Situations Vol.

2 (Fall 2008) 2008 by Yonsei University

Mads ielsen1

Beowulf
Being an animated adaptation of the Old English poem, Beowulf the movie is not the
disappointment one might expect. The structure of the basic storyline and the plot of the film follow that of the original literary source. In the poem, Hrothgar, the king of Denmark, is haunted by the man-eating monster, Grendel, until Beowulf comes to Denmark to slay it. Consistent with the poem, Beowulf tears off the arm of the monster, which nonetheless manages to escape but dies from the wound soon after Grendels mother then avenges her slain son by killing many men, which causes Beowulf to go after Grendels mother and slay her too. He returns with Grendels head and is richly rewarded by the Danes. Like the poem, the film ends with the death of Beowulf after he has killed a dragon. Diachronically, then, the film does not deviate; but, as in most movie adaptations of literary works, compromises have been made in order to make the story fit the film form more appropriately.

In the poem, Grendel, Hrothgar and Grendels mother are not tied to each other as in the film, and Beowulf does not have any familial connections to the dragon or Grendels mother. These two triangular relationships are purely imaginative or

Sogang graduate student 116

speculative; they do not find foundation in the source material.2 What the filmmakers have done is to connect the dots to make one coherent tale, instead of keeping the structure of the separate incidents that the poem presents. The connection between Hrothgar and Grendels mother becomes apparent when Beowulf confronts her in the cave. What happens to Beowulf has also happened to Hrothgar. Both men were enchanted by the beauty of Grendels mother and her fine promises of wealth and power. In return for these things, she wants Beowulf to give her a son to replace the one he took away: love me and I shall weave you riches beyond imagination, I shall make you the greatest king that ever lived (Beowulf). As for the relationship between Grendels mother and Hrothgar, he admits directly or indirectly that he is Grendels father, when he says Grendels father can do no harm to man (Beowulf) and later admits that, with Grendels death, he has been set free. Wealthow provides us and Beowulf with other and perhaps more obvious clues that Grendel is the offspring of Hrothgar: the demon is my husbands shamemy husband has no other no sons (Beowulf). By now we know that Beowulf is bound to have offspring with the female monster. Our expectations are met when the dragon attacks the village; its attack on the house of Unferth provides us with much insight into its affinity with Beowulf as Unferths exclamation about the sins of the fathers alludes to Beowulfs relationship with the dragon as its father. Moreover, the dragon/golden boy tells Unferth: I have a message for my father (Beowulf). The dying scene of Beowulf also confirms our expectations as the sea slowly transforms the dragon into the golden shadow of Beowulf, washing away its dragon shape. The resemblance between the golden corpse and Beowulf cannot be otherwise interpreted. The film also deviates from its source in that Beowulf does not return to Geatland but is crowned as the new king of Denmark

Here I rely on translations of the poem for support since I do not read Old English 117

after Hrothgar commits suicide, an event which is also not in the original text.3

These are but trivial divergences that do not damage the story. In contrast, an in-depth analysis of Grendel and Beowulf will probably reveal the most important discrepancies between the poem and this film adaptation I shall not venture to give such a comparative account but instead lightly touch on the subject, as it would really demand separate scrutiny. What we see in the adaptation is a Shakespearean character clash between a Shylock and an Antonio. This is not meant in the sense that the characters in Beowulf and The Merchant of Venice in any way resemble each other but rather in that the characters are portrayed or interpreted in a contemporary manner. Like Shylock, Grendel is the villain; and, like Shylock, the monster has been made more pathetic than it deserves. Whether this is a blunder on the part of the script writers or something rooted in a misreading or misinterpretation of the poem, I am not able to determine here. Grendel has been given human qualities that in spite of its ugliness make it less villainous. Here, Grendel is not the flat character found in the poem; it has feelings and is able to speak4. In the grotto scene after its attack on the Danes, for example, we hear it say to its mother that it likes the taste of men. Moreover, Grendel explains its violent attacks: the monster is in pain, the Danes have hurt its ears with their merry-making, and so it has had to make them stop.5 This does not make Grendel the evil bloodthirsty monster of the original text, but a figure that has been rendered more human and pathetic. In the poem, Grendel is a real monster, a fiend out of hell who has dwelt for a time in misery among the banished monsters (Beowulf 100-105). In the movie, however, the monster is portrayed as a
3

It should be noted that by original I refer to the text of the surviving manuscript residing in the British Library 4 I use the pronoun it for the monster because it is not human. The fact that it has a name does not change that. 5 I cannot provide quotes from the film since Grendel speaks in Old English 118

baby or a child; the way it talks to his mother, the way it screams even its facial features resemble those of a child. The resemblance becomes apparent during its fight with Beowulf; Grendel shrinks in size, while the monster shrinks into the likeness of a little boy. The heart-piercing outcry just before it loses its arm is another display of its supposed humanity. Being portrayed as outcasts makes both the monster and the mother more pathetic than actually evil, and we are made to overhear Grendels mother state that men have hunted down and slain so many of our kind (Beowulf). This evokes in the audience the sensation that an injustice has been done.

In juxtaposition, Beowulf does not receive the credit he deserves as a hero; instead, he is shown in a bad light, even though he is supposed to be judicious in his actions. In this respect, he resembles Antonio in The Merchant of Venice. Like Antonio, Beowulf is not portrayed as favorably as one would expect a hero to be depicted; this is not to say that Antonio is a hero or the hero of The Merchant of Venice, however, he is not supposed to be the villain.6 Beowulf is depicted somewhat like an unreliable braggart out only for fame and glory, if we die it will be for glory not gold (Beowulf). The tale of the swimming contest with Breca helps to establish this; the comment by Wiglaf: the last time it was three (Beowulf) directly undermines Beowulfs trustworthiness when he informs Unferth that he slew nine sea-monsters. Furthermore, because Beowulf is a man of vanity and pride, Grendels mother succeeds in seducing him by appealing to these weaknesses. We know this with certainty when he finally admits to Wealthow before fighting the dragon that he couldnt resist Grendels mother because she was beautiful and full of fine promises (Beowulf). In addition, his display of a violent temper during his fight with Grendel does not cast a favourable eye on his character as a hero: Im ripper, tearer, slasher, gouger, Im the
6

Of course, this depends on from what angle you view the play 119

tooth in the darkness, the talon in the night, mine is strength, and lust and power, Im Beowulf (Beowulf). The poem sheds a much more heroic and honourable light on Beowulf and depicts him as a faithful subject of integrity and later a good ruler of Geatland:

Beowulf bore himself with valour; he was formidable in battle yet behaved with honour and took no advantage; never cut down a comrade who was drunk, kept his temper and, warrior that he was, watched an controlled his God-sent strength and his outstanding natural powers. (2177-2183)

In spite of these changes, the film does hold true to the core of the tale; however, to those who seek an orthodox adaptation of the poem, the film might be a source of a disappointment, even though we cannot deny the possibility that the movie may contribute to a renaissance of interest in the Old English poem.

The technical aspect of the film is a mix of digital pyrotechnics and rather crude animation. The close-ups seem so natural that one has doubts whether the character is real or animated. At the same time, in the establishing shots or in the shots of two or more characters together, the animation is only animation. This is especially true of the movements of the horses, which seem ridiculously rigid and clumsy, nothing like the movements of real horses. There are other instances where the digital animation falls short, but it is impossible to give a detailed description of its uncanny nature, which is best experienced directly.

120