Dear Beowulf Movie,
Please follow the source material.
Sincerely,
Pissed off English Major
No offense but, I think you missed the point of the movie.
The movie was, at least to my friends and I (all College Students who have read and studied Beowulf extensively), the "real story" of Beowulf's life. The movie was a window in time that allowed us the viewer to glimpse into the past and see what actually transpired during Beowulf's life. He was not the chivalric hero who slew many beasts, he was merely a fallible man who made several mistakes. The movie implies that the story we know and love today, is just that a story. A romanticized tale conjured up from the minds of Beowulf's friends to illuminate the man they saw as a true hero and savior of their kingdom.
I understand, and respect, that observation. I made it as well, though I didn't carry it on. That is most likely the intent of the film makers.
But it isn't what I had wanted to see. The title was "Beowulf", not "The Real Beowulf" or something else.
I'm fine with these sorts of stories being "redone" when they have historical possibilities, such as the exploration into the historical inspiration for King Arthur. But both the original Beowulf and the new movie have monsters and a dragon in them.
To show that I don't hate retellings as a whole, I loved Eaters of the Dead/13th Warrior. That story implies that the tale of Beowulf was embellished from realistic events.
I was not lead to believe, going into the film, that it was going to be some sort of "realification" of the story. I didn't like the change in focus of the story. To me, it was a disservice.
Your interpretation of the film seems to be a correct one; I will not, and cannot, refute it. But I didn't enjoy the movie, and I would have enjoyed the movie more if it had followed the original. It's a subject of taste.
Thanks for being polite, by the way.
PS: I have objections to the movie on a film standard as well. Mostly that I was quite bored during many segments. I didn't like the sympathetic portrayal of Grendel either. The film has merits, but I didn't like it.
I haven't seen the movie, but my understanding is that it attributed some "modern" sensibilities to it, which, ultimately, detracted from the themes and tone expressed in the written work. I had that problem with the remake of Pride and Prejudice (which I think sorely missed the point), though, oddly, I didn't have that problem with 300 (only because I knew exactly what I was going to see before I got there).
For the record, I loathe most "realifications". They lose the narrative, poetic essence of what are typically tales only tangentially related to reality. Legends have surreal and alienating qualities that serve to amplify the elements that we do understand. Anchoring the tale in reality exposes us to morals, concepts and patterns not seen in the original, which, unless deliberately manipulated to be consistent with the original work's themes, often diverts the attention from its actual meaning.
PS: Even having not seen the movie, I know the portrayal of Grendel will not be to my liking. Grendel is a monster; a primordial force of evil only eclipsed in malice by the vengeful fury of his mother (well, that's my interpretation at least). He's not supposed to be pitiable, he's supposed to be torn limb from limb, his head mounted on the hero's wall.
I know my opinion is ultimately irrelevant, but like Xev I lament the atrocity of classics being neutered for the fleeting enjoyment of a crowd.
Quote from: Salacious AngelFor the record, I loathe most "realifications". They lose the narrative, poetic essence of what are typically tales only tangentially related to reality. Legends have surreal and alienating qualities that serve to amplify the elements that we do understand. Anchoring the tale in reality exposes us to morals, concepts and patterns not seen in the original, which, unless deliberately manipulated to be consistent with the original work's themes, often diverts the attention from its actual meaning.
Gorram you and your eloquent prose! You make the rest of us look bad! :P
How fickle our sensibilities are.
http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?27802.23
;)
ElDo, that's a different thing. The film "300" was based on the Frank Miller comic book. I'm aware of the gross errors compared to the historical event, but it wasn't based on the historical event. The comic was based on the legend, and in turn, the film was based on the comic.
I wanted "Beowulf" to be based on the legend. I did not want to say "aww, poor Grendel". I won't say much more, as to not spoil it, but there are many more things I disliked.
I actually liked it more than I expected to.
To be honest, the new interpretation of the legend was a highlight for me, really brought it all together and made the characters feel less one-dimensional.
I suppose tastes will vary...
I wasn't aware this was even out yet. The funny thing is, my brother and I had just finished watching Stardust, we were walking out of the theatre when I said to him "Beowulf is pretty much the last thing they haven't touched yet" and then turned around to face a large Beowulf "coming soon" poster.
I'll have to go see this one, though from the description I don't think I'll like it much either.
I really doubt I'm going to like this.
I am utterly torn between not seeing it because I'd rather not see another classic watered down, retold, and over all 300-ish. At the same time, I have the feeling I might be able to enjoy it as a "manly,lets kill as many people as we can" type movie (which I DO so enjoy). So, I spend my dollars on the movie Hitman instead for this weekend.
I loved the original work, and I thought the movie was pretty fantastic. It was a bit slow in the middle, but I thought it was pretty spectacular. Neil Gaiman turned a time-honored classic into something completely new and interesting (such as Grendel and the dragon being the epitome of Hrothgar's shame and Beowulf's avarice).
Quote from: HaphazzardI am utterly torn between not seeing it because I'd rather not see another classic watered down, retold, and over all 300-ish. At the same time, I have the feeling I might be able to enjoy it as a "manly,lets kill as many people as we can" type movie (which I DO so enjoy). So, I spend my dollars on the movie Hitman instead for this weekend.
Not a lot of people die. Really.
Well Grendel and the dragon kill a good number of guys. But Beowulf's body count is pretty low (2-5).
So, is it worth seeing? Or should I just stay home and watch Stargate reruns I haven't seen yet?
Quote from: Kap'n XeviatNot a lot of people die. Really.
Well. That's kind of a shame. Maybe I'll see it at the budget for like a buck after all the hype dies down. I still have one of the classic rules running through the back of my head. "No matter how hard you try, you can't un-see something."
Quote from: Sir VorpalSo, is it worth seeing? Or should I just stay home and watch Stargate reruns I haven't seen yet?
If you can afford going to the movies and actually want to pay to see the movie, then yeah go see it. Otherwise, wait a few months, find a friend that buys the DVD and watch it together, lol.
Ok, time for my interpretation. Am I the only one who feels that Gaiman was subtly poking fun at other similar movies? I mean we look at Troy, Hercules (the Disney Cartoon) and 300. In 300 we had those slow motion scenes where the heroes did something cool, or in the opening scene of Troy when Brad Pitt slides his sword into the shoulder of some bald guy. Beowulf had many of these slow motion scenes.
Then we come down to this whole "Pride is the curse" bull. No where in the story of Beowulf does it say he was prideful. However, we are so used to that hero showing up and singing "Now I am here to save the day!" and doing so. If I remember correctly, Beowulf wasn't considered boastful or a braggart because all the magical stories about him (such as his swim with Brecca) were true.
Now as a warning, this may have some spoilers... Oh who am I kidding, if you read the book in Senior English then you know how the movie is going.
There were huge inconsistencies in the original text (to pick it up, grab the copy as translated by Seamus Heaney) that lead to my Jesus-Beowulf Theory.
In the bible, we have Jesus as a young boy then BAM! he's a grown man. There must be some book that tells what happened between that. In the tale of Beowulf we have the opening story then BAM! Beowulf comes from no where, we know he has a legendary life (such as killing 9 sea while swimming for 5 days against Brecca). Then he kills Grendel, then he kills Grendel's mother, then 20 years go by and he kills a dragon and dies. I believe that there must be more to the story about what happens during those 20 years.
Now, the whole thing about Grendel being Hrothgar's son and the dragon Beowulf's I feel was just a way to set up the idea of the dragon. In the original text, the dragon came out of no where, and I feel Gaiman thought that would be too sudden and random.
Layman: "Where'd that dragon come from?"
Gaiman: "It's in the story."
Laayman: "That doesn't answer my question, what does it have to do with the plot?"
Gaiman: "Um... It kills him."
Layman: "Uhhuh, that sounds awfully convenient."
Gaiman: "Did you even go to Senior English?"
Layman: "What do I need English Class for? I already speak English."
So in closing, I feel that while I disliked some of the artistic license taken with the story, I understand why they did it. If anything, the part I hated the most was over the top violence, man-butts, and sex jokes. This movie is Rated PG-13, so is X-Men. However, the level of violence in Beowulf against the level of Violence in X-men is a huge difference. See, this was a movie that I was thinking "My nephew would love this movies, it's a cartoon and manly." After watching this movie I was glad i didn't bring him. He's a little too young to watch gold drip off of Angelina Jolie's naked body.
All in all it's a fine movie, I probably wouldn't see it again or buy it. But if this was a real life movie rather than a CGI cartoon, it would be Rated R. I wouldn't take your 13 year old brother to go see it.