Okay folks, I think it is time to make a few things very clear. Two things, in particular, need addressing. One is that this poor blog is in desperate need of company [it is no good to ignore such a handy device of communication]. The second is that we have also been ignoring an up and coming piece of media that, perhaps, we all should be paying close attention to.
This piece of media is the newest adaptation of Beowulf.
Now, if you're sitting there with your mouth slightly agape and scratching your head saying, "they made another one?" I will inform you, sadly, yes. They have made yet another Beowulf film, one that chills me to my core. To glean more on the subject, here is a trailer link: http://video.uk.msn.com/v/en-gb/v.htm
[Edit to include movie site which now has many clips to watch: http://www.beowulfmovie.com/]
Go. Watch. Maybe try and find some of the other trailers on Youtube. Then, my friends...then we shall talk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is, obviously, a very hot topic among medievalists right now. At several events here at UConn (a few workshops, some medieval studies social events, and some random conversations with friends), the new Beowulf movie has come up. There's much ambivalence and wonder at why the movie looks like it does in the trailers. I, for one, have no idea. I had hoped that this movie would finally break the molds of the former film adaptations and their need to completely change the movie to fit some standards of a completely different playing-field--though what those "standards" for the film industry are, I have no idea. Recently, my hope has been slipping, and I find myself fearful in the same ways other medieval-minded people are.
In the blogosphere, the movie has especially gained a great amount of attention--my blog, ITM, Michael Drout's blog (esp. his latest post), Old English in NY. Google any of these (or look on my blog's links to find them) and you'll see recent discussions of the Beowulf movie.
One of the interesting thoughts that hit my radar in reading Michael Drout's latest post was a comment left that read as follows:
In this case, there's also the issue of Neil Gaiman being the screenwriter, and his well-established pattern of taking a known story and going " . . .huh, but what if I want to do THIS with it?" .... Nothing Gaiman ever does is played straight, as it were; it's always twisted.
Which is why I'm not going to see the movie as "Beowulf", as such - I'm going to go see, and anticipate enjoying, Neil Gaiman's likely to be twisted take on an old, familiar story.
As all of you know, I like Gaiman's fiction, and I enjoy his story-telling ability--especially this uncanny ability to remake the old tales. In essence, I think this is part of his contemporary story power. He knows how to refashion and retell in intriguing ways. This concept reminds me of a catch-phrase sort of idea in literary theory (even medieval studies) about source use and recreation (essentially, textual philology) and utilizing the past to recreate. It's an interesting idea, and one that I think (in many ways) has been touched on by many authors talking about tradition, the past tales, and their instatement into literature by authors drawing on the whole of the literary past. I'm not citing any here, but these sorts of theories are out there.
So this brings me to the newest installment of Beowulf. If what the commenter has said about Gaiman is correct, then maybe that's what we are in for, and what we should expect: a recrafted tale of the old story. In fact, Gaiman has used Beowulf for retellings in some of his other works (cf. "Bay Wolf" and "The Monarch of the Glen").
In later October, I'm presenting a paper at the NEPCA conference about the use of Beowulf in textually philological means--the translation of the poem into postmodern pop culture representations--so I'll let you know where I come down with that paper. I'm utilizing more than only movies to talk about the phenomenon and how/why it's been translated into various mediums and representations. I won't tackle the new movie, since it won't be quite released yet, but the new movie will no doubt factor into my considerations in writing the full paper.
Any thoughts on my thoughts about textual philology? The new crafting of old stories? Where this points? It's definitely a project I'm interested in, especially as it crosses the pre- and postmodern barriers to talk about the medieval and its reach to us even now in our present culture. Let's see what we can make of it.
Here are some follow-up links that point the direction to some of the most prominent posts about the Beowulf movie in the blogosphere that I've encountered. I hope these help.
Michael Drout's take (Wormtalk and Slugspeak)
Mary Kate Hurley's take (OE in NY)
Richard Noakes's take (Unlocked Wordhoard)
Thanks Leslie for putting us on to this, and Brandon for the comments and the links. You may know already that I am a movie skeptic--I think the world got on just fine, perhaps better, with books and live drama alone. (Yes, I would have joined the Luddites!) That said, in this cultural context, I think it's probably a good thing to keep having bad Beowulf movies made. The more of them there are, the more reasons critics have to read the original, to debate about the interpretations, to heighten awareness of old B. For those who have read Martin's 'cultural wealth' ideas, each movie constitutes another addition to our collective cultural wealth, AND helps to keep Beowulf alive as a 'living legacy' rather than a 'dead relic.' (And I thought I had posted this already -- guess the memory is the first thing to go!)
I still haven't read the links yet, young master Hawk, but I will if and when I can ever breathe again. As is, I shouldn't even be online right now. Anywho.
I've been thinking a lot about sexual content in contemporary entertainment and have come to the conclusion that I don't like it. This could be because I have read four novels in the past two weeks that each contained sexual scenes, two with more detail than I really wanted to have to read. Sex is not necessary, or should not be, to sell a story. Some of my favorite movies do quite well without sexual content [although they are action films]. And this is a compulsive emotional response, but still. It really bugs me.
To keep this thread going, and because I'd like to get some more discussion going, here are a few more links about Beowulf in the minds of medievalists in the blogosphere:
Michael Drout links to this other article, both of which are worth reading.
A nice summary of Beowulf, also from Michael Drout.
Leslie, it's interesting that you note that mention sexuality in contemporary entertainment in this thread. Actually, in discussing the new B(eowulf) movie with colleagues and a few professors, one of my professors mentioned that he believes one major reason for the lack of good adaptations so far is the lack of romance. Granted, I know romance and sexuality are two different things, but bear with me.
If we look at the major adaptations so far, each one tries to centralize the idea of romantic/sexual connection for the character of Beowulf. Of course, few modern stories are complete without some hint of romance and/or sexuality in them--whatever the brand may be. In Beowulf there is absolutely no romantic interest, plot, tension, or aspect whatsoever. Romance is deeply lacking. I don't think that's a bad thing--in fact, adding romance to the story would probably complicate or detract from the main themes and ideas of the poem anyway. Besides, why does Beowulf need a love interest? The sexuality of certain parts of the poem has been raised, of course, but they are still not explicit components of the story as narrative.
I think my professor is correct in thinking that this lack is problematic for Hollywood. What sort of moviegoers don't want some sort of romantic connection? Well, some, but only "some" people don't sell tickets. Hollywood thinks they need to entice large audiences (which is true; in a commercial economy, the creator of anything needs to make money, so it needs to appeal to as large a group as possible). And, of course, the tantalization of romance/sexuality/male-female connection would appeal to a much broader audience. Not as many weekend movie-goers would want to watch a movie where the main plot is a monster-slaying hero, no matter how many nuances may exist about loyalty, Germanic tradition, the legendary, historicity, and the myriad aspects of the poem that actually make it worth studying (as Michael Drout notes in his summary discussion of Beowulf) for the past 200 years and continuing strong.
Of course sexuality isn't necessary. Neither is romance. I don't see either of these as the reasons I inherently enjoy my favorite movies, even if they (either one, depending on the movie) may be present. There are much deeper reasons I love my favorite movies. If a strict adaptation of the narrative of Beowulf were created, I would be fine without both aspects--as you know, I love the story probably more than any other just as it is without them in the poem.
Still, others (including the big men of Hollywood) do not meet my thoughts on this issue. Therein lies one big problem, I believe (thanks to my anonymous professor for stating something that should be so obvious but hadn't necessarily crossed my mind yet). Thoughts on this theory?
Honestly, I would assume that one reason for adding a sense of romance/sexuality to Beowulf for a modern audience is the fact that we can't connect to these things in the U.S. We don't have a long history or tradition going back to wild, sword-wielding heroes with silly names. We have a brief history going back to Swampfox and Benjamin Franklin. And while Swampfox [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT-3V3Lv-so] may have a catchy theme song, he lacks the brutality to face a Grendel. By inserting love it adds, I hesitate to say, a more human aspect to the indefatigable Beowulf who is otherwise out of reach of our modern yankee minds...
...I use the term "our" loosely, referencing folks that, well, don't include us. So..."our" might could very well be replaced by "their."
Of course, the same human interest bit could be applied to other nations. I don't know, though.
[I also like to joke that they add romance so boys can talk their girlfriends into going to the movie with them.]
[And no, I still haven't followed those links, dernitall.]
I think the perception that you can't sell movie tickets or DVDs without a love story is probably right, and it's the popular-level expression of the sex-obsessed psychological accounts of human nature that Freud and followers have given us.
As for why that translates into more and more sex--same reasons, but add to that the misogynist drift in society in the past 25 years. And I agree--more discretion would be an improvement.
It looks like I got here just in time to jump into the discussion about sex. Haha. It seems like that's all we ever talk about in class here (I have to admit, it has been rather disconcerting to have my Very Old Professor for Gower and Langland make such very open sexual jokes in class...).
I completely agree with you all about the necessity (in the film-maker's mind) of sex to sell a movie. However, I don't think they necessarily need to have a ROMANTIC interest to have sexual tension. This, I think, is where the film-makers have [possibly] gone wrong in the latest movie. Granted, from the trailer you don't see very much, but it does seem that Beowulf is going to have some form of sexual encounter with the blonde woman (who IS she anyway? Unless Wealhtheow has suddenly become a lot less worthy as a queen, they must have made up a character just to fit into this role). If they MUST make up a romance, I would much prefer the one featured in the SciFi original Beowulf, which is between one of Beowulf's men and a woman of Hrothgar's people (this is, unfortunately, the only thing the SciFi Beowulf has going for it, other than a rather intriguing conspiracy theory. If you haven't seen this version, you really need to, preferably when you are very tired and stressed out. It will make you laugh). Anyway...
That said, you don't need to add a romance in order to have sexual tension in the film. As Brandon briefly mentioned, certain parts of the poem seem very sexualized. I'm thinking mainly about Beowulf's fight with Grendel's mother. In the poem that battle is certainly a lot more physical than the battle with Grendel. We have a lot of grabbing, and throwing to the ground, and hair-pulling (which incidentally, does not have to refer to the hair on one's head, according to one OE scholar whose work I read). THEN there's the whole thing about his sword not being effective...
I'll just give you a couple passages (from Heaney) for your perusal:
"Then [he] heaved his war-sword...but he soon found his battle-torch extinguished: the shining blade refused to bite. It spared her and failed the man in his need" (lines 1520-25) (Note: the use of the sword to represent the warrior is established in one of the Riddles, in which the sword laments that he has been kept from enjoying the pleasures of a wife...)
So Beowulf "gripped her shoulder...he pitched his killer opponent to the floor" (lines 1538-1540). In reponse she jumps up and grabs him in her "grim embrace" (1541). When he falls, she straddles him and tries to pierce HIM with a knife (a manly woman, I suppose).
Even the fact that the battle takes places in her womb-like cave under the water, where her child lies dead adds to the disturbing sexuality of the scene. (At least in my mind, but I could just be weird).
So you could argue that Grendel's mother's monstrosity is directly linked to her aggressive sexaulity. Indeed, her first chief wrong seems to be that she has borne such a monstrous son by such a monstrous father...
With all that set-up, I feel justified in saying that perhaps the film-makers have not gone totally off the wall here. It was certinaly a bit disconcerting to see such a very sexualized figure standing in as Grendel's mother in the trailer (especially in comparison to the other Beowulf movies that I have seen), but I think that this could, in fact, work. (I'm just trying not to imagine all kinds of freudian readings about the fact that she has a rather wicked looking tail).
I will say, however, that I hope the movie does not go over the top with the sexuality of Grendel's mother (there does seem to be that potential for excess. I'm hoping what I saw was NOT a completely naked Grendel's mother).
So anyway...
This is a rather long and very rough post, but I just promised Brandon that after I see the movie I'll make a real post on Feminism and the new Beowulf movie. So we'll see how I feel about all this then.
Dr. Mark and Leslie--when are you going to see the movie? Are you going to see it in theater? Maybe we could meet at a theater halfway between here and there (is there one halfway between?). I really wish we could all see it together.
Also, as a preview, I'm going to be writing a paper on the power of women's language in Gower's Confessio Amantis, so I can post a bit on that when I finish, if you'd like. I think Brandon should definitely post on his OE papers, too. :~)
And one last thing--how in the world do you get the italic HTML tags to work? It always tells me the tag is not closed. Argh!
Ok, and this really is the final comment--a completely unacademic one--I don't think I like the animation style. It looks like they tried foe Gollum from LotR and ended up with Shrek. But maybe that's just the trailer. ;~P I don't want to be too critical before I go see it, because I don't want to ruin the movie for myself. And I really am going to stop talking now.
Okay, now I really want to find the Scifi Beowulf...
Post a Comment