One of my students forwarded me the link to this article in Salon by Gary Kamiya, in which the author laments the failure of tone and spirit of the Beowulf movie by comparing it to Beowulf-scholar J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson's movie adaptation of that text. So far this is the best analysis I've seen of why Beowulf the movie was so disheartening for those of us who love the poem; and it's a wonderful antidote to all those annoying reviews, good or bad, that start with a reference to "the poem you were forced to read in high school" or "the poem you hated in high school." Here's a sample:
"Beowulf" doesn't fail because it changes the story: It fails because it is so busy juicing up the story that it does not create a mythical universe. It has no transfiguring vision. It seizes upon an ancient tale, whose invisible roots run deep into our psyches, and uses it to construct a shiny, plastic entertainment. It takes a wild fable and turns it into a tame story. But "Beowulf" is the kind of story that is meaningless unless it is part of a cosmology. It is, in short, a myth.Thank you, Mr. Kamiya, for an elegant and thoughtful article.
5 comments:
So far this is the best analysis I've seen of why Beowulf the movie was so disheartening for those of us who love the poem
Uh, no. That would be, seriously, your piece on the film and its characters. Kamiya's piece isn't bad, at least by its second page, and it ought to be praised for knowing some differences between the early and later Middle Ages ("the figure of the corrupting, sexually powerful witch-woman is more associated with the later Middle Ages"), but it's still written in a mode of criticism that yours, thank goodness, superseded. Yours is politicized and particular; Kamiya's is, well, grand and vague, and its frequent appeals to the first-person plural ("our ancestral language"; "our shared cultural heritage") sounds a bit too much like this.
Bravo for your good work.
I was not offended by Beowulf, animated,3-D or otherwise, and left Solon. Com this:
Retelling an epic story, the storyteller must adjust to his audience and their experiences. As I'm sure the 8th century scops and skalds did in the mead halls of their time.
I saw Zemeckis' adaptation in light of today's events; Modern leaders seduced by power and the short-cuts available to achieve it....
I came out seeing the hated Grendel as a mumbling misunderstood son of the admired King Hrothgar... an heir though illegitimate, but never seen/thought worthy of the throne.
In our present experience, Grendel is the presidency of George W. Bush; the prodigal slacker given most things but shirked the test of combat, he nonetheless wanted his hieratical right to the throne...
The old king can never admit his past errors that brought such a creature to the world. Nor can a father readily admit his son is not presidential material. The problem is allowed to fester. In the hall of government, neither Grendel nor Bush Jr. is comfortable and both nations lose.
The old king hopes for a worthy champion to rid kingdom of his error. Beowulf answers that call and alas is seduced by power....
In the present day, our Grendel had enough “Unferth” allies wanting to return to power that none of the battle–tested heroes would be elected.
The present day “Grendel” has kept our halls of government in shambles.
Karl,
Aw, shucks, thanks! But maybe I should've clarified: Kamiya's piece was the best I'd seen in the mainstream media. Or the best not by a medievalist. And actually, I also like Manola Dhargis's review in the Times (even though I think I just misspelled her name).
Kamiya's piece was the best I'd seen in the mainstream media.
Fair enough! At least it didn't begin with some variant of "this ain't your father's Beowulf," and that, sadly, sets it apart from the other reviews.
At least it didn't begin with some variant of "this ain't your father's Beowulf"
Exactly.
Post a Comment