happens in the sequence, but when I sit and watch it, take in the visuals, the expressions on the actor's faces, the soundtrack, etc. it makes me cry. There are so many conflicting emotions and concepts swirling around, which perfectly captures the character of Boromir, who is a walking contradiction, a hero and a villain, good and bad intentions, a sense of brotherhood with Aragorn and yet anger for the threat he poses as the heir of Gondor, etc. Who is Boromir? It is never fully clear. I imagine even he himself isn't 100% sure. Ultimately he is tempted by the ring, but everyone was tempted by the ring. Look at Smeagol here! THIS is what the ring does to people, to EVERYONE. It poisons your mind and turns you into a hideous monster, unrecognizable from the person you were. In that way I think your comparison to substance abuse really hits the nail on the head. It is so easy to judge an "addict" as just a bad person who made bad decisions. The only mistake someone in that situation really made was trying their substance of choice for the first time. After that, they're hooked, they're dependent on it, it manipulates them like a puppeteer, clouds their judgment, takes away their ability to be rational. Yes, Smeagol did kill Deagol, but look at Deagol! If Deagol had gained the upper hand in that brawl, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have strangled Smeagol the same way and likely become the same twisted creature Smeagol became. That's the point: it doesn't matter how "good" you are, the ring posses you like a demon. Gollum is NOT Smeagol, Gollum is the ring's power at work, and the same can be said for Boromir when he was tempted. Frodo himself said it best "you are not yourself." What makes me cry is the way Boromir realized the gravity of his mistake, his anguish, his tears, his selfless struggle to try and make it right. If he can't protect Frodo, he will protect Frodo's friends, the other hobbits. If none of these things bring a tear to my eye, when Aragorn speaks to him before the end, that part never fails to make me weep uncontrollably. Boromir is many things but in his mind he believes his true self is the traitor who tried to seize the ring, but he is wrong. His allies KNOW he is wrong, because they saw his acts of heroism, and they know the only reason he was tempted is because the ring is a cursed magical object that none can resist for long. I think that's the greatest tragedy of Boromir: his allies know he is a true hero, but he can't accept that. Instead he accepts Aragorn as the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor. Aragorn, like Boromir, is too aware of his own weakness, and has a poor opinion of himself, likely feeling unfit to take on this responsibility, but now Boromir has practically appointed him to the task. Boromir's trust in Aragorn is enough. Now he MUST rise to the occasion, to honor his departed friend and role model. He will save Gondor and will be the best king ever, for Boromir's sake, so that Boromir can rest in peace. Beautiful.
My favorite line is, “For Frodo,” and my fiancé is going to turn to his best man and say it right before he says, “I do.” 😅 My favorite scene is Arwen seeing the vision of her son and then going and dressing down her father for not giving her context, attempting to take away her agency. The darkest for me may actually be Elrond’s reply of, “this is what will happen to you.” My parents had a beautiful love story and my dad had to watch my mom die a horrible slow death, and if he’s like his family, he has 20-25 years of health left. Being trapped in a world that no longer contains your person, all of your people gone, the last of your kind in a world that’s fundamentally changed… it really hits me every time. My other possible favorite scenes are the lighting of the beacons (the MUSIC, Howard Shore, everybody!!!) or Gandalf making Pippin less scared of death. We used Into the West as a memorial song for my mentor who died, and later, the night before my mother died, I played it for her on the piano. It has a lot of meaning for my family. “And then you see it….” “See what, Gandalf?”
My favorite scene is when Aragon comments "you bow to no one" speaking to the hobbits. You should also see the video for gollum's song. It always makes me cry.
@@WhitePhoenixCrown That was a great moment, wasn't it? The four of them just look absolutely shocked by what's happening. I think it is especially satisfying because of all the horrible things they've endured throughout these movies, almost dying so many times, and they never seriously considered that other people would have that much reverence towards them. There's a similar energy right before they have their final stand at the gate of Mordor. There's an eerie silence, Aragorn turns to the others and quietly says "...for Frodo." Then they charge into battle. I don't think Frodo in his wildest dreams would have imagined an army of all Sauron's enemies would use his name as their final battlecry.
I think the reason Frodo sympathizes with Gollum is because he believes that if there’s no hope for Gollum to be redeemed, there’s no hope for himself to be free of the rings influence
Also because he knows the power of the Ring personally, unlike anyone else. It's like how former addicts are generally a lot more sympathetic to present addicts because they know how it seizes control of your mind and you would never have chosen to set out to destroy your life, which is STILL the most popular interpretation of addicts although it makes no sense.
Or maybe that he can see what the ring did to Sméagol and what he went through and still is going through could happen to him if the ring took control of him. He pities him and it’s the first time anyone has treated him as a human and not a monster
I would love to hear your take on Pippin. His journey is often overlooked in LOTR because he's not one of the "main" heroes, and he's commonly talked about only in relation to Merry. But (SPOILER ALERT), by the climax of the story, the tremendous guilt he must be feeling must be overwhelming. Gandalf died because of him. Boromir died protecting him. And now Sauron is attacking Minas Tirith before they are prepared because of him. I think it really puts in perspective why he's so concerned with saving Faramir, even though he's someone he barely knows. He doesn't want yet another death on his hands because of his own inaction. He does do some heroic things throughout the trilogy, but his perceived guilt has to be weighing on him.
I think that's why he literally throws himself at Denethor's feet to serve Gondor. The guilt and trauma that's been eating at him since joining the Fellowship, pretty much on a lark at first, is too overwhelming for him to keep down at that moment.
Are you talking about the scene mere Pippin drops a rock down the well in Moria? I think in the movie it was a bucket. We don't know for certain that is the reason Gandalf died; but yes, it probably is in Pippin's mind.
@@schwarzerritter5724 right. Everything I wrote about Pippin's guilt would be from his point of view. He may not be totally responsible for all of the setbacks that the Fellowship has, but I think it would be realistic if he felt that he was.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Pippin and Merry are the ones lobbing rocks into the pool and (maybe) attracting the attention of the Watcher, which forces the Fellowship into Moria to begin with, too.
Just a little help in your lore knowledge: the fight between Deagol and Seagol happens in the Gladden Fields on the river Anduin, not in the Shire. For that was where Isildur died and lost the Ring
Yeah, I don't know how I forgot that. I even watched a video about Gollum's history to recap before I made this video....guess this is what happens when you work on videos late in the evenings 😆
After killing Deagol, Smeagol did go back to his family and was judged greatly. He was actually called 'Gollum' by them, which sort of sets up the identity of Gollum as a kind of acceptance of the scorn he felt from the world.
In the book Sméagol hid Déagol's corpse so it was never found but he used the Ring to find out secrets which he used for his own advantage but he was found out of those deeds and were banished by his grandmother who was the matriarch of his family.
I can’t quite recall the exact words of the book, but it’s also implied that he steals babies from their cribs. That, too, was one of the reasons for his banishment, and would make him a murderer of babies too.
@@UndeadSlayer5 They suspected, so they verified. Also the ring betrayed him once while stealing, but that was a story about some magical ring not well received as believable by other hobbits, as hobbits doubt magic exists. But I'm not a real wizard, so do not take my word for it.
@@prettyokandy230 they had disappeared, Tolkien said that as far as I can remember. Some may have made it to someplace else, like the entwives we will never know.
Yeah, you're talking about Stoor Hobbits. They didn't live in the Shire; lived closer to the world of men. Closer to dwarves in hight. I think if Frodo and Sam stood next to a non-withered Smeagol, they'd be smaller than him.
@@prettyokandy230 don't feel that I'm lecturing you. It's been nearly thirty years since I last read the books and I may be wrong and am fine with learning new things.
Deagol was also Smeagol's cousin. It was very strongly implied that Smeagol began using the ring to kidnap, murder, and cannibalize other hobbits, even children and infants in cradles.
First time I saw Return of the King I was a VERY small child, and even I could subconsciously pick up on what a smart move it was to open with Sméagol and Deagol and have that whole scene underscoring Frodo and Sam’s relationship.
Even the visuals of two hobbits in a boat, smiling, clearly best friends...that is enough to remind the viewer of Frodo and Sam, who ended the first movie together in a boat. The parallel is very clear. I think it gets the viewer thinking about "how will Frodo and Sam's friendship turn out? Will the ring turn Frodo into a monster too? Will they end up fighting?" It makes you worry about the heroes.
I've been thinking of the Ring as a sort of allegory for addiction*, except if anything even worse, because at least real-life addiction has an end: either sobriety or death. The Ring keeps you alive until your entire existence is an unending living hell. I think that's why Gollum's story is so utterly tragic and horrific to me, and his death ultimately merciful. *Yeah, I know Tolkien didn't like allegory, but this is my reading and he can stay out of it.
Tbh I dont think it's allegory,. The ring is metatextually addictive. It is a manifestation of power and evilness which are both addictive in their own ways, therefore it makes sense the ring would be addictive and attractive, especially to those like Smeagol who already have a mean streak.
I don't think Tolkien hated allegory as much as black and white interpretations of literary work where a thing is supposed to represent another thing. Or to put it in other works, interpretations where the allegory comes first and the value of the story is derived from the worthiness of the allegory. The ring is not supposed to represent a drug addiction but it'd be silly to claim that Tolkien never meant the ring and the addiction to it add richness of resonation to lord of the rings. At it's heart, the lord of the rings is about the hopelessness of struggle against all odds. "There's still good in this world and it's worth fighting for mr. Frodo" you know? But the allegory is on a much more General level. Nothing like "the ring represents nukes" or something childish like that. A one to one mapping of an allegory like that saps any story of a deep meaning and binds it to something temporary. I'm sure the guy who imagined eons of history for his creation would have hated for people to think it was in service of something that happened in our world in the fifties.
I don't know; if you've ever known someone who's been an addict for a long time, where they've lost teeth and fingers and all of their friends, and they still keep shooting up ... I don't think it's that far off from what the ring does to you.
@@sleepingdogpro That's what I was saying, the Ring is worse if anything, in that at least drug abuse will kill you, but the Ring can keep you alive and suffering for centuries, as seen with Gollum. And that's entirely up to the Ring's will.
I think a broader exploration of death in LOTR is warranted. I'm really interested in Theoden's journey, and I don't think it gets much coverage. One of the most emotive scenes I think is Theoden mourning his son. We are lucky to live in a time (unlike Tolkien), where we generally know peace - the chances of fighting in battles is exceedingly small. But it remains a massive fear for many that they would lose a child. And I think it explains why he's so risk-averse in protecting his realm, that they go to Helm's Deep rather than seek help from Gondor to make a stand against Saruman. Finally it's his acceptance of his own death at Pelennor Fields - leading a warcry of "Death!", that he feels worthy of going to the "halls of his fathers". Similarly, Gandalf's reassurance to Pippin about a "far green country" also explores how we come to terms with our own mortality. In Moria, Gimli's mourning of Balin is far more primal, compared to Legolas who seems confused when Gandalf falls and similarly bewildered at Boromir's death.
I forgot all about the scene where Pippin and Gandalf talk about death. Of course this is just a fictional story in with unique lore concerning an afterlife which Gandalf visited, but if we set that aside for a moment, the scene is more about reconciling with mortality. Pippin considers the high probability that they'll lose the upcoming battle and die, and he views this as "the end." Gandalf does not, speaking of death as if it is just another part of life, something which is normal, healthy, and even good. What I get out of that scene is that instead of fearing it, the appropriate way to deal with it is to CHOOSE how to live, and even how to die for yourself. In that way a person is able to have dignity and control, in spite being mortal. It reminds me of his conversation with Frodo in Fellowship. Frodo wishes that none of this had ever happened, and Gandalf replies "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." I am convinced these movies have a lot more depth to them then they sometimes get credit for.
i suppose it's different for an elf watching 'mortals' he cares about die, if it happens to other elves at least he knows what happens to them, knows it's good and can reasonably expect to see them again. edit: i suppose it might even be a new sort of emotion for him.
The contrast between Théoden and Denethor is very interesting. They are both in great despair. Neither of them feels that they can win. But they both react very differently. Book Denethor does do what he can to defend Minas Tirith, but his mind has been so poisoned by Sauron through the palantir that he has no hope. He stays behind his walls even despairing to the point of suicide. Movie Denethor is just bonkers despair. Théoden, on the other hand faces the enemy first hand. He doesn't allow his despair overtake him. He fights until his last breath to defend his people even though it seems hopeless. Hope vs. Despair is an overarching theme on LOTR, and this contrast between two leaders of nations is a wonderful example.
@@prettyokandy230 on the Director's commentary track on the Fellowship DVD, Peter Jackson says this same thing. Orlando Bloom was directed to react to Gandalf's and Boromir's deaths in total confusion, as mortality is something that Legolas is not used to seeing. It's subtle, but he really nails it in those scenes.
It’s aerie how deagol only dies due to only using one hand. Being so consumed with keeping possession of the ring at all times that he is killed for it. He could have simply put it anywhere and killed Sméagol, then pick it up after. I guess that’s the point though.
13:44 cursing the sun is a call back to the silmarillion. Melkor constantly destroys all of the light sources due to his desire to be the master of all light, which stims from his "daddy issues" with illumatar. You should definitely do a video on Melkor. Also, Gollum was tortured by Souron after Bilbo took the ring. This event would also push Gollum into distrusting people.
Another great bit of symbolism in Tolkien is the quote "Not all that glitters is gold." The Ring personifies this. It may glitter and be made of gold, but it's not gold in the sense of being true, if you will. Is it a gold standard when something like the One Ring lies and leads you to a bitter end like it did Isildur, Deagol, and Smeagol? No. If the Ring was just a ring made of gold and had no semblance of Sauron's being in it, it would be a mere trinket. At least that's one way of looking at the One Ring, especially in this scene breakdown.
Except that "Not all that glitters is gold" isn't Tolkien; it's the original saying that Tolkien put a twist on with his line, which is "All that is gold does not glitter." That is, there is true value out there, but it may be hidden and not look flashy or showy. (For those who haven't read the book, the full poem is about Aragorn, and reads All that is gold does not glitter; Not all those who wander are lost. The old that is strong does not wither; Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be Blade that was Broken, The crownless again shall be king. Arwen recites the second half of it in the _Return of the King_ movie, but we never get to hear the first half, which I thought was a pity.)
I saw this movie in the theatre after waiting in line for an hour, already exhausted from barely sleeping the night before. Right away you get a real shock to your system. The evil was SO evil, the good was SO good, my emotions were a rollercoaster and I was drained and so hopped up by the end that I went home, laid in bed for an hour and then had nightmares. Good stuff lol
Gollum's Song is my favorite from the movies bc it expresses his tragedy so well. It always somewhat annoyed me that Frodo sends Sam away in the movies, bc that doesn't happen in the books. But your video made me consider that it wasn't added for Frodo and Sams character development, but maybe was added to relate to back to Smeagol.
When I compare the movies to the books, the movie version of the ring seems to bring out the dark side of human nature, almost reducing us to animal like urges. I think this is reflected in the sizing each other up moment, when Smeagol and Deagol are about to attack each other, and killing because he is so wrapped up in his own base feelings. They revolve around each other in an almost animalistic, intimidating way, not talking either. The way he looks at his hand after he regains his senses makes me think he wasn't using any logical faculties until he was done killing him. The books seem to me almost a direct metaphor for addiction, specifically drug addiction. Maybe I'm biased, but I think the emotional aspects of Jackson's version of the ring are more nuanced and have more emotional moments tied to it. I'm glad, too, because I think that plays better on the screen. This sequence was told very matter of factly in the book by gandalf as a historical event.
A couple of points, first off, the battle between Smegle and Dregle did NOT happen in The Shire, as The Shire was not even settled yet, it happened on the shores of the River Anduin, East of the Misty Mountains and West of Mirkwood (before it had become corrupted by Sauron's influence). Smegle was a hobbit, or closely related race. It would have been impossible for that scene to have occurred anywhere near the Shire or Bree, as the One Ring was never west of the Misty Mountains until Bilbo brought it there. Also, Smegle, after he found the Ring, did live with his family in the unnamed villiage they lived in for some months after he found the Ring and murdered Deagle, who I think was not only Smegle's friend, but was also his cousin. The events, according to the books, that finally drove Smegle's family and community to drive him out were that he was using the Ring to steal and spy on others, including peeping on nude women, and started that gurgling "gollem" noise that lead to his nickname, before finally getting caught in his dirty tricks and exiled from his home.
In the scene of him fighting with himself, I love the detail of the different pupil sizes, signifying who is who. The amount of thought put into these movies are what make it something I could watch over and over again.
I don’t know what it is about this opening scene, but I always found Smeagol more unsettling as a hobbit than he was as Gollum. I can’t tell if it’s Andy Serkis’ amazing acting or because I know what he’s bound to become, but he’s just so unsettling!
Thank you. Empathy, a good word. Indeed I'd say Gollum's story could be seen as a study in what empathy means; it's presence or absence in ourselves and others, how empathy is fundamental to everything we think and do, and how it may redeem or condemn any of us by it's presence or absence. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say there can be no 'good' without empathy and 'evil' is nothing more than the absence of empathy. It's sobering to consider that whenever any of us fails to find empathy we become the embodiment of evil to that thing or person.
Thank you. Enjoyed this. Watching Smeagol turn into Gollum was the darkest scene in the trilogy. My favourite scene i think is when Sam picks up Frodo and carries him. Remember how stirring that was watching in the cinema.
Brilliant! I'd like to add that the reason Frodo sees hope in Gollum is that he sees the tragedy of Gollum as a possible future for himself if the ring corrupts him. Frodo is so uncertain about his future, and putting his faith in the goodness of Smeagol reassures his fate somewhat. I think there is a scene where Sam says Gollum is hopeless and Frodo replies saying he has to see hope in him.
As someone who's been in abusive relationships, I thought it was just me who sort of identified with Smeagol's arc as representing a certain aspect of that in such a real emotional way. Really enjoyed this ramble about LotR, I hope you do more!
I’ll admit I listened to this like a podcast with my phone screen face down on the table because I have never been able to watch Smeagol’s transition into Gollum since the first time I saw it when I was 10. I couldn’t sleep for weeks after seeing it because it scared me so much visually and because of how well it was executed! I still really enjoyed listening and I’d absolutely love more LOTR videos ! Subscribed 🥰
OMG! This is an amazing video. I've been watching the LotR trilogy for 20 years now (ever since first seeing it in the theater), and have never really given this scene all that much analysis. To me, it had always just been filler providing Gollum's backstory. It speaks to the brilliant nature of the film that 20 years later I can re-watch the scene in detail and discover an entirely new layer and depth to it.
Poor broken Smeagol. He always was my favorite, god knows why. 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.
In relation to your point of him being cursed: Kin-slaying has a very strong theme and effect in Tolkiens world, the oath for the silmarils became a curse to the elves that tried to reclaim them for example. As well as verbally cursing and rejecting Smeagol for such a crime.
Excellent analysis of one of the most tragic, compelling and terrifying scenes in the LOTR films! You made a very good point about Smeagol gaining the Ring under far rougher circumstances than either Frodo or Bilbo did, and that being a contributing factor in his fall into darkness. I do have one minor quibble, however. Smeagol and Deagol were not in the Shire, which hadn't been settled yet at the time the scene takes place. Their tribe of Hobbits lived in the Gladden Fields by the Anduin River, at the place Isildur lost the Ring when he was killed.
Golem's redemption is the first scene that springs to mind. The way I interpret it (from memory) is Golem knew he was going to die and was content with that knowing he'd never be parted from the ring again. Even if that meant unity in mutual destruction. The reason I like that scene so much is partly due to a criticism of Tolkien. His protagonists are all good, really good with not many faults. His antagonists are all really bad, evil, with no redeeming qualities. For some people, me, it leaves them feeling a bit shallow or unrealistic. While for others they love it, so horses for courses. We're told throughout the story that it has to be Frodo because he's the noblest, the most moral, etc. That scene flips everything we've been told on it's head. Suddenly the perfect Frodo can be weak, even he can be corrupted by power. On the flip side the guy to save the world and defeat evil is the weak willed monster. The other scene I thought of was Boromir's death. I think partly because it's really well shot. But it's also the redemption for a grey character, a man who has been corrupted. In this way he parallels Golem. Although it does make me wonder if Tolkein thought that death was the best way to redeem oneself.
I agree that Boromir's "final sequence" in Fellowship is fantastic. I rationally know everything that happens in the sequence, but when I sit and watch it, take in the visuals, the expressions on the actor's faces, the soundtrack, etc. it makes me cry. There are so many conflicting emotions and concepts swirling around, which perfectly captures the character of Boromir, who is a walking contradiction, a hero and a villain, good and bad intentions, a sense of brotherhood with Aragorn and yet anger for the threat he poses as the heir of Gondor, etc. Who is Boromir? It is never fully clear. I imagine even he himself isn't 100% sure. Ultimately he is tempted by the ring, but everyone was tempted by the ring. Look at Smeagol here! THIS is what the ring does to people, to EVERYONE. It poisons your mind and turns you into a hideous monster, unrecognizable from the person you were. In that way I think the comparison to substance abuse really hits the nail on the head. It is so easy to judge an "addict" as just a bad person who made bad decisions. The only mistake someone in that situation really made was trying their substance of choice for the first time. After that, they're hooked, they're dependent on it, it manipulates them like a puppeteer, clouds their judgment, takes away their ability to be rational. Yes, Smeagol did kill Deagol, but look at Deagol! If Deagol had gained the upper hand in that brawl, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have strangled Smeagol the same way and likely become the same twisted creature Smeagol became. That's the point: it doesn't matter how "good" you are, the ring posses you like a demon. Gollum is NOT Smeagol, Gollum is the ring's power at work, and the same can be said for Boromir when he was tempted. Frodo himself said it best "you are not yourself." What makes me cry is the way Boromir realized the gravity of his mistake, his anguish, his tears, his selfless struggle to try and make it right. If he can't protect Frodo, he will protect Frodo's friends, the other hobbits. If none of these things bring a tear to my eye, when Aragorn speaks to him before the end, that part never fails to make me weep uncontrollably. Boromir is many things but in his mind he believes his true self is the traitor who tried to seize the ring, but he is wrong. His allies KNOW he is wrong, because they saw his acts of heroism, and they know the only reason he was tempted is because the ring is a cursed magical object that none can resist for long. I think that's the greatest tragedy of Boromir: his allies know he is a true hero, but he can't accept that. Instead he accepts Aragorn as the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor. Aragorn, like Boromir, is too aware of his own weakness, and has a poor opinion of himself, likely feeling unfit to take on this responsibility, but now Boromir has practically appointed him to the task. Boromir's trust in Aragorn is enough. Now he MUST rise to the occasion, to honor his departed friend and role model. He will save Gondor and will be the best king ever, for Boromir's sake, so that Boromir can rest in peace. Beautiful.
I disagree with the whole part on Gollum here. Gollum had no redemption and nor was Frodo the noblest character by far, they both failed. Neither wanted to destroy the ring, it was instead destroyed by accident. Frodo himself, though being good, failed to destroy the ring, thus making him a lot more gray of a character. I heard saying that, having the ring be destroyed by accident meant something along the lines of : Evil ultimately destroys itself. And having Gollum be the final blow to that destruction, with no intentions of destroying the ring then fortifies this for me. Evil accidentally destroyed itself. And also, again, by having Frodo failing to destroy the ring, making him much more of a gray character represents the corrupt nature of any human heart that may well chose evil even when one had to stray away from it. That even though we want to resist evil, we may fall for it. The story then becomes much more about the human heart and its potential failing in the face of evil, making this much more of a grey story (though an optimistic one) rather than the way you seemed to portray it.
@Lisa Müller I mean the simplified good vs. evil trope is in a lot of stories, even stories where the bad guys are supposedly human beings with backgrounds similar to the good guys. I think it works for this series, because of the existence of the ring. It is so easy to accept the premise of "orcs = bad, other characters = good" but then these supposedly good characters turn out to be the true villains, because they are tempted to evil by the ring. Boromir encapsulates that danger well. He is a well-intentioned warrior from Gondor who is willing to risk his own live to help the good guys save the world from Sauron whose troops threaten to invade his city. Yet, no matter how well-intentioned he is, he is tempted, even from the beginning he thinks "why not use the ring, use the weapon of the enemy to fight back?" Then as the story unfolds we gain more insight about Smeagol, and discover that he's not a monster at all, he's just an ordinary hobbit who was turned into a monster by the ring. The message there is that anyone even those who start out as good are capable of being tempted to evil. That message is reinforced at the end when even Frodo himself, in arms reach of destroying the ring fails in the exact same way the king did all those years ago. Nobody, no matter how good is beyond corruption. The ring was only destroyed by a freak accident. I will say that on reflection, if Bilbo or Frodo didn't take pity on Smeagol and spare his life, it is highly possible that the ring would never have been destroyed. Perhaps the universe was rewarding them for their compassion on Smeagol by fating him to unwittingly save the world by knocking the ring into the fire by mistake.
@Lisa Müller Indeed, while I think Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy doesn't hold a candle to the LotR Trilogy, I will give credit where credit is due. There are a lot of well done scenes especially in Unexpected Journey, like the whole sequence when Bilbo and Smeagol meet for the first time. I think the scene where Bilbo spares him is quite nice. There's no dialogue, Biblo simply draws his sword (while invisible due to the ring) and prepares to kill him, then the camera cuts back and forth between their faces. Smeagol looks so pathetic, weak, and miserable. He may not understand who he really is or how his life came to this, but he's completely alone, no friends, no home, and Bilbo just stole his only treasure. Then, without saying a word, Bilbo sheaths his sword and leaps over him, fleeing the cave. There's no need to kill Smeagol. He can escape without doing so. That's not what most warriors and thieves would do, but it is what HE decided to do, perhaps because he's an unusual hero, just an ordinary hobbit with no killer instinct. As Gandalf said "True courage is not knowing when to take a life, but when it spare it." Later, Frodo says "it's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him we he had the chance," which displeases Gandalf. Yet, in the end Frodo is the only one who truly understands Smeagol, because he is the ring bearer and knows what its like to carry that demonic ring for weeks and months on end. When he looks at Smeagol he just sees his own miserable future. Frodo understands that the Smeagol can't be held responsible for his actions, because he's just a slave to the ring. I also think that on some level Frodo has renewed determination to destroy the ring out of a benevolent wish to free Smeagol from its control. I recall Frodo says "I must destroy it...for both of our sakes."
I think that one of the reasons that this is the opening scene to the Return of the King is to re-establish the final scene of the previous movie. Throughout the entirety of the Two Towers, we are led to believe that Gollum is made up of two 'identities', Smeagol and Gollum. We are also led to believe the Smeagol represents the 'good', 'redeemable' aspects of the character whilst the Gollum side represents the character's 'bad' (some may say 'evil') side, 'cunning' aspects and ultimately his lust for the ring. This notion is entirely shattered in the final scene of the Two Towers (it is somewhat hinted at an earlier scene, I believe, but no where near the extent of this scene), when both Smeagol and Gollum are revealed to have a lust for the ring, both agreeing that they should lead Frodo and Sam to 'the tunnel' and 'kill them both.' Thus, at the start of the next movie, the Deagol/Smeagol scene reminds viewers that Smeagol, as well as Gollum, lust for the ring and are willing to kill for it. Some may argue that 'Smeagol turned into Gollum' when he first saw the ring in this scene, but I believe that (in the books) Smeagol was described to be poor and susceptible to power and does not possess a strong enough will to resist temptation. Therefore, it is perfectly plausible that Smeagol (rather than Gollum) was the one that killed Deagol. Smeagol was obviously blinded by the power of the ring, but it was ultimately Smeagol who killed Deagol as, at this point in time, the discrepancy between Smeagol and Gollum was not yet created (this would not have likely become apparent until many, or perhaps hundreds, of years later). Anyway just wanted to add that. Great video/analysis!
Smeagol and Deagol didn't live in the Shire. They lived in the Gladden Fields along the Anduin River. This was the river where Isildur lost the ring and was killed.
Bilbo i think was stronger then anyone else because he is the only one who willingly gave up the ring to Gandalf. Nobody else ever willingly gave it up, except maybe Sam but he'd only had it a short time
Such a great video! The transformation of Smeagol to Gollum is one of my favorite scenes!! The music, Gollum’s dialogue, the physical changes…you really FEEL the terror of the ring. Did I mention the music? 😅
@doug gilbert It's a movie. Not the Bible. I know Tolkien was a Christian, but it's about World War 1. This is well known. You know it's creepy, your comment. Just bad vibes all around, pal. You deal with your sin. That's not my problem and I don't want to know about your struggle with pornography or hear your rehashed religious diatribe. You'll be blocked immediately.
@@evelynd2783 Isn't it the opposite? Making him fight to the bitter end over the ring make him look more corruptable. Though I guess he receive valerian redemption by being admitted on the ship to the west.
In the Book the Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf, covers Smeagol's expulsion from the proto-hobbit community, from it we learn a few things. 1. The Hobbits are much less affected by the presence of the ring, though when aware of it, they can be deceived by it. Smeagol was already a odd person, and the ring brought out a nasty side to him, and much of his time between being expelled, and after taking the ring, was spent playing meant jokes on others, spying on bathing maids or worse was mentioned.
nice video, of course there have been scholars who feel Smegols fall is a parallel Cain and Abel or that frodo and gollum are 2 sides of a coin and is an example of the many dualistic couplings in the narrative. Its interesting to compare the peter Jackson iteration with the Ralph Bakshi one there. Certainly in terms of interpretations of personality and the psychological beats of the characters but also of what is implicitly and explicitly shown and revealed.
As for the first time Frodo says he feels pity for Gollum, it is the obvious effect of Gandalf's words. But soon after there's that moment when he's confronting Sam for calling Gollum "a stinker" and running him down all the time, while Gollum was desperately trying to catch a fish (the scene after they abandon the idea to enter through the gates). Here's something different, and i always thought it is pretty much a result of him coming to the realization of how similar their story may be, that he may end up just like the other once a hobbit who'd been under the ring's influence far too long..
Someone else may have mentioned this, but for an analysis of the relationship between Gollum and the hobbits of the fellowship, it's important to know that Smeagol/Gollum was *not* from the shire; in fact he had never been there at any point in his life (as I understand it). Smeagol's people, who have ancestry with the shire folk, were from along the river east of the Misty Mountains, whereas the shire is well west of those mountains. I know that Tolkien didn't like his work to be taken as allegory, but I think it was cretinous of him to think that people wouldn't do so (if he did indeed think that). I think it is essentially human to try to apply some aspect of every story one reads/hears/watches to life in an allegorical way. In fact I think this is why we tell stories, from an anthropological point of view. Anyway, great video as always! 💖 -Ava
I believe that in the book, it is explained that hobbits are not affected as severely by the power of the ring. Smeagol isn't a hobbit which is why he succumbed so quickly.
@@bananamanchester4156 I understood that as well. While Smeagol (and his people) are related to hobbits, they are not really hobbits but something a little different.
What Tolkien actually said was: "But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." Tolkien was an English professor, who used the word "allegory" in a much more limited and technical sense than your average RU-vidr. An "allegory" in this technical sense is a story like _The Pilgrim's Progress_ or _The Romance of the Rose._ In those, every single detail of the story world is a stand-in for some particular thing the author is trying to tell you about, and if you think it stands for something else, you are reading the book wrong. That's what Tolkien called the "purposed domination of the author". What you're talking about, where each reader finds something uniquely meaningful to them, is the "freedom of the reader", and Tolkien had no problem with that.
@@danielcopeland3544 IIRC he was once asked if the One Ring was an allegory for nuclear weapons, and in his answer, noted that it could not be an allegory within the structure of the story; as the capture of the "One-Ring-as-nukes" would lead to an arms race as the peoples of Middle Earth scrambled to create their own to maintain some power parity with Gondor.
@@danielcopeland3544 Thank you for your input. I will readily admit I am not even close to being an expert on Tolkien. While I love his works, I certainly haven't read every word. Having ADHD and Dyslexia, it's hard for me to read without getting distracted, so I usually listen to audio books. As such, I do miss things, like the forward, where the quote you pointed out is from. Having now read that and the surrounding text, I see that my thoughts were wrong on Tolkien's assessment of allegory vs applicability. I recant my statement that Tolkien could have been cretinous in this matter. Having now read this part of his forward, I realize I actually agree with his thoughts. Thanks again for pointing this out to me! 💖 -Ava
Amazing breakdown. Only one thing Id like to say but I’m sure its been pointed out: Smeagol isn’t from the Shire, he was from a group of hobbits (or possibly whatever the precursor to hobbits are) that lived in the Vales of Anduin. Other than that small detail I loved how thorough and thoughtful this breakdown was!
Watching this a year later but Tolkien wept while writing about Gollum failing to be redeemed. "Gollum looked at them. 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."
Fantastic breakdown. Hadn't heard of your channel before this, but you've earned a new subscriber from it! I first saw this movie/scene when I was 8yrs old, and to this day, this scene is one of the most memorable/dark sequence I've seen play out on screen. At least, it's the one movie scene that has stuck with me the longest. It horrified me, and you perfectly explained why it did and still does!
Smeagol was not a Shirefolk. He was a member of a small clan of Stoor-halflings that had not migrated west to the Shire. He was from east of the Misty Mountains, I believe somewhere along the Anduin River, perhaps a bit north of Lothlorien. Also, the movies suggest he has committed murder just once, but the book suggests he has committed _countless_ unspeakable deeds, including stealing babies from cradles when their parents are not watching, and eating them.
Smeagol's fate is an excellent warning for (would-be) loners that was ahead of its time, intentional or not. It's not the fact that him becoming a loner is what corrupted him. It's becoming one with nothing other than a corruptive influence to keep him company. In this story it's the one ring...in modern day it can be alcohol (I drink alone), or videogames, or gambling (the lone gamblers that just robotically lose money at slot machines), or even an over-reliance on one single abusive person. It's also why it's essential for me to balance the few that I have with twice as many healthy ones.
I'm looking forward to more videos from you :) I'm amazed that I've not seen anyone else break down this scene and I'm looking forward to what your thoughts are of other sections in the trilogy
I loved the LOTR movies, and I'm happy to watch any videos you do on them. X) It's weird for me to realize it's been several years now since I last watched these movies, and it's hard to pick a favorite scene now. I love that line from when Frodo offers the ring to Lady Galadriel, "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." I love that message, which is said in different ways throughout the story, but the fact she says she'll diminish right before telling Frodo that line, and she seems relieved about it, really stuck with me. I also love all the hobbit antics and the elves and Gandalf. The whole trilogy is wonderful. :)
Gollum's family cursing him and expelling him from their hole is something Gandalf describes to Frodo (in The Shadow of The Past chapter) as having actually happened. Of course this assertion is based on Gollum's own testimony, though Gandalf may also have mystical insight.
Love this and agree with your your analogy of the ring representing addition and or an abusive relationship. It spirals out to friendships family marked by the fellowship and all the death despair and trauma that it leaves in its wake. Would love for more LOTR content, maybe comparing the Hobbits as almost childlike characters dragged into adulthood far quicker than intended but their pure heart and hope (mainly Sam and Pippin) that drags them through. Keep up the great work!
I did a LOTR tour in Wellington, NZ. Me and this guy I met on the tour saw the place where this scene was shot. Legend has it that after filming the murder of Deagol, the grass at that spot died, and has not grown back. There was a creepy vibe there. We then reaenacted the scene with me being Deagol. Fun times
Small nitpick: Smeagol and Deagol are not fishing in the shire, they are in Gladden Fields. A region north of Lorien between the misty mountains and mirkwood where the river Gladden flows into the Anduin. Otherwise a great video that shines light on one of the most tragic characters in literature!
if you thought Smeagol's transformation was bad, there's a deleted scene from the Two Towers where Faramir has a vision of Frodo transforming into a Gollum-like creature.
My favorite scene is the simple exchange between Pippin and Gandalf at the second or third level of Minas Tirith during the siege. The whole “Death is just another path” speech. Moves me to tears every time. I even used it during my eulogy to my grandfather.
I don't necessarily know if I'm conveying this properly, but the death of Deagol is the only death in the films that (to me) feels real. What I mean by this is that the death of Boromir, for instance, feels like a movie death. It ends with Boromir expressing regret for his actions and respect for Aragorn, and dying a noble death that bears meaning. Deagol's death is the only senseless death in the series, and the only one that feels like the death of a person, rather than a character. No swelling music (instead, as you said, thumping, dissonance, and other unpleasant sounds), no weapons, no monologues, and no point. And I'm certain that's deliberate. The saturated, warm color palette of quaint hobbit life juxtaposed with the darkness of the scene also creates a very unsettling experience.
Personally, I see the ring as corrupting and possessive lens of the world around its bearer-what likely drove Smeagol away and into hiding wasn't necessarily (I'd imagine) so much how he was treated, as opposed to how the ring distorted his perception to how he could never be loved. It took a hold of his guilt and amplified it irrationally to where that guilt is the only thing he could ever be hyperfixated on. It took over and addicted him, in a way that brought about isolation (as was its intentions) until the right person came along so it could attempt to go back to its master. Something that I think is strange about one of the changes between Smeagol before and Gollum later on is his tendency to cough and retch, creating a "gollum" sound that he is named after. To me this appears more as a manifestation of the suffering the ring brings on its bearers-it not only causes emotional suffering, but a physical one as well. Similar to how anxiety can have physical manifestations. Truly, it must've been an ugly existence.
It could be said that Gollum lost both fights for the Ring in that he won both of them. I've long considered the somewhat philosophical musing that Deagol got the much better deal in dying at the hands of Smeagol in that first fight, and Frodo definitely won by losing his fight for the Ring at Mount Doom.
To me the ring symbolizes suffering in many forms. The fact that it can usually be found in the low places of the world by someone who is vulnerable, someone who desires to conquer death. The thirst for power bringing out the worst in human behavior.
I have a theory that the ring being addictive is not allegorical, it is cannon. One of the main themes of the book is the corruptive nature of power and the ring is a physical manifestation of the power of Sauron. When someone wears it they can feel that power, which I imagine is very addictive. Plus, the ring forces the wearer to love it, so that the wearer will protect it. I imagine in order to control the emotions of the wearer the ring would have to alter the chemical balance of their brain- much like a drug.
i imagine it might be a symbol for fighting during ww1, i imagine you see what you considered to be 'good people' turn into animals, become utterly broken physically and mentally and come to a point where 'i would never do that for any price' is overwritten by thoughts of family, friends, spouse and/ or children, grief for fallen friends or just simply your own life. the ring is that, it's the price you're not willing to pay to maintain what you love. it finds your weakness and exploits that 'for evil'/ sauron, if it finds your weakness it tickles it until it starts to itch, until it starts to burn etc. i imagine ww1 conditions or any fundamentally challenging ordeal are similar in nature, if your weakness gets tickled enough it starts to itch, it starts to burn.. at some point all have their breaking point, too many prices paid to maintain what they care about.
It would have been excellent if they could have just had Andy Serkis stay in that super creepy practical makeup and suit the entire 3 movies. It would have shown much better how dark and disgusting Gollum really was supposed to be in contrast the large amount of unnecessary comedic relief they had for him with the cgi. But of course that would have been hell for him probably.
one thing i think is important to note is that Deagol grabs the ring after it had fallen and instead of running away turns back to choke Smeagol to death
I think an important, small shot is missing from the analysis and it's Bilbo's short transformation into what is essentially Gollum since it is part of what made Smeagol a little more tragic. I just love how, in The Return of the King, Gollum is simply evil, a twisted, fleshed manifestation of the Ring's power next to Frodo. Sam wanted Frodo to destroy the Ring as much as Sam himself wanted to kill Gollum. The closer the Ring aproached Sauron, Gollum became even more of a villain. Two of my favorite shots: the one where he looks at him/themselves and a saliva drop falls into the lake, the other at the stairs when Sam is shouting at Gollum to go away, the latter backing out but ready to pounce. Also Sam crying after being shunned by Frodo is clearly a reversal of Smeagol thrown away (by the Ring). Regardless of the empathy we can have for Smeagol, there is one moment where it becomes impossible to respect him and wish for his redemption: "Smeagol lied."
I know a Buddhist 'guru', for lack of a better word, a pretty freaky individual if you believe that stuff. Like lives in multiple worlds and shit. I asked her about LOTR, and she said, "LOTR is very heavy. It's very heavy." I interpreted this to mean it is a powerful work of art with respect to its themes, motifs and worldbuilding, I would expect, among other things. She said the archetypes latch onto really deep stuff in humans that can awaken our best (or worst, I might expect) selves.
i felt so sorry for smeagol in the second movie, i was so mad at faramir and frodo for doing that to him.. the third movie opening reminded me that he was a monster, it wasn't just hobbit racism, he killed deagol over a trinket
It also feels to me like a condemnation of our misunderstanding of and stigmas surrounding mental health problems - not to suggest mental health issues = violence or vice versa, but gollum clearly develops mental health problems, through supernatural/magical means. He returns home after a suspicious incident and people start to note a change in his behaviour, as a result he is ostracised. Perhaps the ring could have been destroyed centuries earlier, had he had the kind of friends/connections that the Baggins have. But I think there are also big parallels to the problems of criminal justice systems (and associated stigmas) in the West - the lack of opportunity for real reform and building a new life once they've served their time, for example. No wonder many will turn to substance abuse to survive in jail, (likewise w/substance abuse among the homeless) and they should be given much more support both inside and as part of their parole/return to society.
Well, it certainly is complicated, and their are no easy answers, which is part of the issue. Smeagol DID strangle his best friend and cousin, so he is a murderer, something he himself knows and feels guilty about. Even if the hobbits pardoned him, he would just take the task of condemnation and punishment into his own hands. I don't think it is appropriate for the hobbits to embrace him after what he has done. There has to be some recognition that what he did was a seriously horrible, irreversible act, he has to admit what he did, repent, and attempt to atone for it in some way. How else can anyone trust him ever again? If anything Smeagol needs to do all these things for his own sake, so he can confront his demons and begin to heal his humanity. This is less about the movie and more about the not so perfect real world, but the sad truth is that even if a truly good person is 100% ready to return to society and be a law abiding selfless hard worker, their options will be extremely limited, because they'll have a criminal record. Again, their are no easy answers. If you're hiring an employee it makes sense why you'd want to hire an applicant you can trust, but the unintended result is that the chances of leading a normal life after that are slim. Even if these people are provided for financially, work is a major part of a normal life, and it doesn't take much to destabilize a person, so the prospect of being unemployed indefinitely, of having nothing to aspire to, that's a LOT of stress. If an ex-convict returns to crime, that is their decision, of course, but with all these factors at play, we can't be so blind as to wonder "gee, I can't imagine what would lead them to do this." Ultimately, the best way to avoid ALL of this is not reactive, but PREVENTATIVE. If a person never tries an addictive drug, never commits a crime...if a person is careful to confront and seek to address problems in their lives before they get out of hand, then all of this shit can be avoided.
I love that Lord of the Rings has been around for so long, yet there are more and more ways to interpret it as time goes on. I really like your take here and it's an interesting parallel to think of.
@@averysspookshowspectacular6205 It's called "applicability". Tolkien was actually hugely into the concepts and it is the reason it is so often states that he hates allegory. To Tolkien, the best stories were those which could be seen in many different lights and had many different interpretations. Allegory robs the reader of this chance at interpretation and instead imposes one onto them.
@@themaverick6269 Makes me think of my high school English class where my teacher insisted we find the allegory in Watership Down, despite Richard Adams, like Tolkien, having a distaste for allegory.
@@averysspookshowspectacular6205 Yeah. Way too many people miss the point of these sorts of stories. Sure, explicit allegory can be useful. Even Tolkein likely drew from his experiences as a soldier but he never wanted you to see it that way. He preferred you to make your own connections and find your own subtext. For example, I see the story as being about Freedom vs. Tyranny. Freedom is found in simple living ,amongst simple people, with simple ideas. Tyranny is found in complex living, amongst complex people, with complex ideas. This is partially the reason Men are seen as so corruptible in Middle Earth; Humans are complex beings with a desire for both freedom AND order. This is why the whispers of the Dark are so effective at turning King's into tyrants and so ineffective on creatures such as Hobbits. However, others see it differently and they are ALL as good as the others. The problem is people trying to say, "But it is clearly about THIS" when even the author would likely not agree.
I have never looked at the trilogy like this. And I used to watch it religiously when younger and watch them at least once a year now. But it is a very interesting view point.
Oh I just started watching this video from my recommended tab then finally realised it was you. That's so cool, lots more LOTR videos please. I even went through the strenuous effort of typing this comment to beg it of you 😝
Excellent video! The film is truly a divine gift. Everything came together, everyone played their parts, and there are endless beautiful stories within as a result. Thanks for this video, and I'd love to hear more about the Lord of the Rings from you!! :)
There is one mistake you made: you described Sméagol and Déagol as „Shire-Folk“, even as Hobbits. Which they were not. They lived, as Gandalf explained, at the Shores of the River Anduin. They belonged to a people not unsolidarischere to Hobbits, they may even be the ancestors of some Hobbits (there are different „races“, for need of a better word, differing for instance in height, hair colour, skin colour - but not as divers as black and white, more like white/asian/middle-eastern - and their traditional affiliation with water). Sméagol, however, never lived in the Shire, which, as anyone should even know from the films, is located west of the Misty Mountains, while Sméagol‘s people lived far east of them (as the Anduin flows between Mirkwood and the mountains, meanders south, past Lothlórien, dividing Rohan from the Brown Lands, enters Gondor at the Falls of Rauros, continues through the plaines between the White Montains (where Minas Tirith is located) and the Mountains of Shadow (housing Minas Morgul and marking the border to Mordor), south through the ancient Gondorian capital, Osgiliath, then directing south-east, past the port of Pelargir and entering the Great Sea at it’s Delta, the Mouths of Anduin. It has a length of about 1.3k miles (or over 2.5k km). Where exactly the hobbit-like people lived, is buried deep in Tolkien lore, but iirc they lived somewhere in the Gladden Fields, south of the Carrock and north of Lórien, because it was there where Isildur was killed and Déagol found the Ring centuries later.
For the ones who watched LOTR as teens and adults, it's scary, but you guys have no idea about how SCARY AS HELL it was for the ones who watched it as kids, I'm traumatized.
You are correct. Gollum (born as Smeagol) was Stoor hobbit living near the Anduin. They had a Matriarch ruling over them who happened to be Gollums grandmother. It is she who expells Gollum after the ring starts corrupting and changing him
Gollum's fond memories of his grandmother become tainted after she banished him. In the Hobbit novel, he disassociates from all memories of sunlight, green and family members, resenting them for "excluding" him, but unable to see his obsession with the ring corrupting his personality
great video, would love to watch a series of lotr breakdown vids. i'd also highly recommend reading the books, as they really do give much more insight than the films.
