K Garcia (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} kevingarcia) wrote,@ 2007-11-17 02:32:00 |
|
The epic hero in modern cinema: Beowulf
Beowulf ended a few hours ago... as the credits began to roll I thought, "uh... sure, that was alright."
Not the reaction an action movie or cinematic epic might want - and indeed, most in the audience seemed mildly amused at best, or downright bored at worst. That isn't to say I was the only one to like it, certainly several did, but this won't be the breakaway smash that 300 was. This is made all the more frustrating as recent commercials have portrayed "Beowulf" as "300" with more color - complete with "I am Beowulf" seemingly in homage or parody to the iconic "This is Sparta" line.
The movie itself was good... compared to other modern cinematic epics it is miles beyond recent Star Wars efforts but no where near Lord of the Rings. The writing was amazing, the directing was very good... even the voice and motion-capture acting was excellent.... but the technology did not match the skill.
As with the similarly filmed Polar Express, the characters in this film often seemed vacant and lifeless... interestingly the only times I felt an emotional connection with the characters were when they experienced great emotions (anger, love, fear)... but all other times, whether in conversation or battle... there seemed to be no connection whatsoever. What the Incredibles did so well with their emotionally powerful but unrealistic animation, Beowulf failed to do with it's realistic design and detached feeling.
In terms of pacing, the movie seemed a bit slow at times, yet skipped parts I'd love to have seen... what's most interesting to me however, as a student of epic mythology, was how closely the film followed the poem.
During the first half of the movie, the vast majority of the scenes and character interactions came directly from the original epic... yet other scenes were as far from the original as could be imagined. I don't mind many of the changes, most I would have made myself, but I noticed most of the audience responded best to the new scenes, so I wonder if they might have been better off either changing the entire film to appeal to the masses, or sticking closer to the story to appeal to the hardcore.
First, there's the depiction of Beowulf himself. As a young Geat, he's roughly 20 to 30 years old at his introduction and ages a good 30 to 50 years as the film progresses. This matches along with either version, though I always imagined a warrior like himself to have a lot more hair, both on his body and in a full beard.
Grendel matches my expectations best, not presented as a Golem-like creature or green-skinned demon, but as a 15-foot-tall undead monstrosity. This matches the draugr-like beast of my imagination. Grendel, in the story, seems very much like the unhallowed dead warriors who walked the earth as draugrs in other Germanic epics, so despite his Biblical connections in the existing text, I tied him more to the Germanic tradition.
Other characters have varying levels of connection to their literary counterparts, with the biggest differences coming from Grendel's Mother, Wiglaf and the Dragon, but more on that in a moment.
Story-wise, it is extremely close.
As with the epic poem, the film opens with the celebrations in Hrothgar's great hall, Heorot, and the sounds that drive Grendel to violence:
ða se ellengæst earfoðlice
þrage geþolode, se þe in þystrum bad,
þæt he dogora gehwam dream gehyrde
hludne in healle; þær wæs hearpan sweg,
swutol sang scopes.
"Envious and angry, the evil spirit endured the sounds of revelry in his dark home, each day he heard them from the hall." (liberally translated there)
Grendel attacks, leaving the king and others to mourn the dead. Interestingly, when he returns home to mother (someone not mentioned until after his death in the poem), Grendel seems to speak Old (or Middle) English. That might have been my imagination, but if that's what they were going for, it was a nice touch.
True to the story, Beowulf doesn't make his dramatic sea entrance until well after the violence has ended. It's implied in the film that many have tried and failed to stop Grendel, often staying in the hall before their death, but it's not clear how much time has past. It's possible the many years Grendel terrorized the hall in the poem apply to the film as well.
Unferth, true to form, challenges Beowulf's credibility...
Eart þu se Beowulf, se þe wið Brecan wunne,
on sidne sæ ymb sund flite,
ðær git for wlence wada cunnedon
ond for dolgilpe on deop wæter
aldrum neþdon?
"Aren't you Beowulf, who challenged Breca out of pride and senselessly risked both your lives in the deep waters?"
In the story, Beowulf describes the monsters he fought in the ocean, in the film we get to see them in action! (Along with a fun ending to the story)
Unferth's change of heart and family sword (Hrunting) are mentioned, but not fully explained. Naegling and the Giant's Blade are completely written out.
The film stays true though as it mentions the debt Beowulf's father Edgetho owed to Hrothgar and the bravery (or brashness) Beowulf showed by fighting Grendel unarmed (and unarmored). This last bit is (seemingly) played for laughs, but still good.
With Grendel's mother, the story starts to diverge. This is a divergence I fully agree with though. I always thought to myself, if I were to rewrite Beowulf for a modern audience I would make Grendel's Mother much more significant and the Dragon to her family. Like the film, I like the idea that the Dragon could be her son. Interestingly, last year's Beowulf & Grendel (staring Gerard Butler of "300") implied it might be Grendel's son that grows up to be a "dragon" of sorts to kill Beowulf.
Strangely, the film also adds action scenese in places where a smaller fight existed by ignores some of the most detailed fights. The swift and cunning Grendel's mother of the poem does all of her killing off-screne in the film and the four-hour dive and water-beast fight that Beowulf endures on the way to Grendel's Mother is skipped over in the film.
These changes appealed to most of the audience, and I'm fine with adapting a story for a different medium or audience, but by leaving so much of the first half of the epic intact, the filmmakers may have alienated that audience, and by changing so much of the second half, they may have upset literary purists.
My chief complaint is the end of the story.
The epic included a great moral. The aged and battle-worn King Beowulf went for one last battle against a treasure-hording Dragon, but when it came to the final battle, all of his strong, young warriors abandoned him except for the extremely youthful Wiglaf. Because his trust had been betrayed by the cowardice of the newer generation, Beowulf was left at the mercy of the beast. He won the battle, but lost his life. This symbolically ended the age of heroes. Beowulf was the last of men who would stand up in the face of certain death in the name of honor, there would never again be individuals so brave.
In the film, Beowulf's army is off-handedly given a task to do while he and the very old Wiglaf go off to face the Dragon. By his own choice, Beowulf faces the Dragon alone and ultimately dies while defeating it (a task that it seems he alone could accomplish). It made for the best action sequence of the film, but defeated the purpose of his tragic death in the original epic. The new ending is given a new tragic relevance with the changes in plot that involve Grendel's mother, but I think the original ending could have been more preserved while connecting with the new story.
As previously mentioned, there are several similarities to the recent independent film Beowulf & Grendel. As a high school teacher, and a fan of epic legends, I'm happy to see modern retellings of these classics, unfortunately it's hard to know which movies are appropriate for students, even seniors.
For those who aren't teachers, yes I know, students have seen violence, nudity and cussing before, and besides, 16 to 18-year-olds shouldn't have any problem getting into an R-rated movie, but that doesn't mean we can easily show such films in school. Apocalypto and 300 are great historical dramas with enough comedy and action to appeal to modern youth, but there is just too much in the way of nudity and sexuality (particularly in rape scenes) for me to justify bringing these films into a school.
"Beowulf" straddles this edge with it's PG-13 rating, but has a lot of sexual innuendo and a very extended scene with a practically naked digital representation of Angelina Jolie. That bit is the only part that really concerns me. You don't technically see a nipple, but it comes pretty darn close. It would depend on the class I guess, as some students can't handle anything risque without resorting to giggling and hooting.
"Beowulf & Grendel" on the other hand straddles the edge of the R-rating, as it has a lot less gore and fewer sexually explicit scenes, but it does have a strong cuss word every few seconds and near the end there is a rape scene (even if the victim later defends and protects her attacker, casting doubt on the nature of their initial encounter). Even without nudity, I would avoid showing the latter scene, but it fits in its own chapter, so it can be skipped thanks to the wonder of DVD technology. (Chapter 17, about the 1:20 mark. I'd just skip the whole chapter, even if you decided the excessive cussing wasn't an issue)
Storywise, Beowulf & Grendel is also a great departure from the story, perhaps moreso. More characters are included (including Breca, who's role is expanded beyond swimming) and new ideas are introduced (Grendel's father and son both play major roles). This film is more about the Frankenstein ideal of who is truly human and who is monster, and a bit long for many audiences, even if the movie ends shortly after Grendel's death.
Another connection between the films lies in the treatment of Christianity. The original epic is only tenuously Christian, as the characters are described in terms of Christian theology but clearly intended as pagan heroes and villains. As modern stories, the films include cursing and pissing (literally) heroes who know about this "new faith" but don't know whether the "Roman God" is more or less important than Odin. Both films include slightly unpleasant Christian leaders and very uninterested thanes.
Like John Gardner's classic Grendel, both films present the main monster as a mentally and socially deficient beast, not fully aware of his own actions. An interesting and modern interpretation that allows audiences to sympathize with the creature more than the boastful hero at times. Coincidentally, in both films, Hrothgar blames himself (rightly) for Grendel's rampages.
Despite the fact that I think both Beowulf films were improperly paced (one too short yet too slowly paced, the other too long yet too modern), I do believe the ancient epic has a place in modern cinema.
I think Beowulf could work well as two or three movies, focusing each part on a key battle, and padding out the films with characterization, humor, and more action.
This would allow for major life changes like the aging and kingship of Beowulf to be treated with more attention and care.
Then again, I think Gilgamesh or the Popul Voh could make great movie magic, so what do I know?
Beowulf ended a few hours ago... as the credits began to roll I thought, "uh... sure, that was alright."
Not the reaction an action movie or cinematic epic might want - and indeed, most in the audience seemed mildly amused at best, or downright bored at worst. That isn't to say I was the only one to like it, certainly several did, but this won't be the breakaway smash that 300 was. This is made all the more frustrating as recent commercials have portrayed "Beowulf" as "300" with more color - complete with "I am Beowulf" seemingly in homage or parody to the iconic "This is Sparta" line.
The movie itself was good... compared to other modern cinematic epics it is miles beyond recent Star Wars efforts but no where near Lord of the Rings. The writing was amazing, the directing was very good... even the voice and motion-capture acting was excellent.... but the technology did not match the skill.
As with the similarly filmed Polar Express, the characters in this film often seemed vacant and lifeless... interestingly the only times I felt an emotional connection with the characters were when they experienced great emotions (anger, love, fear)... but all other times, whether in conversation or battle... there seemed to be no connection whatsoever. What the Incredibles did so well with their emotionally powerful but unrealistic animation, Beowulf failed to do with it's realistic design and detached feeling.
In terms of pacing, the movie seemed a bit slow at times, yet skipped parts I'd love to have seen... what's most interesting to me however, as a student of epic mythology, was how closely the film followed the poem.
During the first half of the movie, the vast majority of the scenes and character interactions came directly from the original epic... yet other scenes were as far from the original as could be imagined. I don't mind many of the changes, most I would have made myself, but I noticed most of the audience responded best to the new scenes, so I wonder if they might have been better off either changing the entire film to appeal to the masses, or sticking closer to the story to appeal to the hardcore.
First, there's the depiction of Beowulf himself. As a young Geat, he's roughly 20 to 30 years old at his introduction and ages a good 30 to 50 years as the film progresses. This matches along with either version, though I always imagined a warrior like himself to have a lot more hair, both on his body and in a full beard.
Grendel matches my expectations best, not presented as a Golem-like creature or green-skinned demon, but as a 15-foot-tall undead monstrosity. This matches the draugr-like beast of my imagination. Grendel, in the story, seems very much like the unhallowed dead warriors who walked the earth as draugrs in other Germanic epics, so despite his Biblical connections in the existing text, I tied him more to the Germanic tradition.
Other characters have varying levels of connection to their literary counterparts, with the biggest differences coming from Grendel's Mother, Wiglaf and the Dragon, but more on that in a moment.
Story-wise, it is extremely close.
As with the epic poem, the film opens with the celebrations in Hrothgar's great hall, Heorot, and the sounds that drive Grendel to violence:
ða se ellengæst earfoðlice
þrage geþolode, se þe in þystrum bad,
þæt he dogora gehwam dream gehyrde
hludne in healle; þær wæs hearpan sweg,
swutol sang scopes.
"Envious and angry, the evil spirit endured the sounds of revelry in his dark home, each day he heard them from the hall." (liberally translated there)
Grendel attacks, leaving the king and others to mourn the dead. Interestingly, when he returns home to mother (someone not mentioned until after his death in the poem), Grendel seems to speak Old (or Middle) English. That might have been my imagination, but if that's what they were going for, it was a nice touch.
True to the story, Beowulf doesn't make his dramatic sea entrance until well after the violence has ended. It's implied in the film that many have tried and failed to stop Grendel, often staying in the hall before their death, but it's not clear how much time has past. It's possible the many years Grendel terrorized the hall in the poem apply to the film as well.
Unferth, true to form, challenges Beowulf's credibility...
Eart þu se Beowulf, se þe wið Brecan wunne,
on sidne sæ ymb sund flite,
ðær git for wlence wada cunnedon
ond for dolgilpe on deop wæter
aldrum neþdon?
"Aren't you Beowulf, who challenged Breca out of pride and senselessly risked both your lives in the deep waters?"
In the story, Beowulf describes the monsters he fought in the ocean, in the film we get to see them in action! (Along with a fun ending to the story)
Unferth's change of heart and family sword (Hrunting) are mentioned, but not fully explained. Naegling and the Giant's Blade are completely written out.
The film stays true though as it mentions the debt Beowulf's father Edgetho owed to Hrothgar and the bravery (or brashness) Beowulf showed by fighting Grendel unarmed (and unarmored). This last bit is (seemingly) played for laughs, but still good.
With Grendel's mother, the story starts to diverge. This is a divergence I fully agree with though. I always thought to myself, if I were to rewrite Beowulf for a modern audience I would make Grendel's Mother much more significant and the Dragon to her family. Like the film, I like the idea that the Dragon could be her son. Interestingly, last year's Beowulf & Grendel (staring Gerard Butler of "300") implied it might be Grendel's son that grows up to be a "dragon" of sorts to kill Beowulf.
Strangely, the film also adds action scenese in places where a smaller fight existed by ignores some of the most detailed fights. The swift and cunning Grendel's mother of the poem does all of her killing off-screne in the film and the four-hour dive and water-beast fight that Beowulf endures on the way to Grendel's Mother is skipped over in the film.
These changes appealed to most of the audience, and I'm fine with adapting a story for a different medium or audience, but by leaving so much of the first half of the epic intact, the filmmakers may have alienated that audience, and by changing so much of the second half, they may have upset literary purists.
My chief complaint is the end of the story.
The epic included a great moral. The aged and battle-worn King Beowulf went for one last battle against a treasure-hording Dragon, but when it came to the final battle, all of his strong, young warriors abandoned him except for the extremely youthful Wiglaf. Because his trust had been betrayed by the cowardice of the newer generation, Beowulf was left at the mercy of the beast. He won the battle, but lost his life. This symbolically ended the age of heroes. Beowulf was the last of men who would stand up in the face of certain death in the name of honor, there would never again be individuals so brave.
In the film, Beowulf's army is off-handedly given a task to do while he and the very old Wiglaf go off to face the Dragon. By his own choice, Beowulf faces the Dragon alone and ultimately dies while defeating it (a task that it seems he alone could accomplish). It made for the best action sequence of the film, but defeated the purpose of his tragic death in the original epic. The new ending is given a new tragic relevance with the changes in plot that involve Grendel's mother, but I think the original ending could have been more preserved while connecting with the new story.
As previously mentioned, there are several similarities to the recent independent film Beowulf & Grendel. As a high school teacher, and a fan of epic legends, I'm happy to see modern retellings of these classics, unfortunately it's hard to know which movies are appropriate for students, even seniors.
For those who aren't teachers, yes I know, students have seen violence, nudity and cussing before, and besides, 16 to 18-year-olds shouldn't have any problem getting into an R-rated movie, but that doesn't mean we can easily show such films in school. Apocalypto and 300 are great historical dramas with enough comedy and action to appeal to modern youth, but there is just too much in the way of nudity and sexuality (particularly in rape scenes) for me to justify bringing these films into a school.
"Beowulf" straddles this edge with it's PG-13 rating, but has a lot of sexual innuendo and a very extended scene with a practically naked digital representation of Angelina Jolie. That bit is the only part that really concerns me. You don't technically see a nipple, but it comes pretty darn close. It would depend on the class I guess, as some students can't handle anything risque without resorting to giggling and hooting.
"Beowulf & Grendel" on the other hand straddles the edge of the R-rating, as it has a lot less gore and fewer sexually explicit scenes, but it does have a strong cuss word every few seconds and near the end there is a rape scene (even if the victim later defends and protects her attacker, casting doubt on the nature of their initial encounter). Even without nudity, I would avoid showing the latter scene, but it fits in its own chapter, so it can be skipped thanks to the wonder of DVD technology. (Chapter 17, about the 1:20 mark. I'd just skip the whole chapter, even if you decided the excessive cussing wasn't an issue)
Storywise, Beowulf & Grendel is also a great departure from the story, perhaps moreso. More characters are included (including Breca, who's role is expanded beyond swimming) and new ideas are introduced (Grendel's father and son both play major roles). This film is more about the Frankenstein ideal of who is truly human and who is monster, and a bit long for many audiences, even if the movie ends shortly after Grendel's death.
Another connection between the films lies in the treatment of Christianity. The original epic is only tenuously Christian, as the characters are described in terms of Christian theology but clearly intended as pagan heroes and villains. As modern stories, the films include cursing and pissing (literally) heroes who know about this "new faith" but don't know whether the "Roman God" is more or less important than Odin. Both films include slightly unpleasant Christian leaders and very uninterested thanes.
Like John Gardner's classic Grendel, both films present the main monster as a mentally and socially deficient beast, not fully aware of his own actions. An interesting and modern interpretation that allows audiences to sympathize with the creature more than the boastful hero at times. Coincidentally, in both films, Hrothgar blames himself (rightly) for Grendel's rampages.
Despite the fact that I think both Beowulf films were improperly paced (one too short yet too slowly paced, the other too long yet too modern), I do believe the ancient epic has a place in modern cinema.
I think Beowulf could work well as two or three movies, focusing each part on a key battle, and padding out the films with characterization, humor, and more action.
This would allow for major life changes like the aging and kingship of Beowulf to be treated with more attention and care.
Then again, I think Gilgamesh or the Popul Voh could make great movie magic, so what do I know?
