Beowulf (viewed Chesterfield 25.11.07)
Nov 25th, 2007 by abi
I really enjoyed this re-telling of the epic tale of Beowulf. It was beautifully made and I loved what they did with the visuals in making it part real, part animation. For a story of this type it really works. I loved the acting performances too. Angelina Jolie was especially impressive as Grendel’s mother. I can always spot John Malkovich and he was, as ever, excellent.
What a gripping story it is. I have borrowed the original from my mum and intend to read it once I’ve struggled through my current book group read (don’t ask). I just loved all the themes: heroism and the lies on which it can be built, the love of the great story rather than the less impressive truth, how violence and revenge can become a vicious and neverending cycle, the susceptibility of man to temptation, the corrupting influences of wealth, lust and power and, most interestingly, the arrival of Christianity and its replacement of the old ways.
The only thing I did think the film lacked was poetry. The dialogue was surprisingly simplistic and unimaginative which is odd given the amount of material they must have had to work with. At times it really didn’t matter because the visuals and the story pulled it along but at other times it really grated.
That aside, though, I thought the film was great. Way better than expected and I really recommend it.
I’d agree with you on a lot of that. The central themes about the pursuit of glory and how today’s heroism causes tomorrow’s strife were interesting ones, and subtly applied. And you’re right, the cast were all very good, although the old fantasy problem of a mish-mash of accents did make it hard to take seriously at times (I found it increasingly hard not to crack up with every time Ray Winstone bellowed “I’ve come to kill yer monster!”.).
I can understand why they may not have included the poetry. Anglo-Saxon poetry is very stylised and very different from modern forms of poetry or naturalistic speech. Adding Anglo-Saxon style alliteration and kennings would have undoubtably been very striking, but it would have sounded extremely odd to most people and I suspect it would have deterred as many viewers as it impressed. Indeed, it was very much marketed as an action film for teenage boys (hence Anglina Jolie…) and I think they were afraid of alienating a potentially huge market segment. In addition, the film does deviate from the original story quiet a lot, and there would have been large chunks without the poetry to cover them.
Besides, the whole piece was about the story behind the legend, rather than the legend itself, so they might have deliberately not wanted to use the language of the legend. So for example, while Shakespeare’s Henry V is full of fine and famous passages, if you were making a film about the reality of Henry V rather than the myth, you wouldn’t want to use Shakespeare’s language.
Do be warned, though: the original story is very different. It’s more straightforward heroics, and ends in a very different way. But it’s a fascinating look at what the Anglo-Saxons thought of heroism and kingship, and does contain some very evocative passages (I’ve always been fond of the bit about the guards of the treasure trove slowly aging and dying in their long duty. J R R Tolkein pinched huge chunks to portray Smaug and his horde in ‘The Hobbit’.). Despite being English, its world and values feels strange in a way that legends from more urban and ordered societies such as the Romans and Greeks do not (although it’s nothing like as trippy as the Mabinogion. Oh, those crazy Celts!). But like what little other Anglo-Saxon poetry I’ve read, such as ‘The Wayfarer’, there seems a real sense of sorrow and loss, and of the best days of the world being behind us.
The accents were really bizarre, weren’t they? I did notice that too.
Just to clear something up though. I didn’t make the statement about ‘poetry’ in the literal sense in terms of wanting to take things directly from the text. I just felt it was a film that lacked any poetic sense.
I just think some sharper dialogue and at least some nod to the beauty and impact of words would have been in order. There’s no need for them to use anything directly from the original but that’s no excuse for the whole ‘we’ve got a movie that’s stunning to look at so we don’t need much from words’ attitude.
I am reading the original and enjoying it. It does already differ a fair bit from the film. It was sketching out his ancestry and I was getting mightily confused.
Besides I am reading four other books at the same time. I go through phases like this where I just keep starting things and never finishing and I’m having one now. When I do finally get through it I’ll give you my thoughts.