Have you already assumed that films based on books are rarely loyal to the original pieces? I bet you had. But even expecting Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf movie not to be the exception wouldn't do much to prevent you from horrifying at the finding of such a butchery as can be seen in the epic poem 21st century Hollywood version.
Let's just put three major points into consideration:
1. Epic poems main characteristic is the presence of a hero. If you've read the book, you probably got a good idea of how an epic hero of around the 10th century was to behave... Now, what's so heroic about a man who - because of weakness - conceives his own assassination with the monster whose child is killing every 'good guy' around? That doesn't sound like good old Beowulf...
2. The same goes for the respected King Rothgar. In the movie, he's said to have been through the same situation than Beowulf's, conceiving a menace with exactly the same monster years ago! How ironic; heroes were supposed to be extremely difficult to kill, and now somebody has managed to destroy two of them in ten minutes of film...
3. Remember Grendel? That awful, bloody demon which terrified Rothgar's kingdom? And do you remember Grendel's mother? Probably twice as fierce and awful than her son? Well, 2008 Hollywood Grendel's mother is... Angelina Jolie! I don't know you, but I don't think words such as 'monstrosity' and 'Angelina Jolie' can be placed in a same sentence without breaking any moral rule...
Perhaps we should be open-minded and expect remakes to be more like reinterpretations? After all, it seems interesting to see how different societies reinterpret classics such as Beowulf across time, through completely different viewpoints...
PS: if you still want to see the film, I've got a copy at home ready to be lent. It's got a really neat animation!
PS2: Beowulf's not there, though...
6 comments:
Totally agree with you Martin. This year we watched in Language and Culture III a film about Robinson Crusoe which differed with the original book in many aspects. For example, there's a scene where Friday is called the attention by Crusoe for wearing a woman dress. However, it doesn't appear such a scene somewhere in the novel. On the other hand, I coincide with you with the fact that the word 'monstrosity' couldn't be used as a textual referent to replace the names of such actresses like Angelina Jolie or perhaps, the blonde actress protagonist of the film 'Match Point.'
Martin, a pity I haven't read the poem yet because I find your analysis really interesting. Also I agree with you in the idea that each society has a different point of view.
Martin, you are right! I also share the opinion that changing a classic book just for a film is not coherent. But in this case we are talking about HOLLYWOOD. In Hollywood everything is thought and done looking for a profitable retribution, economically speaking. Clearly, for those who are not really interested in literature, Angelina Jolie(and her beauty!) fits better on the screen than, for example, Julie Andrews. I think that Classics must be read, and comparisons with their films should be allowed only for criticism.
Martin! your comment is very appealing indeed! As you are absolutely open-minded, you know that cinematographers reinterpret real and fictional events. I agree with the idea that classics must be read and movies must be just seen- to have a good time- but both literature and cinematography are art forms. Epic poems and films are representation of the arts. We can interpret a piece of art from different points of view, it depends on our imagination, because art is not objective, art is fantasy. What is more, all our activities are based on our feelings and ideas, such as our opinions or assesments of a student's work. Everything- not only a film or a book- is connected with our personal viewpoints...And as I think, believe and feel that you are very good at thinking clearly an quickly, at understanding difficult ideas and subjects, and at gaining and using knowledge, I congratulate you for your interesting critique.
Susan.
I totally agree with Martin concerning re-interpretation of classics according to the viewpoint to the producer, director, etc.
In Culture IV, we are just dealing with the issue of political systems which are inevitably directly related to different views of life and beliefs. It would be interesting to compare the same work - either a book or film - written or shot by, lets say an American director and a Russian one? This analysis may turned out to be really intresting!!
We couldn't agree more on this one! It even arises my curiosity to compare American reinterpretations of Japanase horror movies with the original versions (it's become fashion already, btw), so imagine what is the extent of my curiosity if we talk about more serious subjects! Lol!
Post a Comment