Welcome Instapundit Readers! While you’re here, take a moment to browse the web-site that’s been called “the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet.”
Well, after finishing the last paper for my graduate program in which I argued that Beowulf’s battle with Grendel’s Mother is akin to an underworld journey similar to Odysseus’s Nekyia in the Odyssey, I decided to see the latest film adaptation of that monster slayer’s eponymous poem.
Given how much the film version departed from the story, I’m surprised that I restrained myself from screaming at the screen during the movie and even from walking out. Once the credits started to roll, I did speak out, offering a succinct opinion of the film, “The book was better.”
What is it, I wondered, about some in the film industry who think that the only way to adapt a classic is to so twist it so it resembles their idea of what modern audiences want? What makes them think they know better how to tell a story than do authors whose works have survived for generations?
To be sure, one must make certain changes, to translate a story communicated verbally to one communicated visually. And this screenwriters did make certain changes which worked very well on the silver screen. The movie was at its best in two of the hero’s three battles with monsters. (The screenwriters translated the third (the one I considered in that aforementioned paper) into a scene of seduction.) The filmmakers portrayed the battles far differently than the poet had described them. But, the changes made sense and were (on the whole) thematically consistent with the poem. They worked visually, indeed, were really quite stunning.
Otherwise, I found myself bored and found it hard to keep myself from groaning. Early in the movie, the Danish warriors chant, “Hrothgar, Hrothgar” as if they’re cheering on a friend trying to win a drinking contest in a sports bar rather than hailing a King who has led their people to many victories.
I could go on an on (and on and on) about other changes which did not work as well as those battle scenes. At times, it seemed the screenwriters hadn’t even read the book, but based their adaptation instead on an old CliffsNotes version of the poem–with a few pages missing. It sometimes seemed the only relation to the original was the sequence of events (and the names of characters).
The biggest change of the poem was how the screenwriters reinvented the monsters. In the original work, they were beings of pure evil. Here, they are spawn of various men’s lust, including that of the protagonist. These men all found the charms of Grendel’s Mother (Angelina Jolie) irresistible.
In the original, the monsters could not talk. Their lack of verbal skills helped define them as less than human. In the movie, they have an unusual vocabulary, a strange mix of some Germanic tongue spoken with a poor imitation of Slavic accent. What is it with Angelina Jolie and these odd accents? In Alexander, she attempted to affect an Albanian accent by imitating the intonations of a Russian porn star making her American film debut.
In reimagining the monsters as less than fully evil, the filmmakers attempted to create a new hero more complex than his literary inspiration. No longer a brave man with a flair for killing monsters and eager to rid the world of their stain, the film hero has become a flawed man, so easily seduced by a demonically beautiful woman that he forgets his duty. One of the primary themes of the very poem was that a good man always remembers his duty, to his King, his kin and his people.
Granted, one of the (few) flaws of the poem is Beowulf’s near absence of flaws. It was a good idea to try to humanize the film hero by showing his weakness. After all, aren’t we cinephiles used to imperfect heroes? This might have worked had the screenwriters given him some flaw other than concupiscence. As Grendel’s mother becomes a seductive vixen, the film becomes little better than a remake of the 1999 adaptation of the poem featuring Christopher Lambert, but with much better special effects and fight choreography. (In that film, Grendel’s Mother had also trysted with Hrothgar, so spawning Grendel.)
With monsters as the spawn of the characters in the story and as an apparently invincible vixen (giving birth to that spawn), this version of Beowulf plays out as some frustrated straight boy’s attempt to demonize the super hot chick in high school who refused his first sexual advances. In trying to explain away the rejection, he imagines that the fulfillment of his adolescent fantasies would not have served him well. So, the “babe” who spurned him becomes the bitch who seduces him. And inhuman wench that she is, she can only give birth to monsters, for whose ravages he would be partially responsible. So, he tells the story to explain why it’s better he didn’t bed her.
But, the real poet did not so project onto women. He saw Grendel’s Mother not as an object of lust, but as a creature of evil. And the hero was one who had the courage and strength to defeat her–and others of her kind–so that they would not threaten men. (Had the real Grendel’s Mother had Angelina Jolie’s charms and attributes, the real Beowulf would have been easily able to resist them.) As J.R.R. Tolkien put it, in “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics,” one of the first serious scholarly essays on the poem:
Something more significant than a standard hero, a man faced with a foe more evil than any human enemy of house or realm, is before us, and yet incarnate intime, walking in heroic history ….[H]is real battle is between the soul and its adversaries. So the old monsters become images of the evil spirit orspirits, or rather the evil spirits entered into the monsters and took visible shape in the hideous bodies of the yrsas [giants or demons] and sigelhearwan [Ethiopians] of heathen imagination.
But, when the hero becomes responsible for the existence of the monsters, the film turns the poem’s notion of evil on its head. The poet understood something which all too many of us today, particularly those in Hollywood (and other blue islands), so easily forget: there is evil in the world that is not of our making–and which oftentimes we cannot explain. That Anglo-Saxon writer portrayed that evil in monsters who could not communicate with humans, seeking only to consume them.
When they try to explain that evil, the screenwriters lost sight of this concept which has preoccupied men for as long as we could express ourselves in words. In making lust, a basic human weakness, responsible for the monster’s ravages, they become no better than the moralistic Christians they apparently seek to mock in this film, those who would demonize sex. For in suggesting that lust spawns monsters, aren’t they making it into a sin of epic proportions?
It’s too bad that the screenwriters transformed one of the monsters into a lustful spirit, whose seduction spawns the monsters of the tale. Had they found some other way to take the hero off the pedestal onto which the poet placed him, they might have succeeded not only in making him more human, but also in making the movie more engaging. Even on that pedestal, the Beowulf of the poem represents qualities which men even today seek to emulate, the man unwavering in his commitment to fight for what is right.
All that said, there were stunning visuals in this flic. I particularly enjoyed how the filmmakers concealed the protagonist’s private parts in his naked battle with Grendel. (While many talking heads have made much of that battle, it actually is one of the few elements of the movie which is thematically consistent with the poem. As I wrote earlier today, when Beowulf battled Grendel, “he did not want to have any advantages the monster lacked.”)
All that notwithstanding, as I said when the film was over, the book was better. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the film more had I loved the poem less.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
Please note that since orginally posting this piece, I made some slight changes to fix typos and improve its flow — and one change to fix a formatting flaw which apparently had hidden some of the text.
I think you’re trying to apply serious literary critique to a film that hasn’t a single serious thought in mind. It’s more meant to be taken at face value – a 300ish pseudo-comic with only a passing acquaintance with the source material. If you listen to the dialogue, you’ll realize the movie is actually poking fun at itself and the genre. It’s all incredibly tongue-in-cheek.
As for Angelina, it’s nice to know her Alexander accent hasn’t dulled through disuse. “A slightly vampiric seeming whore? I played one of those once! *squeal of excitement* Wait, wait, wait. I have the best accent for it.”
She’s still awesome, though. Damn her.
Listen to the dialogue? I was covering my ears trying not to hear it, it was so bad.
And yeah, it did seem she used the same accent than she had used in Alexander.
The dialogue’s awfulness was its entire point, though =)
[đ –Dan]
Hey thanks for the Spoiler Alert, Dan! ;P
I swear! This is just like the time I sat down to watch Titanic with Javi and he told me it sinks at the end.
I didn’t care for Beowulf either. I will say one thing in its favor: Grendel is the creepiest movie monster I have ever seen. Sweet Jeebus that gave me the willies.
[Indeed, he was! –Dan]
The most striking part of the poem for me is when an older Beowulf suits up to fight the dragon. He knows the fight will kill him, but he’s faithful to his duty to protect his people anyway. I find that touching and inspiring.
[Well said. –Dan]
Don’t want to see the movie, because I already have enough problem keeping John Gardner’s Grendel out of of my head when thinking about the poem. Gardner gave Grendel speech and made it more about humans overcoming the forces of nature. Interesting, but not the same.
Hubris, they are young, they live in the 21st century, of course they know better. By next year (as in less than a month from now) no one will remember this movie, but for generations to come, people will read the actual poem and be touched by it.
Your comments about the meaning of evil are very interesting, but I’m sure they go way over the heads of the writers of this movie.
Robbie is right, you were supposed to check your brain at the door and just go in for the visual experience. Bringing your wealth of knowledge is beyond anything the makers of this movie can comprehend.
You’ve just hit the nail on the head about what’s wrong with Hollywood today. They have a very narrow vision of what audiences really want, and lately, they have really been missing the mark.
While the visuals of the movie were great, I believe the makers of this film had one agenda: To denigrate and trash what the concept of a Hero should be. Faced with true acts of heroism in Iraq and elsewhere Hollywood is trying to diminish the bravery of our military, albeit in a covert manner. This movie throws both Hero and Monsters into a pit of moral relativism where one cannot separate one from the other.
I liked it, but you bring up some valid issues as I hadn’t read the epic since high school nearly thirty years ago, I left there with a friend and we both assumed we had mis-remembered the original tale.
I was so looking forward to seeing this film, until the reviews started to come in. This puts another nail in the coffin. Oh, well. You’ve provided a valuable consumer service, GP.
But one question remains in my mind about something that bothered me in the trailer: Where on dark-ages-Earth did Grendel’s mother get those fabulous-looking stilletos?
[LOL! I wondered the same thing myself. –Dan]
The story, possibly apocryphal, of Demi Moore justifying changing key elements of “The Scarlet Letter” was, “Nobody reads that book anyway!”
I enjoyed the movie, but then again I didn’t even try to compare it to the poem. I have to ask why would want to do that to yourself, since you just know you were setting yourself up to be disappointed.
[Good point. –Dan]
This is Hollywood after all.
I’ll make the same recommendation I’ve made to everyone else who mistakenly saw “Beowulf” — rent “Reign of Fire”. While not a great movie, it’s a decent one, and it has the advantage of being an imaginative take on the Beowulf story.
I’m impressed you went and saw it, Dan.
My friend donna suggedsted we invite you up over thanksgiving weekend to see it. I said “I think he’d rather be waterboarded.”
The screenplay Beowulf was written collaboratively by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary.
Neil Gaiman was also responsible for Stardust (2007) and MirrorMask(2005), two great films I highly recommend.
Roger Avary was also responsible for Pulp Fiction (1994).
Yeah, I walked out of the theater loudly proclaiming “I like Angelina Jolie as much as any other redneck, but I am pretty sure the bitch was supposed to die in this particular movie”. My wife finally started shushing me after I said “I know Olde Englishe is hard, but they could at least have read the Cliff notes all the way through”.
It would have been a good move if they had called it “Alphawolf and the Seductress” or some such. Beowulf is most certainly wasn’t.
I noticed they couldn’t allow Beowulf to be a Great Hero either, they cast doubt on his killing of the sea monsters (‘last time it was three’) and allowed him to kill Grendel due to the fact he had a cauliflower ear (I have racked by brain, and I know it was 30 years ago, but I swear I couldn’t remember that part). I thought he ripped the suckers arm out by shear heroic ability, whereupon Grendel ran off and died.
Also, he didn’t inherit the kingdom in Denmark, but went home to Sweden and inherited the kingdom, and the Dragon was an entirely separate incident.
I didn’t have any intrinsic problem with Beowulf being seduced by Grendel’s mom, but it was poorly executed. We didn’t get much more than “OK, you’re hot, and I _do_ want to be king”. Heroes have tragic flaws, but it should take more than we saw here to exploit one.
The naked battle was ridiculous. Yes, it’s the kind of think Beowulf might have done, but the “strategic object” treatment badly undercut it. That worked in Austin Powers because that was a *comedy* and it was *funny*. They should have either done for the ‘R’ rating, or have kept it to “I will fight him without weapons” rather than “I will fight him without clothes”.
Also, the storyline with the nasty, brother-killing, Christian convert was underwritten. I kept thinking that he was plotting something, but apparently he was not. I wonder if he had a bigger part in the initial script? If he had been goading Grendel somehow to prove that calling on Odin couldn’t help or some such thing that would have been better. As it was, his presence was a red herring.
Peter Jackson made the Lord of the Rings, a complex story about heroism, a quest, magic, and moral choices, and made a gazillion dollars.
“300” stuck to Herodus’ 2500 year old story of the ultimate in bravery, and made a gazillion dollars.
Then: some idiot made “Troy” WITHOUT THE GODS, depending on the beautiful Brad Pitt, and made nada.
Then, there was “Alexander”, reducing one of the most interesting, fabulous characters in history (Caesar wept because he hadn’t lived up to Alexander’s example), into a San Francisco study in sensitivity. Gosh, it lost money, too.
I think the Hollywood deep thinkers have no idea what a ‘hero’ is. Yet, out there, there are great stories, told around bonfires FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, because they are dramatic, interesting and uplifting… and now, we have the technical capability to put those stories on film… and complain because their ‘industry’ is collapsing.
[Well said, very well said. But, once upon a time, Hollywood did have an idea what a hero was. Maybe today’s filmmakers don’t need look further than their studios’ vaults or their DVD collections. –Dan]
Grendel = Bin Laden
Ok, I know that is a little over blown, but it is a typical modern trope – Good through its actions breeds evil. We ‘created’ OBL with our callus treatment of the Palestinians, ignoring the fact the he’s really PO’d about the loss of Andalusia.
I say lets lay the blame where it belongs and sue Spain. El Cid is responsible for 9-11!
Every Hollywood film seeks “To denigrate and trash what the concept of a Hero should be.”
Because the Multiculturalists don’t believe in good/evil or right/wrong.
I also agree the manipulators of the script had anti-Christianism in mind as virtually every ‘epic’ released follows the same path of egotistic indulgence.
Troy? Alexander the Great?
Trashed… then Hollywood simply dismisses their own failure by blaming the audience with the claim ‘well, they don’t want epics’.
Even as LOTR and Narnia gross 1/3 of a billion domestically for each release…
Now consider how many films they haven’t made…
Manipulation by omission.
Bullshit. The Kingdom of Jordan killed more Palestinians in Black September then Israel has killed in the entire history of the Israeli conflict.
In any case, it’s just a pretext. The key grievance is that Israel sits on land that was part of dar al islam and it must be reclaimed. All the Arabs know that the so-called Palestinians are the group of people to be dehumanized so that the neccesarry cruelty in destroying israel can be implemented.
Beowulf’s flaw was “offermod” overweening arrogance, even madness for glory. Such a flaw led to his seeking to fight Grendel without a sword. Such a flaw led to him following Grendel’s mother and fighting her beneath the meer. Such a flaw led to Beowulf’s dismissal of his comrades before his encounter with the dragon.
“Offermod” was a North pagan virtue, but a Christian vice, closely akin to pride. Beowulf was written in a unique space, written by Christians putting a veneer over the pagan heroic mythos. Retelling must try to capture that conflict. I understand the temptation to use sex as their metaphor, but I condemn it.
Enjoyed your psychoanalysis of the screenwriters muchly. I do enjoy a good laugh whilst reading.
You give an example: …the Danish warriors chant, âHrothgar, Hrothgarâ as if theyâre cheering on a friend trying to win a drinking contest …
Then say you could go on (and on and on)
I wish you would have. I could have more of that.
As for Cliff Notes, they’re written by people deeply immersed and expert in the material they love, like yourself, often more interesting than the original work under review, especially when it comes to whatever literary movement it was that Ford Maddox Ford and the like belonged to.
Well, when they worship worthless douchebags like Michael Moore, George Clooney, Awrec Bawrin, Jane Fonda etc. as heroes, what should we expect?
Actually, I was under the impression that Beowulf didn’t particularily use a sword because he never found a sword that would stand up to his superhuman strength. Broke on the first hit, and the good ones bent on the first hit and broke on the second.
In his final battle with the dragon he eventually uses a dagger for to plunge in and rip out , that action being less likely to break in his hands. (Wiglaf uses the sword.)
I’m pretty sure there was no such underlying, overwhelming desire to trash the idea of a hero. Gaiman’s really accessible – why not go ask him? I can tell you pretty easily that the essential notion was of the epic being 1/2 of the story, which again harks back to the 1999 edition of the tale.
Also, while I really hate the idea of Grendle’s mother surviving (the most egregious and pointless alteration, IMAO), the way she tempted works well with the notion of offermod. Conflating fame with sex, and fame was what she more directly offered, is a good way to convey its appeal visually. (Note that hubris is a fault when presented this way.)
“The screenplay Beowulf was written collaboratively by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary”
People have been telling me that Neil Gaiman is a Serious Writer, not one of those writers of mere childish comics, but this movie does nothing to persuade me that I should bother to read any of his novels.
Anyone have an opinion on the 2005 “Beowulf & Grendel” with Gerard Butler?
Sounds like you didn’t care for this adaptation as much as I didn’t like “300”. The writer of that particular movie obviously was on an acid trip. As for “Troy”, it was good to see Eric Bana & Peter O’Toole (ok, I admit Pitt’s butt was nice to see also), but overall it could have been much better. Same for “Alexander”, except the actors I like were missing. I’d like to see all of these movies re-done without the nonsense.
John: Did you know the visuals of 300 was based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller?