on BEOWULF
Nov. 19th, 2007 12:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerI'm not going to say BEOWULF doesn't have flaws.
I mean, Robin Wright Penn never looks properly human, nor do many of the extras, the village folk, who resemble sub par background characters in GOD OF WAR. And Angelina Jolie, with her mighty-inflated CGI boobs, what-the-fuck-random high heels, and dubious ALEXANDER accent... well, I've never had a real problem with her, but let's just say I'm starting to feel why others do. But we're got quite at Halle Berry/Jessica Alba levels just yet.
(And as one reviewer pointed out, the motion capture technology introduced here will only improve, and BEOWULF will likely suffer from comparison. Well, so fucking what.)
And of course, there will be the literary purists, the English majors, the people who love and care about the actual true Beowulf story. I cannot speak for these people, but I am deeply sympathetic to purists, in obvious respects (my inability to fully enjoy the generally-loved V FOR VENDETTA movie, for example). Hell, much as I love the original story myself, I haven't read it since high school, and cannot honestly thoroughly compare book to movie.
I will say this: you cannot, absolutely must not go into this expecting a straightforward adaptation, because that's not what this is. And for good reason. Yes, I can hear your gnashing teeth, but listen: while this is a revisionist take on the myth, it's not like, say, 300's* take on Thermopylae.
Rather, it's much closer to what FABLES does, taking the core myths and throwing in different perspectives and spins while still (more or less) being faithful to the originals. And frankly, I think BEOWULF does it better than FABLES, which often strikes me as smugly pleased with its own cynical cleverness (The dwarfs were secretly rapists! The spoon secretly always hated the dish! Whatta twist!). Shit, if you can handle what is done with Gepetto and the Blue Fairy, you can easily handle what's done in BEOWULF, due in major part to the screenwriting excellence of Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary.**
BEOWULF the movie is not meant to be a definitive take on the story, even though it will unfortunately be so to a whole generation of young folk and idiots. It's simply a different perspective and interpretation of the myth, a companion and reflection to the book, which will likely always be the one true Beowulf story.
Frankly, this is exactly the sort of thing I want to do with my upcoming Herakles novel. Why just tell the same story over again? It'll never be as good as the original. If you can't do or say something different with the same essential story, what's the point? The nature of myth, it seems to me, is in the retelling. And with each retelling, whether intentionally or not, something is altered while the essential core of the story remains the same. It's why I love myth, and why I want to write this Herakles book.
And BEOWULF, at its heart, is not an empty badass action movie, but rather a fascinating psychological study on the powers of myth and storytelling, as well as on the nature of heroism... from a time when being a hero meant different things than it does today. I mean, I'm not saying it's the deepest film of the year, but it's certainly more so than anyone was expecting, and I'm honestly jealous that I now cannot use the observations that Gaiman and Avary employed in BEOWULF. It's due to them that this film is not just another mindless piece of 300-style escapist entertainment.
That said:
HOLY SWEET MERCIFUL EVER-LOVIN' DANCING COCK MONKEYS DOES THIS FILM KICK FIFTEEN KINDS OF ARSE.
I mean, I imagine in 2D, the film's still good. The story's strong enough. You could see it in 2D and be all right, sure.
But sweet zombie jesus, people, they weren't kidding: IF YOU CAN SEE THIS IN 3D, DO!!!!
Shit, when even the joyless crushed-idealist bastards at CHUD.com say:
I was so wrong about BEOWULF. I was wrong about the quality of the human animations. I was wrong about the concept. I was wrong about the whole damn thing (though Crispin Glover still irritates the vas deferens outta me).*** It's not only a damn good movie, it's an upper tier fantasy film that rises above the potential gimmicks of motion-capture, 3-D, and Ray Winstone as a leading man in a blockbuster. Without anything held back I gotta recommend the living shit out of this movie. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was WAY wrong.
Also, as funny as SUPERBAD and KNOCKED UP are, there is no moment in cinema this year that destroyed me like the scene near the beginning with the sea serpent and the eye and the screaming of a name [when you see it you'll know]. I was ruined for the next ten minutes. Don't pre-judge this excellent and visually jaw-dropping film like I did.
... then that's fucking impressive.
(And I'm not even gonna begin going on about the cast, and the depth of their vocal/facial performances. There's a whole other post there!)
I just sadly fear![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
spacechild is right in that, much like GRINDHOUSE, seeing this film on TV just won't be the same. It has has has to be seen on the big screen, in 3D. This film was made to give people a reason to go back to theaters, and it's a hell of an introduction.
We're gonna try to get a group together next week or so to see it in IMAX. It's worth the ticket cost and long-ass drive.
One of the best cinematic experiences I've had all year.
*Comparisons to 300 are unfortunate and inaccurate but now inevitable, thanks to BEOWULF's marketing department. Whatever. A couple years ago, they would have tried to market this as the new LORD OF THE RINGS, to which it's obviously closer, but still not the same thing.
**I've come to terms with the fact that I am perhaps the only person in the whole who absolutely loves the entirety of THE RULES OF ATTRACTION.
***On this one count, the CHUD.com guy is still a fool. Glover rules, and his performance as Grendel was marvelous.
I mean, Robin Wright Penn never looks properly human, nor do many of the extras, the village folk, who resemble sub par background characters in GOD OF WAR. And Angelina Jolie, with her mighty-inflated CGI boobs, what-the-fuck-random high heels, and dubious ALEXANDER accent... well, I've never had a real problem with her, but let's just say I'm starting to feel why others do. But we're got quite at Halle Berry/Jessica Alba levels just yet.
(And as one reviewer pointed out, the motion capture technology introduced here will only improve, and BEOWULF will likely suffer from comparison. Well, so fucking what.)
And of course, there will be the literary purists, the English majors, the people who love and care about the actual true Beowulf story. I cannot speak for these people, but I am deeply sympathetic to purists, in obvious respects (my inability to fully enjoy the generally-loved V FOR VENDETTA movie, for example). Hell, much as I love the original story myself, I haven't read it since high school, and cannot honestly thoroughly compare book to movie.
I will say this: you cannot, absolutely must not go into this expecting a straightforward adaptation, because that's not what this is. And for good reason. Yes, I can hear your gnashing teeth, but listen: while this is a revisionist take on the myth, it's not like, say, 300's* take on Thermopylae.
Rather, it's much closer to what FABLES does, taking the core myths and throwing in different perspectives and spins while still (more or less) being faithful to the originals. And frankly, I think BEOWULF does it better than FABLES, which often strikes me as smugly pleased with its own cynical cleverness (The dwarfs were secretly rapists! The spoon secretly always hated the dish! Whatta twist!). Shit, if you can handle what is done with Gepetto and the Blue Fairy, you can easily handle what's done in BEOWULF, due in major part to the screenwriting excellence of Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary.**
BEOWULF the movie is not meant to be a definitive take on the story, even though it will unfortunately be so to a whole generation of young folk and idiots. It's simply a different perspective and interpretation of the myth, a companion and reflection to the book, which will likely always be the one true Beowulf story.
Frankly, this is exactly the sort of thing I want to do with my upcoming Herakles novel. Why just tell the same story over again? It'll never be as good as the original. If you can't do or say something different with the same essential story, what's the point? The nature of myth, it seems to me, is in the retelling. And with each retelling, whether intentionally or not, something is altered while the essential core of the story remains the same. It's why I love myth, and why I want to write this Herakles book.
And BEOWULF, at its heart, is not an empty badass action movie, but rather a fascinating psychological study on the powers of myth and storytelling, as well as on the nature of heroism... from a time when being a hero meant different things than it does today. I mean, I'm not saying it's the deepest film of the year, but it's certainly more so than anyone was expecting, and I'm honestly jealous that I now cannot use the observations that Gaiman and Avary employed in BEOWULF. It's due to them that this film is not just another mindless piece of 300-style escapist entertainment.
That said:
HOLY SWEET MERCIFUL EVER-LOVIN' DANCING COCK MONKEYS DOES THIS FILM KICK FIFTEEN KINDS OF ARSE.
I mean, I imagine in 2D, the film's still good. The story's strong enough. You could see it in 2D and be all right, sure.
But sweet zombie jesus, people, they weren't kidding: IF YOU CAN SEE THIS IN 3D, DO!!!!
Shit, when even the joyless crushed-idealist bastards at CHUD.com say:
I was so wrong about BEOWULF. I was wrong about the quality of the human animations. I was wrong about the concept. I was wrong about the whole damn thing (though Crispin Glover still irritates the vas deferens outta me).*** It's not only a damn good movie, it's an upper tier fantasy film that rises above the potential gimmicks of motion-capture, 3-D, and Ray Winstone as a leading man in a blockbuster. Without anything held back I gotta recommend the living shit out of this movie. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was WAY wrong.
Also, as funny as SUPERBAD and KNOCKED UP are, there is no moment in cinema this year that destroyed me like the scene near the beginning with the sea serpent and the eye and the screaming of a name [when you see it you'll know]. I was ruined for the next ten minutes. Don't pre-judge this excellent and visually jaw-dropping film like I did.
... then that's fucking impressive.
(And I'm not even gonna begin going on about the cast, and the depth of their vocal/facial performances. There's a whole other post there!)
I just sadly fear
spacechild is right in that, much like GRINDHOUSE, seeing this film on TV just won't be the same. It has has has to be seen on the big screen, in 3D. This film was made to give people a reason to go back to theaters, and it's a hell of an introduction. We're gonna try to get a group together next week or so to see it in IMAX. It's worth the ticket cost and long-ass drive.
One of the best cinematic experiences I've had all year.
*Comparisons to 300 are unfortunate and inaccurate but now inevitable, thanks to BEOWULF's marketing department. Whatever. A couple years ago, they would have tried to market this as the new LORD OF THE RINGS, to which it's obviously closer, but still not the same thing.
**I've come to terms with the fact that I am perhaps the only person in the whole who absolutely loves the entirety of THE RULES OF ATTRACTION.
***On this one count, the CHUD.com guy is still a fool. Glover rules, and his performance as Grendel was marvelous.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:28 pm (UTC)I mean, I can espouse all I want, but lord knows why opinions aren't universal. Hopefully you'll get something out of it, if only from the 3D stuff (which worked much more effectively than I thought it would, frankly).
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 08:41 pm (UTC)Frankly, this is exactly the sort of thing I want to do with my upcoming Herakles novel. Why just tell the same story over again? It'll never be as good as the original. If you can't do or say something different with the same essential story, what's the point? The nature of myth, it seems to me, is in the retelling. And with each retelling, whether intentionally or not, something is altered while the essential core of the story remains the same. It's why I love myth, and why I want to write this Herakles book.
Yes yes yes! You're absolutely right aobut myth, and also, let me know as soon as that baby is available for pre-order (even if it's years from now; especially if it's years from now).
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 08:45 pm (UTC)And rest assured, you shall. I'm gonna start research on that one right after the Harvey Dent novel and inbetween Hefner Monologues. I just wish I knew what direction to which I can take this story, but hopefully that will come with research. Who'd really be interested in a straight-forward "And Herakles did this, this, and this," especially when there are multiple versions out there of what he did?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 02:15 am (UTC)Or, for that matter, how to make all the Labors exciting? Only a couple of them involve actual slaying of beasts. Trying to find the right tone is also part of the key, as it's not all hack-slash badassery. I'm also going to read up on CONAN stories, because he's a less-than-noble hero who uses his brain almost as often as his blade.
The key, from where I sit, is to comment on the nature of myth, storytelling, and/or heroism. The movie Beowulf, for example, fights for glory above gold, mead, or justice. Conan wants nothing more than gold, food, drink, women, and not to be bored. And both are born from the Herakles model. Also, it'd be fascinating to compare Herakles, the greatest iconic hero of his time, to Superman, who is ours.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 07:54 am (UTC)Reading up on Conan is probably a good idea. I don't know that Herakles ever really fought for gold. It was like he was motivated by a mix of pride, desire, and contrition. He seems to have been an alright guy, it's just that he was overwhelmed by his emotions sometimes, and he suffered for it. The Labours being a case in point.
Hmm. I don't know that I've ever compared him to Superman...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 09:00 pm (UTC)We were SO not thinking about a version that involved hawt hawt Jolie with a boob job macking on B-wulf, which is what half the trailers consisted of.
So, uh, I'm kind of scared to see it. Because yuck!
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 04:36 am (UTC)I *loved* Grendel. I loved how he looked and how tortured and sad he seemed, and the fact that he spoke Old English rocked my ever-lovin' socks off.
From the previews, I was prepared to hate Grendel's mother, but I was actually pretty cool with her. I liked that they brought something different to her, and, as Boothe said, "I could see Angelina Jolie eating somebody."
Hoooowever. I did NOT like Beowulf himself. I hated the way he spoke, his weird accent that shifted around nationalities, and his general assholery. My Beowulf (and keep in mind that I specialized in medieval lit with my English major, so I'm biased) is not an asshole or an over the top war buffoon. I wanted him to be so much nobler and less "Raaaawr I am Beowulf watch me be naked and a jerk!" I get that the myth of him makes him out to be the perfect tragic hero and that they wanted to make him more of a relatable, fallible man, but I find it harder to like him when I find him so flawed that he's distasteful and obnoxious.
And, um, my Beowulf did not have dragon babies. Just sayin.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 05:00 am (UTC)SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS, HOOOO!!!
Date: 2007-11-20 04:56 am (UTC)(just to warn folks skimming)
***SPOILERS!!!!!***
Okay, now on with the comments.
Crispin Glover (Grendel) is great, ain't he? You might remember him as Marty McFly's Dad in BACK TO THE FUTURE, and the title role in WILLARD! Also, the creepy guy in the CHARLIE'S ANGELS movies.
As for Beowulf's portrayal here... well, lemme give you my take, based on my one viewing so far (which may change when I see this one or two more times). I took the dragon babies thing to be the living embodiment of the mess he made when he struck the deal with the devil, so to speak. This Beowulf was genuinely a hero, mind you, with abilities to match his arrogance, but with arrogance there also comes insecurity.
At this point, I imagine nothing I can say will sway you from your original point that this just isn't the heroic Beowulf you prefer, but the thing is, that kind of Beowulf doesn't work for the kind of story they're trying to tell here.
From my impression, this story is about a good but flawed man who accomplished many great things, but was haunted by his one great moment of weakness, when he gave in to the temptation to achieve glory the "easy" way, rather than earning it. This shame haunts him his whole life, crushing his arrogant braggart nature and turning him into a shell of the man he once was, until that shame finally returns to collect its due, personified by the Dragon.
(by the way: shades of King Arthur and Mordred???)
I can understand your distaste for that Beowulf as a young man, but not as the older king? By that point, he genuinely wants to do the right things, but feels helpless because he'll never be able to overcome his one great failure. I personally find that very moving. But then, I'm a sucker for redeption stories.
When he fights the dragon, he does not do so because he is called upon for the sake of vain glory. He does it to take responsibility, as a true and noble king and hero, and gains redemption. But the temptation will always be there for those after him, just it was for Hrothgar.
And I liked it because he was a hero in the style of Herakles and Conan, a hero from a time when being a hero meant different things than it does today. You could be a vain arrogant jerkwad psychopath rapist, and still be considered a hero. Again, look at Herakles.
But like I say, it's best not to consider BEOWULF the movie to be a faithful adaptation, but rather a reflection, saying something different with the same essential story. It may become more "popular" with idiot high school kids, but it ain't gonna replace the poem.
Re: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS, HOOOO!!!
Date: 2007-11-20 05:12 am (UTC)Again, my feelings are mixed. I get what they were going for, and I like that concept (and I, too, like a good redemption story), but I wish that he were more likeable from the beginning. If I had liked him as a character better, then I would have felt bad for him when he gave into temptation and fathered a dragon-baby. (And yeah, that reminded me a lot of Arthur and Mordred too, especially the way he looked once he was a golden man). I guess I just didn't care for the way he was characterized as a young man, so it hurt far less when he fell.
Re: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS, HOOOO!!!
Date: 2007-11-20 05:15 am (UTC)Re: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS, HOOOO!!!
Date: 2007-11-20 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 12:13 pm (UTC)I'm hoping to go this weekend or next.