by MATTHEW HAYS

The third and final chapter in Peter Jackson's big-screen adaptation of JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy has arrived, and undoubtedly one of the most eagerly anticipated aspects of the film is Gollum. Of course, the character held an extremely significant place in the books, as one of the most morally conflicted beings in Middle Earth. But Gollum has taken on new dimensions, thanks to filmmaker Jackson and Brit actor Andy Serkis, whose meticulous work with CG wizards has led to a stunningly successful fusion of digital effects, puppetry and vomiting-cat impersonations. Serkis paused for a phone interview with the Mirror to explain the genius behind Gollum, arguably the most memorable character in the trilogy.

Mirror: How did you respond when you first learned you had landed the role of Gollum?

Andy Serkis: When I first landed the role I was very scared about the undertaking. There hadn't been a case of a CGI character interacting with live-action characters in a film before. It hadn't worked. Gollum is this fantastic creation of literature. I thought, "How are we going to make this work?" I fully trusted that Pete [Jackson] could do this, but the working methodology hadn't been established. I didn't know how we were going to do it. And I was worried about the fans. Gollum played such a crucial role in the films - if he had failed it would have had a huge impact on the movie. So it was a scary undertaking, yeah.

The Tolkien bible

M: Were you a big Tolkien fan?

AS: No, I had read The Hobbit as a kid, and hadn't read the other books until I was to audition for the film. Then I started reading them. But after getting the films, the books have been like a bible ever since.

M: What's the story I read about a cat throwing up being a major influence in terms of your development of Gollum?

AS: (Laughs) As an actor I had to find a way into Gollum. Initially, I was told it was going to be a voiceover for an animated character. It wasn't until I met Peter and he told me the way in which he wanted an actor to actually embody Gollum's physicality, that then it started to come together. It wasn't just plopping your voice on top of the character. I started trying to find this psychological route into the character; I landed on this idea of Gollum carrying his emotional pain in his throat. And that's why he speaks as he does. The guilt associated with killing his cousin for the ring, and this moment of time sort of trapped in his throat.

But the idea of the cat was the physical way into this role. You know, cats lick their bodies to get rid of excess fur, and then it gets rolled up into a gooey ball in the back of their throats. And then they're sick and kind of throw it up (makes vomiting noise). So that's sort of how I got the Gollum voice (starts to make Gollum voice): "Gollum! Gollum!" Just like that.

M: With this bizarre combination of CGI and your voice and actions, this has got to feel so different from a regular film role…

AS: The toughest thing was finding a physicality, a psychology, a voice, for the character. The good thing was being able to play up against the other characters in a scene, which most CG characters hadn't been able to do before. So the actual dynamics, the reason the drama works, is because me and Elijah [Wood] and Sean [Astin] got to act together. During principal photography I crawled around as Gollum so there was no difference there. The difference came later when I had to wear a motion-capture suit, it captured my movement, and then that was carried through to the computer. At that point you became more like a puppeteer. So in effect, as an actor you have to have a third eye on your performance, you're choreographing yourself back into a scene, watching yourself, almost like a video game. That was very challenging early on, but you get used to it really.

And then the final stage was working with the animators on an unprecedented level. They designed Gollum's face so that all the facial muscles worked exactly like mine do. Gollum might be saying one thing but meaning something else. They would watch my performance on screen and then we would have this unprecedented level of collaboration in terms of how Gollum would end up on screen.

An Oscar for Gollum?

M: The campaign that New Line went on - in terms of the Oscar worthiness of Gollum - when I first heard it I kind of cringed. But clearly, what you've done goes far beyond simply offering up a voice for an animated character…

AS: Well, it is an interesting debate. It's one I'm glad has arisen. Because a character hasn't been done this way before, there's no precedent. There are two ways of looking at it: there is a case for an acting award, because Gollum does come originally from an actor's performance. The arc that he experiences is a result of everything I've done. That takes explaining, though, and you'd have to go behind the scenes and witness everything I've done, as well as how I collaborated with the technicians. The other thing is, where does an actor's performance begin and where does an actor's performance end? That's why the John Hurt Elephant Man analogy came in. Despite all that make-up he wore, he was nominated for an Oscar. You couldn't recognize him at all, he was covered by an enormous amount of prosthetics that were created by artists. So that was part of the equation.

In the future there are going to be far more virtual roles that are driven by actor's performances. There have already been some changes in awards to recognize Gollum, in particular the MTV movie awards. So the debate has made a considerable difference. It's really a specific genre of acting. The history of awards has evolved. Special effects Oscars didn't exist until about 25 years ago or so.

M: Clearly, your bringing Gollum to life has been very successful overall, with fans really taking to the work you've done. Has anyone taken umbrage with it?

AS: On the Internet I've read a couple of people's complaints. We've chosen to amplify certain things in his personality. I think some people feel he should be much more malevolent and dark and evil, that one shouldn't empathize with him as much as we have done. But that was a character decision - we all decided that it was important for the audience to connect with him and feel empathy for him, that he was once a hobbit and is now an addict. For the dramatic function of the character, what would you do if you had the ring? If he was a malevolent character from the beginning, I don't think it would have worked. I think it makes more sense this way.

M: Your Gollum has evoked comparisons to Chucky, E.T. and Yoda. Any models you were looking at?

AS: Actually, you know I did look at a lot of paintings for inspiration. I looked at the work of Francis Bacon, Otto Dix and a lot of German expressionist paintings and Leonardo da Vinci. And then I looked at the original drawings from the book. Not from other iconic movie characters though, no.

M: Some people on the Internet have suggested Gollum is gay. Did you think of that at all?

AS: (Laughs) No, I can't say I ever went down that route with him. But he's an extraordinary creature, and I think you can project many things onto him as a result. He's a blank canvas in many respects.

M: Any chance of a mud wrestling match between Gollum and Yoda?

AS: Oh I'd love to do that! Sure!

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is now playing

>> Movie Listings