![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI finally saw the Beowulf film. On reflection I decided the story, although it had bothered me somehow at the time, was actually really interesting, very much in the spirit of the original, but doing interesting things too. And that the filming had some iconic moments, and many moments that were notably 3d but not particularly interesting in any other way, and otherwise was rather perfunctory.
For instance, as in the opening scene, depicting a roistering mead hall. But they seemed to glide around the hall showing each appropriate thing "drunken people, check, vomiting, check, persuing swedish wench, check, heaving bosoms but nothing inappropriate, check". But no real sense of majesty or exuberance or chaos — or even decadence — was particularly evoked.
This dichotomy was explained nicely when I looked the film up on wikipedia, and discovered it had been co-written by Neil Gaiman, but directed by someone other than Neil Gaiman.
Spoilers
The best example of the perfunctory filmography was near the end, with the thin spot in the dragon's neck. This was wonderfully described, it sounded natural that the anatomy should have a weak spot there, and that a dragon was a nearly impossible enemy, but if you knew that spot, you stood a chance. And cool that beowulf rips his way in and tears its heart out.
However, it looked kind of stupid. It was a glowing hole in the neck. Well, it was supposed to be. But it didn't look natural, or anything, just like someone had said "what should a glowing hole look like? Well, let's make a hole glow, ok." (And kind of stupid that the whole inside of the dragon is hollow, wasn't this designed by, you know, humans? Who let alone ever having seen, actually are non-hollow vertebrate bodies?)
Story
Nowadays I can do a fair job of watching a film and seeing what's derived from the underlying work, but I'm still often surprised, often pleasantly so. I admit, I hadn't read the story of Beowulf, all I knew was that Beowulf defends someplace called Heorot from something called Grendel who marauds every night. I had impression of Grendel as a monster, and that it was more complicated than that, but didn't really know any more.
If anyone doesn't know, the basic idea is: Beowulf is a roving hero, coming when he hears Heortot's distress to discharge his father's debt to the king (on account of killing his kin and not being able to pay restitution and being banished). Grendel is disturbed by the mead-halls singing and repeatedly attacks it, eventually squatting in it. It's not clear what Grendel is, there was probably less clear distinction than now between humanoid/monstrous and sapient/animalistic, so most conceptions have him as some sort of troll, human enough to be considered a warrior, but outcast/monster enough to beat up a hundred vikings and be outside any sort of civilised society.
Eventually Beowulf rips his arm off, he flees and dies, his mother slaughters everyone, Beowulf goes out and battles the mother under a lake, and returns a hero. Then he becomes king of some other place, someone accidentally boosts a gold cup from a dragon's horde, which attacks the kingdom, Beowulf goes out to fight it to a standstill, dies, and Wiglaf finishes it off.
This film adds the idea of successive heroes vanquishing successive monsters, and incautiously siring the following monster on their common mother. Including that Beowulf accepts a devil's bargain with Grendel's mother, ensuring a nice reign for the kingdom, but eventually producing a dragon. The old king sired Grendel. Wiglaf locks eyes with Grendel's mother as he lies crying over Beowulf's body.
That's really interesting. I'm normally leery of derivative works which totally subvert the original (it's an interesting idea, but often done a bit perfunctorily: I've witnesses some great "Snow White as revisionist history, actually the step-parents were the heroes" stories, but many dire ones). And of ones that make up a whole bunch of different stuff. But this seems somewhere in the middle. The changes ring very true: I wouldn't know how to classify them, but I like it a lot, it feels like a different, fascinating norse myth.
For instance, as in the opening scene, depicting a roistering mead hall. But they seemed to glide around the hall showing each appropriate thing "drunken people, check, vomiting, check, persuing swedish wench, check, heaving bosoms but nothing inappropriate, check". But no real sense of majesty or exuberance or chaos — or even decadence — was particularly evoked.
This dichotomy was explained nicely when I looked the film up on wikipedia, and discovered it had been co-written by Neil Gaiman, but directed by someone other than Neil Gaiman.
Spoilers
The best example of the perfunctory filmography was near the end, with the thin spot in the dragon's neck. This was wonderfully described, it sounded natural that the anatomy should have a weak spot there, and that a dragon was a nearly impossible enemy, but if you knew that spot, you stood a chance. And cool that beowulf rips his way in and tears its heart out.
However, it looked kind of stupid. It was a glowing hole in the neck. Well, it was supposed to be. But it didn't look natural, or anything, just like someone had said "what should a glowing hole look like? Well, let's make a hole glow, ok." (And kind of stupid that the whole inside of the dragon is hollow, wasn't this designed by, you know, humans? Who let alone ever having seen, actually are non-hollow vertebrate bodies?)
Story
Nowadays I can do a fair job of watching a film and seeing what's derived from the underlying work, but I'm still often surprised, often pleasantly so. I admit, I hadn't read the story of Beowulf, all I knew was that Beowulf defends someplace called Heorot from something called Grendel who marauds every night. I had impression of Grendel as a monster, and that it was more complicated than that, but didn't really know any more.
If anyone doesn't know, the basic idea is: Beowulf is a roving hero, coming when he hears Heortot's distress to discharge his father's debt to the king (on account of killing his kin and not being able to pay restitution and being banished). Grendel is disturbed by the mead-halls singing and repeatedly attacks it, eventually squatting in it. It's not clear what Grendel is, there was probably less clear distinction than now between humanoid/monstrous and sapient/animalistic, so most conceptions have him as some sort of troll, human enough to be considered a warrior, but outcast/monster enough to beat up a hundred vikings and be outside any sort of civilised society.
Eventually Beowulf rips his arm off, he flees and dies, his mother slaughters everyone, Beowulf goes out and battles the mother under a lake, and returns a hero. Then he becomes king of some other place, someone accidentally boosts a gold cup from a dragon's horde, which attacks the kingdom, Beowulf goes out to fight it to a standstill, dies, and Wiglaf finishes it off.
This film adds the idea of successive heroes vanquishing successive monsters, and incautiously siring the following monster on their common mother. Including that Beowulf accepts a devil's bargain with Grendel's mother, ensuring a nice reign for the kingdom, but eventually producing a dragon. The old king sired Grendel. Wiglaf locks eyes with Grendel's mother as he lies crying over Beowulf's body.
That's really interesting. I'm normally leery of derivative works which totally subvert the original (it's an interesting idea, but often done a bit perfunctorily: I've witnesses some great "Snow White as revisionist history, actually the step-parents were the heroes" stories, but many dire ones). And of ones that make up a whole bunch of different stuff. But this seems somewhere in the middle. The changes ring very true: I wouldn't know how to classify them, but I like it a lot, it feels like a different, fascinating norse myth.