WARNING–SPOILER ALERT If you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want to know what happens, don’t read any further.
It’s been a week since I saw Beowulf the movie and I still can’t get out of my head all the changes they made to the original (and wonderful) story. The biggest change being the transformation of Grendel’s Mother from a speechless and hideous underworld demon into a seductive and seemingly omnipotent sprite.
In the comely form of Angelina Jolie, she entices both Hrothgar and Beowulf, spawning two of the monsters that the supposed hero (well, he’s a hero in the real story) battles. The ending suggests she’ll succeed in seducing Wiglaf, that monster-slayer’s heir and most loyal compatriot, likely producing another murderous beast. Thus, it seems the moral of this story that seduction breeds beasts.
It’s almost as if the screenwriters grafted a notion from a Victorian novel onto a medieval tale. In such novels, unmarried women who engage in sexual relations meet unfortunate ends while the scandal often destroys (or otherwise humiliates) the man who seduced her.
But, here we have a movie adapted from a story with no sex scene and a character whose very qualities would make it easy for him to resist even Angelina’s otherworldly charms. Not only that, in the movie, unlike the original story, she had killed all but one of his fellow Geatish travelers. It is unbelievable that a man, particularly one of Beowulf’s caliber, who having learned of the slaughter of his troop, would let the perpetrator of that atrocity seduce him.
While there is no sex scene in the original tale, there is, to be sure, a suggestion of sexual tension between Beowulf and Wealtheow, the young wife of the aged King Hrothgar. In the movie, that comely Dane does marry Beowulf after her husband’s untimely demise (a demise which does figure into the poem’s primary narrative). Perhaps, the filmmakers enhanced her role because, they recognize as did John Sullivan in that wonderful film about his travels that “There’s always a girl in the picture.”
To keep that girl in the picture–and remain true to the story–the filmmakers could have built on the romantic tension between Beowulf and Wealtheow, perhaps having the two attempt a tryst. But, just as they’re about to consummate the act, Beowulf, realizing the debt he owes Hrothgar and the duty he owes his host, would turn away from this lovely lady, telling her he couldn’t squire the wife of a man who saved his father.
As he rebuffed he would telled he loved her. He would retain the image of here beauty throughout his life. And at the end of the poem, as he prepares to fight the dragon and realizes he may die, one of his retainers (possibly Wiglaf) might ask him to reflect on his life. He realizes that the cost of his duty was the loss of romance in his life, perhaps then seeing his death as a means to unite himself his beloved, herself then long since dead.
But, I, like the Beowulf-poet, digress. While Wealtheow did enjoy a larger role in the movie (than in the poem), the more voluptuous vamp is the girl (I mean, you see her and not Robin Wright Penn (who played Wealtheow) on billboards promoting the movie).
With the monstrously seductive Angelina as the girl, the film develops a notion of sex which makes Victorian notions seem quaint. For when she seduces a man, she spawns a monster who murders his people. And it’s not just Angelina. The first man, the movie’s Hondshew, who attempts to seduce a woman, becomes Grendel’s first Geatish victim.
While I do believe that the best sex involves human relationship, I do understand the power of our sexual urges. And they are not monstrous, but quite human. Here, we don’t even have a married man cheating on his wife. At the time of the seduction, Beowulf has yet pledged his troth to Wealtheow.
Maybe the reason I can’t let go of the movie’s turning a female monster into an invincible seductress. It’s not just that it’s out of place in the Beowulf-story — bringing it themes at odds with the story’s themes and having the character do things at odds with the character. It’s that it makes human weakness appear monstrous.
While I do believe that married men and women must remain faithful to their partners, I’m still wrestling with what kind of pre-martial sexual behavior is appropriate. As I’m sure as are many people, aware of sexuality’s power and their own longing to make of it more than a mere grinding of loins. It may not be entirely right for an unmarried man to sleep with a seductive inhuman sprite, but it shouldn’t be considered monstrous.
And it’s unfortunate the latest Beowulf flick suggests as much.
Does she look emaciated? I think she weighs 80 pounds now
As someone who’s PhD focus involves Anglo-Saxon noble women, I was shocked by the marginalization of women in general in this movie.
According to the movie, the only value a woman has is as a sex object and it is only with sex that a woman has any power.
I find this shocking because it is a reflection not of Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards women, but a reflection of Hollywood’s understanding of women. The same Hollywood that trumpets its liberal point of view seems to prefer to portray women as subservient and impotent. The Anglo-Saxons often portrayed their women as strong, powerful, and capable without using sex. Juliana and Elene are two examples. Women were very much protected by the law code and could own property in their own right. At least one Anglo-Saxon woman led troops in battle.
Indeed, even the most similar example in Anglo-Saxon literature to the movie’s portrayal shows Judith as significantly stronger than she is portrayed in the Bible. Actually, I was reminded of the poem Judith by the movie’s portrayal of life in Heorot. The hall and retainers of Holofernes are portrayed as overly drunk and overly lustful for the specific reason to show that Holofernes was a very poor lord.
I was prepared to allow for changes to the storyline, but not only did they change the story from a heroic epic, they completely misunderstood Anglo-Saxon culture. Even worse, the movie is just bad, no matter if you know the poem or the culture or not.
Sigh, and I had hopes when I first saw it for the simple reason that there was a Cain and a Finn listed . That sure hinted at digressions. Sigh.
See NRO’s editorial on Beowulf for another criticism – basically that in this version Christianity is portrayed as a dog to kick and ridicule – the religion of the weak. The original was written by Anglo Saxons who had already been Christianized for a Christian audience.
http://tinyurl.com/37shs2
Ah, but doesn’t it fit the “modern” (ha ha), _American Beauty_-type view of sex and human character? Heroes have no real heroism. Nobody has any real integrity. Everyone is secretly empty and lustful inside and living a double life, where they will drop all pretense of virtue when they met the right seductress. (In that view.)
Again, doesn’t it really fit the “modern” (ha ha) view of sex and human character? Sex (in that view) is an overpowering urge, to which we should all surrender. No one is to blame for following their sexual urges, ever, right? The overpowering monstrosity of it all is both “justification”, and part of the (alleged) deliciousness.
Interesting the Hollywood seems so invested in ‘sex as evil’. They project that image onto Christianity, but they seem so much more invested in it themselves.
One of the things I found so refreshing in Lord of the Rings, was that there wasn’t sex. A wonderful story of friendship, journey and the battle between good and evil took place without sexual tensions. There were female warriors, Sam goes back to his wife and many children. But not every story as to revolve around tensions between the sexes.
Although Christianity frowns upon any sex that is not sanctioned by marriage, I don’t recall this equation of sex = monstrous.
My conclusion is simple, cultures that put limits and certain restrictions on sexuality – respect this most powerful force in our lives.
Cultures that believe that all sex is free and limitless end up equating sex with evil.
Sad, but true
Interesting. Yes. Romance – Arwen and Aragorn. But not (over-)sexualized romance.
I think it’s a twofold cause.
First, many denizens of such cultures simply end up doing sex-as-evil… look at the world’s McHaneys. To be amoral, is to be immoral – because to be amoral, is to be willing to stumble into genuinely immoral actions if that is where the whim or “urge” takes you.
Second, as indicated, I think such cultures have a built-in need to excuse / rationalize themselves by over-emphasizing the “overpowering” aspect of sexual desire.
I enjoyed Beowulf – but I’m not familiar with the poem. None the less, I found the scene between Beowulf and Jolie – where he was seduced – not credible. He was seduced much too easily.
He was indeed. And if you’d read the poem, you’d see how the real Beowulf had such qualities that he could have resisted even the charms of more seductive Ms. Jolie.
Actually there is a huge reference to sex in the original text of Beowulf. The original translator did not like that interpretation, but in fact the fight scene between Grendel’s mother and Beowulf can actually be translated to be ogre sex.
Also it does not marginalize women, sex plays a much more important role than just sex. Sex serves as a passageway through which one can cross from one “realm” to the next.
It does not show sex to be evil, but to embrace the old age view of sex being a reference as a passageway, and when the monster is spawned, it is because it was allowed to pass through the threshold