Probably the most energetic of the press junket interviews for The Return of the King were conducted with actor Andy Serkis, the body, face and voice behind Peter Jackson's Gollum. I'm sure it had something to do with the fact that Serkis had a book coming out at the time, and was gearing up to do his own solo press tour. But I also have no doubt that it had a great deal to do with the fact that Serkis is simply, well... energetic.

The really interesting thing about that session was how Serkis' energy rebounded off the journalists in the room. I think you'll see from the wildly varying tones of the questions posed to Serkis in the excerpts below that the discussion was, at the very least, provocative if not enlightening.

As usual, the questions in the interview are posed by press from a variety of "religious" publications, and Serkis' responses are given verbatim. Where necessary, extraneous, unintelligible or profane remarks are indicated by bracketed ellipses, so: [...].

Tell us—did you feel like you became one person by the end of the movie, that your two personas came together?

I don't think so. I still think that there's—what we wanted to do, really, is keep the character like a psychological thriller, so you never really find out and it's up to the audience, really, to think out their own moral stance on whether they thought he was good or bad, or evil or not. There was never a point—I think up until that very last moment you should be feeling pity for him at the same time as feeling, "This guy's an addict, or that sort of thing. He'll do anything to get what he wants."

In that last conversation with himself, that last one that's the long one, to me it seemed like they were merging into one person. When he was looking into the water, and seeing his reflection—and they were saying the same thing by the end.

Actually, what happened is that, at the end of The Two Towers we see Sméagol—he's this innocent child-like side, and Gollum is the dominant one trying to cajole him into working up this plan—and I think we know that we are going to see at the end of The Two Towers that Sméagol is the one who's been oppressed by the [...] and he becomes—As multiple personalities do, they can invade the other and it becomes kind of fluid like that. Sméagol, the child-like side, becomes quite manipulative, as children can be manipulative; and really, a lot of the exploration into the pyschology of the role is being about—for Fran Walsh who wrote a lot of Gollum, and for myself—is being about children, and at what point they become culpable for their actions. [...] And it's that fight sequence at the beginning between Sméagol and Déagol: one could say, well, he just killed Déagol for the Ring. But actually, if you look closer at that scene, there are two people who are presented with this—they're like two children in a playground, school playground, fighting for a ticket to the World Cup. And they just get so engrossed in what this thing is and what it will mean to them that they forget [...] They stop policing themselves emotionally, and they become caught up in this thing, and before you know it someone's been killed. That's really important for the character, and for that character's journey. And that very much gives emphasis to the power of the Ring.

In that conversation, it seems that Sméagol is trying to pull one over on Gollum. That is fascinating. How do you pull one over on yourself?

You can do that when you're in denial. And that's what we do, I think, all the time. You can do that. You can justify your actions and park away something else that you're feeling at the time, and then bring the thing back. [...] Frodo is carrying something that he knows has had an enormous effect on this character. It's like he looks at Gollum like someone who's suffering from a terrible disease, or an addiction. He knows he going to go that way himself, it's like knowing he's got AIDS or that he's become an addict himself.

When he says to Sam, "I have to believe it's possible to bring him back," you can tell he's saying it about himself.

Exactly. He knows he got [...] He's learning from him. He feels pity for him because he knows he's going that way. And also he knows—Gandalf has said to him—Gollum will play an important part in the fate of the Ring.

It seems that many people will see this as a black-and-white film. However, it seems that for many of the characters, they're fighting with themselves. And I see that particularly with your character. No one is purely good or bad.

I'm glad you asked this. All the characters have that struggle. Even Aragorn, even someone as pure and as heroic as Aragorn, still knows he can't go near the Ring. That sense of him being a warrior, but he's of a bloodline that has let down—you know, his ancestors have let down this thing, and have failed. And Gollum—Gollum/Sméagol—the power of the Ring, he knows that he can't ever deal with it, and Gandalf says about Gollum, Gandalf says about the Ring that it affects you according to your moral stature. And we know, early on we see in the third film, Sméagol can't cope with the burden and the responsibility of this Ring. On the one hand, he is addicted to it, he's craving and he's... He loves and hates it. There's the line about him loving it and hating it as he loves and hates himself. And that's really the essential thing about the character and what I'm playing.

How do address the problem of moral stature? If Gollum's initial problem is weak moral stature, there's a lot of us that can associate with that. What's the hope for that?

Well, I think that's why it becomes a story about courage. I think that's why over the last year I've had an amazing response to the character, because people on the whole have responded to his flaws. Gollum is a flawed character. We're not heroes. We aren't—though we do aspire to be Aragorn, or to have... You know, even Frodo gives out at the end. Even Frodo, who has been so strong and struggled through all of that. He gets to the moment of giving up this thing of power, this Ring of Power, and he can't do that. Had not Gollum come along...

When I watch this Gollum character, I look at him as demonic. It's not someone I'd want to be around. Am I wrong on this? Do you not picture him as demonic?

No, I think he's really screwed up. I think you feel a lot of sympathy for him. He might be someone, you know, who you really don't like but you feel sorry for, you know. I mean, it's like... We all know people that you really can't bear, you don't want to be around them, they make your day bad. But you feel sorry for them because you know they can't help themselves.

One of the first things I asked a friend who had read all the books was, "Tell me that Gollum turns back into a man." And he says, "Oooh, girl—no." I wonder why Tolkien made that decision not to let him come full circle.

It's more potent that way. And it really comes out about the Ring. He's inextricably linked to it, and it's got him. And there's no going back. You can never go home. And in a sense his journey is—he takes the Ring to destruction. Without Gollum, the Ring would still be around. Because, you know, Frodo might not have...

Which brings up the question, "Who destroys the Ring?"

Well, it's a combination of everybody. It's taken Aragorn, and Gimli and Legolas, and all those people.

Jeffrey Overstreet, at Looking Closer, offers a transcript from another interview with Serkis, conducted on the same day.