![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadydaveSo, I saw Beowulf last night. I was really disappointed.
It's not like I expected it to be TOTALLY awesome, because when it comes to adapting epics, you're far more likely to end up with Troy than LOTR. But even Troy managed to take the major themes of "The Iliad" and make something out of them, whereas Beowulf... didn't. Even if everything else sucked, I expected that I would at least like the script, since it was co-written by Neil Gaiman. HOW WRONG I WAS.
First of all, I was unhappy with how the Danes were portrayed. I doubt anyone will hold you to strict historical accuracy in a movie that mainly focuses on killing scary monsters, but they could at least have tried to show the side of Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon culture that, you know, didn't SUCK OUT LOUD. The entire beginning of the movie basically cast the Gardenas (heh, that looks like Gardenias) as that really sketchy frat with the creepy parties that people only want to go to when they want free low-quality beer, which at least explains why Hrothgar wasn't wearing anything but a crap toga. This of course makes Grendel the poor sap who lives next door and just wants to sleep so he can take an exam at 8:00 the next morning. You can feel a lot of sympathy for Grendel in the poem, but I'm fairly certain you shouldn't *actually* be rooting for him to kill everyone.
Yes, the Anglo-Saxons were a warrior culture (the Danes aren't actually A-S, but that's how their society is portrayed in the poem, and they were pretty similar anyway), and wild parties were a large component of that culture, but that's not the sum and total of their existence. They wrote EMO POETRY, for God's sake. They were all about nostalgia and the angst of modern living, but do we get any indication that anyone in the movie (besides the main characters) has two brain cells to rub together to contemplate anything deeper than the horror of running out of ale? Not so much. Instead, we get a one-dimensional portrayal of a brutish party mob only slightly more sophisticated and historical than, say, Viking Women vs. the Sea Serpent. You really wonder why anyone would bother saving them.
Then, of course, there's the whole religion issue, or rather, the lack of one. Like a lot of A-S poetry, Beowulf has this weird tension between the pagan concept of Fate and a Christian ethos, which is pretty cool and interesting to consider. Even if you don't exactly want to focus on religion in your action/adventure movie, there are still ways to address it briefly that can really add something to the subtext. Unfortunately, having someone go "OH NOES THE AGE OF HEROES IS OVER CUZ CHRISTIANITY HATES MY PAGAN PRIDE AND WHINGY MARTYRS HAVE WON THE DAY" is not one of these, especially because Beowulf was probably written down BY A FRIGGIN' MONK and the reason you had this tension 5 CENTURIES LATER is because the Anglo-Saxons liked their whingy martyrs AND their prideful heroes. There's not really a whole lot else to say, though, because aside from a few references to Odin and Jesus, "whingy martyrs" is the sum total of commentary we get on that driving force of culture. No thought needed here! Move along.
My main problem, though, is that someone apparently thought the best way to patch the admittedly disparate parts of Beowulf together would be to wrap it up in some Faustian deal with Grendel's mom, where banging her gets you eternal fame and glory and some really fugly offspring. As I noted to Natasha, this is kind of like retelling the life of the Buddha in Christian allegory: the two concepts are so thematically different there's no way to reconcile them. Going out and killing things and then bragging about it for 20 pages was the A-S ideal for heroes, but the main point was they had to do something first to brag about it. It's not just having glory, it's earning it, too.
Now, it would kind of make sense if Beowulf's deal with Grendel's mom happened at the beginning of the movie, before he's earned much of a name for himself (they kind of imply that he's not all that and a bag of potato chips at heroing by including the story about the swimming match and having it look like he's making stuff up about sea monsters because he was really making out with a mermaid, which, by the way, WTF), because then you could have his whole life be a lie which he then redeems by kicking Trogdor's butt, and he learns a valuable lesson about pride and earning glory and blah blah blah before dying heroically.
Instead, he makes his deal with Grendel's mom AFTER he has defeated Grendel. Even if he didn't *technically* rip Grendel's arm off, it is still PRETTY DAMN IMPRESSIVE that he killed the enormously strong psycho who had supernatural epilectic-hating abilities and also was utterly terrifying-looking, using only NAKED KUNG FU. He's saved the kingdom, gotten loads of treasure, and had his trophy arm nailed ABOVE THE DOOR. No one's going to forget him anytime soon, and he's proved he actually has hero cred and not just mad PR skillz. So it doesn't even make sense that he would take the offer, because he's already achieved some of what she's offering, all on his own. But in order to shove the story into its new box, they have to run around changing things, so Beowulf sleeps with the kin of Cain (?!), Hrothgar commits suicide (?!) and Beowulf becomes king of the Gardenas (?!) by chance (OR BY EVIL DUN DUN DUN!!!!!) instead of, you know, GOING BACK TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND BECOMING KING OF HIS OWN PEOPLE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN AWESOMENESS. Apparently he just doesn't want an awesome reputation, but actual power or wealth or whatever, without working for it. Except that then this doesn't fit in with what we see at the beginning of the movie, where he just wants to make a name for himself! Either the screenwriters were confused or they forgot to explain something. Either way,
it's not just extrapolating from source material if you have to UTTERLY CHANGE YOUR HERO'S MOTIVATIONS WILLY NILLY.
As for the "moral of the story" in the epic versus the movie, it's the difference between " 'Yay, pride is good and I am awesome!' Discuss." and "OH NOES PRIDE IS THE RADISH MALORUM," which frankly, I've heard SEVENTY BILLION TIMES because it is the default commentary of anyone remotely affected by a Western viewpoint in the last, uh, 2500 years or so. Hubris was not a problem for the Anglo-Saxons, it was a way of life. If you want to have pride as your fatal flaw, Beowulf is the wrong epic. Go make a movie version of The Odyssey or The Iliad (...again). But they squished Beowulf into the hubris box by having pride be his downfall. Slaying Trogdor isn't his triumphant death, as in the poem, it's now his payment for his sins, but the filmmakers don't seem to get that there's supposed to be a distinction now that they've dicked around with the source material.
Plus, did we really have to have a sexy woman tempt a man into falling from grace? PLEASE. One of the cool things about Grendel's mom is that though she's a societal outcast and a monster, she's still a mother, and that just makes her all the more terrifying because Beowulf has provoked a natural reaction from someone with supernatural abilities. But NO, let's make it all about sex and Beowulf's fall. Downplay the maternal instinct and amp up the terrifying power of the sexual woman leading honorable(ish) men astray. Instead of getting the story of Beowulf, you get the story of Beowulf rehashed as a tired morality tale which not only doesn't even make a whole lot of sense, but also doesn't even manage to say anything new or exciting about Beowulf OR morality. I really expected more from something Neil Gaiman seemed so proud of.
Other miscellaneous things that annoy me:
- Did they really have to make Unferth such a little bitch? He has the distinction of being the only person unimpressed by Beowulf, which I would think would serve a pretty important dramatic function, but instead we are presented with Drunky McCowardpants who BEATS UP A CRIPPLED GUY REPEATEDLY. I bet some of the restricted scenes consist of him eating babies while lighting kittens on fire. He definitely has a somewhat dodgy rep in the poem, but COME ON.
- Scops. It's pronounced "shops", not "skops", which somebody should know since IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU LEARN ABOUT OLD ENGLISH. And somebody HAD to learn something about Old English because that was, in fact, what Grendel was speaking FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE. BULLSCITE.
- I will give them "Geets" instead of "Yats" for Geats, though, because it's never transliterated.
- Grendel was really disgusting. Apparently "shadow-walker" means "corpsified and gross".
- Grendel's mom's little high heels were UTTERLY RETARDED.
- If Beowulf means "bear", why did he have a wolf as his crest?
- Wealhtheow's songs were kind of lame.
- Ambiguous ending, WHATEVER.
Stuff that I liked:
- Beowulf and I have the same boots!
- The fight scene with Trogdor was pretty damn cool. Especially where he cut off his own arm, which is TOTALLY HARD CORE.
- The animation for the most part was pretty awesome,
- Grendel spoke in Old English! And I understood what he said!
- In a related note, the scop was totally reciting some lines from the poem.
Anyways, complaining about the movie led me to look stuff up, so here is part of "The Wanderer," translated by Jonathan A. Glenn. The rest of the translation is here, and the original here. This is pretty accurate, if I recall correctly -- most of the time you just have to establish word order, which wasn't necessary in Old English, or illuminate a particularly obscure compound. I've always liked this poem.
So must I my heart --
often wretched with cares, deprived of homeland,
far from kin -- fasten with fetters,
since long ago earth covered
my lord in darkness, and I, wretched,
thence, mad and desolate as winter,
over the wave's binding sought, hall-dreary,
a giver of treasure, where far or near
I might find one who in mead-hall
might accept my affection, or on me, friendless,
might wish consolation, offer me joy.
He knows who tries it how cruel is sorrow,
a bitter companion, to the one who has few
concealers of secrets, beloved friends.
The exile-track claims him, not twisted gold,
his soul-chamber frozen, not fold's renown.
Wow, that took a long time.
It's not like I expected it to be TOTALLY awesome, because when it comes to adapting epics, you're far more likely to end up with Troy than LOTR. But even Troy managed to take the major themes of "The Iliad" and make something out of them, whereas Beowulf... didn't. Even if everything else sucked, I expected that I would at least like the script, since it was co-written by Neil Gaiman. HOW WRONG I WAS.
First of all, I was unhappy with how the Danes were portrayed. I doubt anyone will hold you to strict historical accuracy in a movie that mainly focuses on killing scary monsters, but they could at least have tried to show the side of Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon culture that, you know, didn't SUCK OUT LOUD. The entire beginning of the movie basically cast the Gardenas (heh, that looks like Gardenias) as that really sketchy frat with the creepy parties that people only want to go to when they want free low-quality beer, which at least explains why Hrothgar wasn't wearing anything but a crap toga. This of course makes Grendel the poor sap who lives next door and just wants to sleep so he can take an exam at 8:00 the next morning. You can feel a lot of sympathy for Grendel in the poem, but I'm fairly certain you shouldn't *actually* be rooting for him to kill everyone.
Yes, the Anglo-Saxons were a warrior culture (the Danes aren't actually A-S, but that's how their society is portrayed in the poem, and they were pretty similar anyway), and wild parties were a large component of that culture, but that's not the sum and total of their existence. They wrote EMO POETRY, for God's sake. They were all about nostalgia and the angst of modern living, but do we get any indication that anyone in the movie (besides the main characters) has two brain cells to rub together to contemplate anything deeper than the horror of running out of ale? Not so much. Instead, we get a one-dimensional portrayal of a brutish party mob only slightly more sophisticated and historical than, say, Viking Women vs. the Sea Serpent. You really wonder why anyone would bother saving them.
Then, of course, there's the whole religion issue, or rather, the lack of one. Like a lot of A-S poetry, Beowulf has this weird tension between the pagan concept of Fate and a Christian ethos, which is pretty cool and interesting to consider. Even if you don't exactly want to focus on religion in your action/adventure movie, there are still ways to address it briefly that can really add something to the subtext. Unfortunately, having someone go "OH NOES THE AGE OF HEROES IS OVER CUZ CHRISTIANITY HATES MY PAGAN PRIDE AND WHINGY MARTYRS HAVE WON THE DAY" is not one of these, especially because Beowulf was probably written down BY A FRIGGIN' MONK and the reason you had this tension 5 CENTURIES LATER is because the Anglo-Saxons liked their whingy martyrs AND their prideful heroes. There's not really a whole lot else to say, though, because aside from a few references to Odin and Jesus, "whingy martyrs" is the sum total of commentary we get on that driving force of culture. No thought needed here! Move along.
My main problem, though, is that someone apparently thought the best way to patch the admittedly disparate parts of Beowulf together would be to wrap it up in some Faustian deal with Grendel's mom, where banging her gets you eternal fame and glory and some really fugly offspring. As I noted to Natasha, this is kind of like retelling the life of the Buddha in Christian allegory: the two concepts are so thematically different there's no way to reconcile them. Going out and killing things and then bragging about it for 20 pages was the A-S ideal for heroes, but the main point was they had to do something first to brag about it. It's not just having glory, it's earning it, too.
Now, it would kind of make sense if Beowulf's deal with Grendel's mom happened at the beginning of the movie, before he's earned much of a name for himself (they kind of imply that he's not all that and a bag of potato chips at heroing by including the story about the swimming match and having it look like he's making stuff up about sea monsters because he was really making out with a mermaid, which, by the way, WTF), because then you could have his whole life be a lie which he then redeems by kicking Trogdor's butt, and he learns a valuable lesson about pride and earning glory and blah blah blah before dying heroically.
Instead, he makes his deal with Grendel's mom AFTER he has defeated Grendel. Even if he didn't *technically* rip Grendel's arm off, it is still PRETTY DAMN IMPRESSIVE that he killed the enormously strong psycho who had supernatural epilectic-hating abilities and also was utterly terrifying-looking, using only NAKED KUNG FU. He's saved the kingdom, gotten loads of treasure, and had his trophy arm nailed ABOVE THE DOOR. No one's going to forget him anytime soon, and he's proved he actually has hero cred and not just mad PR skillz. So it doesn't even make sense that he would take the offer, because he's already achieved some of what she's offering, all on his own. But in order to shove the story into its new box, they have to run around changing things, so Beowulf sleeps with the kin of Cain (?!), Hrothgar commits suicide (?!) and Beowulf becomes king of the Gardenas (?!) by chance (OR BY EVIL DUN DUN DUN!!!!!) instead of, you know, GOING BACK TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND BECOMING KING OF HIS OWN PEOPLE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN AWESOMENESS. Apparently he just doesn't want an awesome reputation, but actual power or wealth or whatever, without working for it. Except that then this doesn't fit in with what we see at the beginning of the movie, where he just wants to make a name for himself! Either the screenwriters were confused or they forgot to explain something. Either way,
it's not just extrapolating from source material if you have to UTTERLY CHANGE YOUR HERO'S MOTIVATIONS WILLY NILLY.
As for the "moral of the story" in the epic versus the movie, it's the difference between " 'Yay, pride is good and I am awesome!' Discuss." and "OH NOES PRIDE IS THE RADISH MALORUM," which frankly, I've heard SEVENTY BILLION TIMES because it is the default commentary of anyone remotely affected by a Western viewpoint in the last, uh, 2500 years or so. Hubris was not a problem for the Anglo-Saxons, it was a way of life. If you want to have pride as your fatal flaw, Beowulf is the wrong epic. Go make a movie version of The Odyssey or The Iliad (...again). But they squished Beowulf into the hubris box by having pride be his downfall. Slaying Trogdor isn't his triumphant death, as in the poem, it's now his payment for his sins, but the filmmakers don't seem to get that there's supposed to be a distinction now that they've dicked around with the source material.
Plus, did we really have to have a sexy woman tempt a man into falling from grace? PLEASE. One of the cool things about Grendel's mom is that though she's a societal outcast and a monster, she's still a mother, and that just makes her all the more terrifying because Beowulf has provoked a natural reaction from someone with supernatural abilities. But NO, let's make it all about sex and Beowulf's fall. Downplay the maternal instinct and amp up the terrifying power of the sexual woman leading honorable(ish) men astray. Instead of getting the story of Beowulf, you get the story of Beowulf rehashed as a tired morality tale which not only doesn't even make a whole lot of sense, but also doesn't even manage to say anything new or exciting about Beowulf OR morality. I really expected more from something Neil Gaiman seemed so proud of.
Other miscellaneous things that annoy me:
- Did they really have to make Unferth such a little bitch? He has the distinction of being the only person unimpressed by Beowulf, which I would think would serve a pretty important dramatic function, but instead we are presented with Drunky McCowardpants who BEATS UP A CRIPPLED GUY REPEATEDLY. I bet some of the restricted scenes consist of him eating babies while lighting kittens on fire. He definitely has a somewhat dodgy rep in the poem, but COME ON.
- Scops. It's pronounced "shops", not "skops", which somebody should know since IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU LEARN ABOUT OLD ENGLISH. And somebody HAD to learn something about Old English because that was, in fact, what Grendel was speaking FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE. BULLSCITE.
- I will give them "Geets" instead of "Yats" for Geats, though, because it's never transliterated.
- Grendel was really disgusting. Apparently "shadow-walker" means "corpsified and gross".
- Grendel's mom's little high heels were UTTERLY RETARDED.
- If Beowulf means "bear", why did he have a wolf as his crest?
- Wealhtheow's songs were kind of lame.
- Ambiguous ending, WHATEVER.
Stuff that I liked:
- Beowulf and I have the same boots!
- The fight scene with Trogdor was pretty damn cool. Especially where he cut off his own arm, which is TOTALLY HARD CORE.
- The animation for the most part was pretty awesome,
- Grendel spoke in Old English! And I understood what he said!
- In a related note, the scop was totally reciting some lines from the poem.
Anyways, complaining about the movie led me to look stuff up, so here is part of "The Wanderer," translated by Jonathan A. Glenn. The rest of the translation is here, and the original here. This is pretty accurate, if I recall correctly -- most of the time you just have to establish word order, which wasn't necessary in Old English, or illuminate a particularly obscure compound. I've always liked this poem.
So must I my heart --
often wretched with cares, deprived of homeland,
far from kin -- fasten with fetters,
since long ago earth covered
my lord in darkness, and I, wretched,
thence, mad and desolate as winter,
over the wave's binding sought, hall-dreary,
a giver of treasure, where far or near
I might find one who in mead-hall
might accept my affection, or on me, friendless,
might wish consolation, offer me joy.
He knows who tries it how cruel is sorrow,
a bitter companion, to the one who has few
concealers of secrets, beloved friends.
The exile-track claims him, not twisted gold,
his soul-chamber frozen, not fold's renown.
Wow, that took a long time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-21 10:39 pm (UTC)I am sorry you did not like Beowulf, but proud that you managed to write such a literate review. As I have been telling my little children about the Iliad everytime they try to reference Troy, if you want hardcore awesomeness, there's no substitute for an ancient epic poem. In this degenerate modern age, we simply do not understand truly hardcore awesomeness. In fact, I cannot decide who is more hardcore and awesome, Beowulf or Achilles. Odysseus does not get to compete because he is more concerned with guild and trickery than being hardcore. Gilgamesh would get to compete, but parts of his poem are missing, so it's not a fair comparison. Aeneas is too busy being pious, which is neither hardcore nor awesome, and all of the other Western heroes are disqualified for being Christian. I am willing to consider heroes from the Eastern tradition, but unfortunately am unable to do so because my education did not swing that way.
In conclusion, who is more hardcore and awesome: Beowulf or Achilles? Discuss.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-21 11:03 pm (UTC)As for Beowulf vs. Achilles, it would all depend on how long Beowulf's armor could hold out against Achilles' weapons, because if he could get into a wrestling match he'd have a good chance at winning, since Achilles probably isn't invulnerable against being choked to death, which Beowulf could totally do.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-21 11:05 pm (UTC)The mind boggles.