Beowulf
This post, in short: Go see Beowulf in IMAX 3D if at all possible. If you can't, it's probably still worth seeing, but it's a far lesser film.
I go back a while with Beowulf.
Let's see. In the seventh grade, so about nine years ago, my middle school class was supposed to go see a play based on Beowulf. For the school newsletter I was supposed to write something about the play. I don't remember if it was the teacher's idea, mine, or my dad's, but somebody decided that, y'know, ought to read the poem first before seeing the play. I recall reading some of it- Seamus Heaney's translation, which is still the translation I read most often when I read bits for fun- but I don't believe I finished it. I saw the play and knew just enough to be dissatisfied, though in retrospect, that memory gets better every year. It was actually a pretty cool production, though perhaps a touch avant-garde and minimalist for twelve year olds. (Though the dragon fight at the end I recall as being very cool, and it grows slightly more frightening and beautiful every time I think of it- the actor playing the dragon wore this strange, multi-colored cape that flowed with his movements and swirled like fire. As a twelve year old of my generation, the generation that grew up expecting- nay, demanding!- special effects on the level of Jurassic Park, I don't think I quite got how cool that was.)
Nobody ever actually had me write anything. There was a blurb in the newsletter that said the students gave it the thumbs up. I never said that. I was kind of bitter.
Fast forward quite a ways. I didn't have much to do with Beowulf in high school- we were very much about post-Shakespearean lit at Metro (which is perhaps why I felt comfortable neglecting that to a large degree at college- and hey, I think I still did well on the subject GRE thanks to those Metro lit courses.) I got the references in some Neil Gaiman stories, especially the "monsters" in the sequel to American Gods, The Monarch of the Glen.
I got to college and took Chaucer, learned Middle English and thought it was very cool. One break I spent a bunch of time reading epic poetry, including Beowulf (again, Heaney's translation) and thought it was terrific. I noticed that my copy was dual-language, with facing pages in Old English. It was impenetrable, but I decided that one day I'd be able to read it.
I saw that the Medieval Studies minor required either four semesters of Latin or one semester of Old English. I decided to go for Old English, even though Latin was a 100 level and OE was meant for graduate students. (I actually found the more challenging presentation in OE held my attention better, and to a large degree, that made it much easier than Latin.) My stated intent, perhaps largely because of that formative middle school experience, was that I wanted to know enough Old English to read Beowulf.
I ended up translating around half of the poem in the Beowulf class I took the next semester, and wrote a paper I'm still very proud of (proud enough that I will be presenting it as original research at the Student Research Conference in April.) In the course of studying Old English I fell in love with the poem again. Decoding it word by word was an entirely new way of reading for me, and it was rapturous. By this point, I would be willing to call Beowulf my favorite work of literature- even moreso than American Gods. In any case, it's certainly be the single most important work to my undergraduate career.
And yes, this was all build up to a movie review.
Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary wrote the screenplay for the new Beowulf movie, which I have seen twice now, once in Kirksville (at our rather tame cinema) and once in Saint Louis (where I saw it in IMAX 3D.) When I saw it in Kirksville, I gave the movie a B-; it was certainly similar to the poem, but it really felt as though it lacked something. It was, however, about as wonderful a popcorn movie as one could want, which was still something. However, there were many things about the film that were distracting, specifically visual things; in particular, the scene in which Beowulf fights the Grendel seemed very cheesy. Beowulf fights the monster nude, which is pretty accurate to the spirit of the poem, but unfortunately the way they kept our hero's dick from showing was to conveniently obscure it with various objects. Overall it was very distracting, not believable, and seemed frankly gratuitous. It's really too bad that it would have gotten an NC-17 if they'd just accepted his nudity and moved on- it's not like the Anglo-Saxons would have cared that much about Beowulf's penis.
These problems, thankfully, are almost completely gone in the IMAX version of the film. The sense of actual space in the frame makes the technique not seem so obvious, and the action scenes become simply mesmerizing. If you don't feel your heart pounding during the battle with the dragon at the end- despite the occasional moment of cheap thrills- you have no sense of wonder in your breast.
The film takes a number of liberties with the poem, of course, as is reasonable and expected. Thankfully many of those liberties are just movie-friendly expressions of textual things that would not have translated easily in a completely "faithful" interpretation. For instance, the incoming influence of Christianity is portrayed in the film as the conversion of Unferth and Wealtheow. (That's anachronistic, I think- I don't believe that Danes were having any kind of widespread conversion in the 500s.) The uneasy dance between admiration of the pagans and acceptance of the new order is very much a part of Beowulf, but in the poem it's all in the narrator- Beowulf and company are pagans and there's no question about it. However, the poem itself was written down (although not originally concieved of) by Christians, and there is certainly Christian influence in there- just not in the physical mechanics of the plot. The references to Odin were appreciated (even if it should have properly been Woden, methinks.)
In IMAX I also had greater appreciation for the changes in tone the screenwriters made, though to be fair, that may just be the effects of a second viewing in general. They do some interesting things with the narrative, though Beowulf becomes a much darker character, and I'm not sure he deserves some of the changes made to his character in the film. I'd argue that the film Beowulf and the poem Beowulf are fundamentally two different characters, both flawed and human, but in different ways. The film's way of expressing the fundamental nature of the dragon as both something unnatural and inhuman and as the ultimate expression of the consequences of the Anglo-Saxon warrior ethic- indeed, as the results of Beowulf's deeds, good and bad- was ultimately very good, I think, communicating that idea more openly than the poem did. (The idea, however, is still very much within the poem itself.)
There were two things I thought missing from the movie that I wish had appeared in it, but they are perhaps things that only an Anglo-Saxon geek would care about. Namely, I wish the following lines had been placed at the beginning and end of the film, respectively:
"Hear! We, the Spear Danes, in the days of old had great kings! We have heard of how those noble princes proved their courage!" (Voice-over by an unidentified narrator.)
"Of the world's kings, he was the most gracious and fair minded, the kindest to his people, and the most eager for fame." (Added to Wiglaf's speech at the end.)
Those, of course, being the first and last lines of the poem.
However, it was an excellent movie- at least, as said, in IMAX. This one will not make a good transition to DVD, I'm afraid, so see it while you can. It is a great experience.
Oh, and read the poem, too, should you get the time- it's the first great work of the English language, after all, and a beautiful, moving piece of literature as well.
-E
I go back a while with Beowulf.
Let's see. In the seventh grade, so about nine years ago, my middle school class was supposed to go see a play based on Beowulf. For the school newsletter I was supposed to write something about the play. I don't remember if it was the teacher's idea, mine, or my dad's, but somebody decided that, y'know, ought to read the poem first before seeing the play. I recall reading some of it- Seamus Heaney's translation, which is still the translation I read most often when I read bits for fun- but I don't believe I finished it. I saw the play and knew just enough to be dissatisfied, though in retrospect, that memory gets better every year. It was actually a pretty cool production, though perhaps a touch avant-garde and minimalist for twelve year olds. (Though the dragon fight at the end I recall as being very cool, and it grows slightly more frightening and beautiful every time I think of it- the actor playing the dragon wore this strange, multi-colored cape that flowed with his movements and swirled like fire. As a twelve year old of my generation, the generation that grew up expecting- nay, demanding!- special effects on the level of Jurassic Park, I don't think I quite got how cool that was.)
Nobody ever actually had me write anything. There was a blurb in the newsletter that said the students gave it the thumbs up. I never said that. I was kind of bitter.
Fast forward quite a ways. I didn't have much to do with Beowulf in high school- we were very much about post-Shakespearean lit at Metro (which is perhaps why I felt comfortable neglecting that to a large degree at college- and hey, I think I still did well on the subject GRE thanks to those Metro lit courses.) I got the references in some Neil Gaiman stories, especially the "monsters" in the sequel to American Gods, The Monarch of the Glen.
I got to college and took Chaucer, learned Middle English and thought it was very cool. One break I spent a bunch of time reading epic poetry, including Beowulf (again, Heaney's translation) and thought it was terrific. I noticed that my copy was dual-language, with facing pages in Old English. It was impenetrable, but I decided that one day I'd be able to read it.
I saw that the Medieval Studies minor required either four semesters of Latin or one semester of Old English. I decided to go for Old English, even though Latin was a 100 level and OE was meant for graduate students. (I actually found the more challenging presentation in OE held my attention better, and to a large degree, that made it much easier than Latin.) My stated intent, perhaps largely because of that formative middle school experience, was that I wanted to know enough Old English to read Beowulf.
I ended up translating around half of the poem in the Beowulf class I took the next semester, and wrote a paper I'm still very proud of (proud enough that I will be presenting it as original research at the Student Research Conference in April.) In the course of studying Old English I fell in love with the poem again. Decoding it word by word was an entirely new way of reading for me, and it was rapturous. By this point, I would be willing to call Beowulf my favorite work of literature- even moreso than American Gods. In any case, it's certainly be the single most important work to my undergraduate career.
And yes, this was all build up to a movie review.
Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary wrote the screenplay for the new Beowulf movie, which I have seen twice now, once in Kirksville (at our rather tame cinema) and once in Saint Louis (where I saw it in IMAX 3D.) When I saw it in Kirksville, I gave the movie a B-; it was certainly similar to the poem, but it really felt as though it lacked something. It was, however, about as wonderful a popcorn movie as one could want, which was still something. However, there were many things about the film that were distracting, specifically visual things; in particular, the scene in which Beowulf fights the Grendel seemed very cheesy. Beowulf fights the monster nude, which is pretty accurate to the spirit of the poem, but unfortunately the way they kept our hero's dick from showing was to conveniently obscure it with various objects. Overall it was very distracting, not believable, and seemed frankly gratuitous. It's really too bad that it would have gotten an NC-17 if they'd just accepted his nudity and moved on- it's not like the Anglo-Saxons would have cared that much about Beowulf's penis.
These problems, thankfully, are almost completely gone in the IMAX version of the film. The sense of actual space in the frame makes the technique not seem so obvious, and the action scenes become simply mesmerizing. If you don't feel your heart pounding during the battle with the dragon at the end- despite the occasional moment of cheap thrills- you have no sense of wonder in your breast.
The film takes a number of liberties with the poem, of course, as is reasonable and expected. Thankfully many of those liberties are just movie-friendly expressions of textual things that would not have translated easily in a completely "faithful" interpretation. For instance, the incoming influence of Christianity is portrayed in the film as the conversion of Unferth and Wealtheow. (That's anachronistic, I think- I don't believe that Danes were having any kind of widespread conversion in the 500s.) The uneasy dance between admiration of the pagans and acceptance of the new order is very much a part of Beowulf, but in the poem it's all in the narrator- Beowulf and company are pagans and there's no question about it. However, the poem itself was written down (although not originally concieved of) by Christians, and there is certainly Christian influence in there- just not in the physical mechanics of the plot. The references to Odin were appreciated (even if it should have properly been Woden, methinks.)
In IMAX I also had greater appreciation for the changes in tone the screenwriters made, though to be fair, that may just be the effects of a second viewing in general. They do some interesting things with the narrative, though Beowulf becomes a much darker character, and I'm not sure he deserves some of the changes made to his character in the film. I'd argue that the film Beowulf and the poem Beowulf are fundamentally two different characters, both flawed and human, but in different ways. The film's way of expressing the fundamental nature of the dragon as both something unnatural and inhuman and as the ultimate expression of the consequences of the Anglo-Saxon warrior ethic- indeed, as the results of Beowulf's deeds, good and bad- was ultimately very good, I think, communicating that idea more openly than the poem did. (The idea, however, is still very much within the poem itself.)
There were two things I thought missing from the movie that I wish had appeared in it, but they are perhaps things that only an Anglo-Saxon geek would care about. Namely, I wish the following lines had been placed at the beginning and end of the film, respectively:
"Hear! We, the Spear Danes, in the days of old had great kings! We have heard of how those noble princes proved their courage!" (Voice-over by an unidentified narrator.)
"Of the world's kings, he was the most gracious and fair minded, the kindest to his people, and the most eager for fame." (Added to Wiglaf's speech at the end.)
Those, of course, being the first and last lines of the poem.
However, it was an excellent movie- at least, as said, in IMAX. This one will not make a good transition to DVD, I'm afraid, so see it while you can. It is a great experience.
Oh, and read the poem, too, should you get the time- it's the first great work of the English language, after all, and a beautiful, moving piece of literature as well.
-E