Bewulf and Grendel (warning - spoilers)
Sandy and I watched Beowulf and Grendel (2005) on tv last night.
I'm disappointed. After reading three translations of this tale, including the recent (2000) masterpiece by Seamus Henry, I expected better of Sturla Gunnarson in this movie version.
It was made in Iceland, and the scenery rocks. Because it was made in Iceland, they could only use Icelandic Ponies for the characters to ride on, and that rocks (because I don't think 6th C. Danes and Geats had fine Arab stallions, or Belgian warhorses). The props were superb, costuming was excellent (although why Hrothgar, king of the Danes was dressed like a 10C. Saxon is beyond me).
That was the good part.
The editing was very choppy, leaving little continuity from scene to scene. The back story regarding the creation of Grendel's psychosis is foolish at best, and largely disconnected from the rest of the film. There were no decent fight scenes, but the movie is all about violence and bloodshed. The screenplay (Andrew Berzins) was terrible, with virtually every line sounding like it should have been uttered by a 21st C. gansta! I guess I'm old fashioned, by I don't think using modern curses (like the F-bomb, and worse) add to the verisimilitude of a period piece.
The acting was spotty, with Beowulf (Gerard Butler) sporting a Scots accent that Mel Gibson could have studied for Braveheart! Stellan Starsgard as the drunken, scared, Hrothgar was convincing - but then, an actor with his expertise and history should be (he was Cerdic, the Saxon king in King Arthur, and Bootstrap Bill in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise). Sarah Polley was her usual, few words, expressive face, solid acting, and sexy as hell - but I don't recall a witch in the translations I've read - at least not one that Beowulf (and/or Grendel) slept with.
Mostly I was bored with this flick, but like a train wreck, I couldn't stop watching.
I realized why about half way through it. One or two of the Geat warriors are constantly retelling (and embellishing) the tales of Beowulf's travails. He, in turn is trying to make them "stop feeding the children lies" . While this produces some humour for the viewer, it also seems to be the point of the movie. The story, as told, is greatly different from the poet's efforts. Grendel is a focus for our sympathy in the movie, but inspires repugnance in the tale. Beowulf is a reluctant hero, just trying to help out, in the movie, but a voracious adventurer, seeking word-fame and glory in the poem. Hrothgar is a drunken, scared, wretch in the movie, but an aging, beleaguered hero in the tale.
I think the premiss of the movie was to show how a tale grows in its telling and how "history" does not always reflect reality. Unfortunately it presented the lesson in an obscure fashion, that hindered the entertainment value of the movie, and made me feel as if I wasted an hour and 40 minutes. At least I didn't waste money on it, too.
I'm disappointed. After reading three translations of this tale, including the recent (2000) masterpiece by Seamus Henry, I expected better of Sturla Gunnarson in this movie version.
It was made in Iceland, and the scenery rocks. Because it was made in Iceland, they could only use Icelandic Ponies for the characters to ride on, and that rocks (because I don't think 6th C. Danes and Geats had fine Arab stallions, or Belgian warhorses). The props were superb, costuming was excellent (although why Hrothgar, king of the Danes was dressed like a 10C. Saxon is beyond me).
That was the good part.
The editing was very choppy, leaving little continuity from scene to scene. The back story regarding the creation of Grendel's psychosis is foolish at best, and largely disconnected from the rest of the film. There were no decent fight scenes, but the movie is all about violence and bloodshed. The screenplay (Andrew Berzins) was terrible, with virtually every line sounding like it should have been uttered by a 21st C. gansta! I guess I'm old fashioned, by I don't think using modern curses (like the F-bomb, and worse) add to the verisimilitude of a period piece.
The acting was spotty, with Beowulf (Gerard Butler) sporting a Scots accent that Mel Gibson could have studied for Braveheart! Stellan Starsgard as the drunken, scared, Hrothgar was convincing - but then, an actor with his expertise and history should be (he was Cerdic, the Saxon king in King Arthur, and Bootstrap Bill in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise). Sarah Polley was her usual, few words, expressive face, solid acting, and sexy as hell - but I don't recall a witch in the translations I've read - at least not one that Beowulf (and/or Grendel) slept with.
Mostly I was bored with this flick, but like a train wreck, I couldn't stop watching.
I realized why about half way through it. One or two of the Geat warriors are constantly retelling (and embellishing) the tales of Beowulf's travails. He, in turn is trying to make them "stop feeding the children lies" . While this produces some humour for the viewer, it also seems to be the point of the movie. The story, as told, is greatly different from the poet's efforts. Grendel is a focus for our sympathy in the movie, but inspires repugnance in the tale. Beowulf is a reluctant hero, just trying to help out, in the movie, but a voracious adventurer, seeking word-fame and glory in the poem. Hrothgar is a drunken, scared, wretch in the movie, but an aging, beleaguered hero in the tale.
I think the premiss of the movie was to show how a tale grows in its telling and how "history" does not always reflect reality. Unfortunately it presented the lesson in an obscure fashion, that hindered the entertainment value of the movie, and made me feel as if I wasted an hour and 40 minutes. At least I didn't waste money on it, too.