Arthurian Elements in Rocky IV

Student: Ronaldo Rodríguez

Year: 2008

Introduction to Arthurian Romance

In his chronicles, known as Historia Brittonum, Geoffrey of Monmouth gave birth to the Arthurian Story. Arthurian romance, thus, is the name given to the literary genre that exalts the figure of the courageous hero whose endeavors achieve impossible adventures. Its name derives from the figure of King Arthur, (conqueror of Britain during the c. 500 AD) upon whom Geoffrey bestows all the attributes that, with time, would become the essence of Arthurian legend. Based slenderly on historical facts, these medieval chronicles depict, as J. M. Dent has observed,

 “The mystery, prowess, love and enchantment, where valorous heroes achieve impossible adventures and messengers from fairyland appear easily and naturally on marvelous errands.” 

The Arthurian myth is a Christian one. Ultimately, the figure of the hero who brings salvation to all through personal sacrifice is that of Jesus Christ. As the Knigts of the Round Table, he serves someone whose power is higher than his. “I do nothing of myself,” records the gospel of John, “but as my father hath taught me [1]” He portraits all the attributes of perfection and he fights against evil and for the meek and lowly. 

The purposes of this brief introduction is just to account for the origin of a set of values and elements that, as stated above, became legend and were (and still are) taken by and reproduced in western literature and other artist expressions. As Norris J. Lacy has observed:

"The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not surprisingly, to a few motifs and names, but there can be no doubt of the extent to which a legend born many centuries ago is profoundly embedded in modern culture at every level [2] " 

In an attempt to illustrate this phenomenon, this paper will deal with the presence of such elements and values in an American film of 1985, Rocky IV.

Rocky IV: a glimpse 

Rocky IV is fourth movie of the Rocky franchise. Rocky Balboa (played by Sylvester Stallone), who plans to retire from professional boxing, is challenged by an amateur boxer from the Soviet Union, named Ivan Drago (played by Dolph Lundgren), who has killed Rocky’s friend, Apollo Creed, during an exhibition match. After a personal struggle in which Rocky debates himself between the need to retire and the need to revenge his friend, he decides to accept the challenge. 

The bout is set on Christmas day in the Soviet Union. The American boxer, now coached by Creed former coach, Tony “Duke” Evers, travels to the USSR where is given a log cabin and where is jealously watched by KGB agents.

The day of the match, Rocky faces not only an almost undefeatable opponent but also a very hostile public. The very head of the Russian government is also present. However, and in spite of being pounded relentlessly, Rocky’s immovable determination allows him to endure to the last round and to defeat Drago by knock out. 

Right after the ordeal, Rocky, now with the whole arena shouting for him, pronounces an emotive talk were he says: "If I can change and you can change, everybody can change!" 

Three basic Arthurian elements

The spirit of Arthurian legend is the spirit of heroic resistance against desperate odds. Three basic elements can relatively easily be found in Arthurian films and books. Firstly, and idea which is not exclusively Arthurian, that is to say, a notion of good, represented by a system and a notion of that which is evil, whatsoever thing that system fights against or it is victim of attack from. Secondly, the presence of the knight as he who defends the system from the evil aspirations of its opponents showing unspeakable courage throughout the process. In order to be genuinely Arthurian, the knight has to go through sore affliction and he has to either defeat an opponent which is stronger than him or to give his life in the attempt. Because of its religious influence, the figure of the hero embeds Christ-like attributes of perfection such as loyalty, charity, personal sacrifice, wisdom and truthfulness among many others. 

Arthurian elements in the film

The notion of good and evil

The notion of good, in the case of the film Rocky IV, is represented by the American system (although its presence it is not explicit but only possible to elide through the presence of its antithesis, the USSR government). Such system includes the ideas of freedom, change and growth. Capitalism is also one of the main features of the American system.  In opposition and consequently playing the role of evil, the USSR’s system is portrayed as not human and hostile. The head of the Communist government on whom there is a close up on the scene of the last match, resembles the face of the former Russian Primer Minister Mikhail Gorvachev.

The knight

Rocky Balboa represents the knight for he fights against the American system’s main opponent, the communist Soviet Union. As a hero, Rocky Balboa portrays some Christ-like attributes. He is an outsider of Italian ancestors; he is meek and humble although by the time of his fight against the Russian boxer he has become a true celebrity. He is close to nature and this is shown when he trains in the cabin log of the country side using natural elements (a mountain to climb, wood to cut, etc.) The idea of overcoming insurmountable odds is constructed by means of the opponent. Drago’s highly advance training along with his faultless physical complexion and the sharp contrast with Rocky’s humble circumstances combine to create the feeling that he cannot be defeated. Even his last name, Drago, brings about the image of middle-ages evil creatures. 

Rocky’s heroic nature is constructed from the very beginning of the movie. After, Apollo’s death, the American boxer faces the tension of retirement or going back to the square to revenge his friend’s death. Rocky’s wife, who strives to get his husband out of the ring from the very first part of the saga and seeing the danger that challenging the Russian means, decides to make whatever it takes to get Rocky out of professional boxing perpetually. It is in the context in which Rocky faces the question “What am I?” to acknowledge with resignation that he is a boxer and consequently he has to face fear and danger for his friend and for the sake of the United States of America

Weeks later, the day of the bout comes and Rocky is ready to fight the Russian. After a few rounds in which Rocky receives more punches that what any other human could possibly resist, he no only manages to endure but he also begins to hit back and even hurt Drago. The Russian’s bounds are seen by his couch and others assistants as something never seen before. In the end, and is spite of the fact that Drago controlled the whole match, Rocky will be stronger in the last round and will make the ordeal come true.

Conclusion

Arthuriana elements can be frequently found in artistic modern products. In the case of Rocky IV, the antagonistic notions of good and evil are represented by the American and Russian government respectively. Rocky Balboa, the movie’s main character, represents the knight who chooses defend the system by overcoming and insurmountable opponent. In the figure of the Rocky, the attributes of honour, sacrifice and perfection are portrayed in order to increase the legend of the typical Arthurian hero. 

[1] John 8:28

[2] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Bibliography

Monmouth, Geoffrey: Geoffrey Monmouth’s Histories of the Kings of Britain

“The Holy Bible” Authorized King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day  Saints,  Salt Lake City, Utah, 1979

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

Arthurian Myth in Popular Culture: Analysing “V for Vendetta”, the 2005 Movie

Student: Martín M. Gómez   

2008                                                                          

“We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world”. 

Thus verse the first words of 2005 movie V for Vendetta, an adaptation of a graphic novel by Alan Moore carrying the same title. Can such an abstract entity as an idea truly prevail for 400 years? 

“(…) you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love...”, continues to express a cathartic Natalie Portman in the skin of Evey Hammond, the main character’s abettor in the film. Yet ideas do remain. And albeit apparently true, the opening quotation may fail to convey the incommensurable extent to which an idea can persist, for the mythical legend of King Arthur has undergone at least fifteen centuries of history. And it is precisely what Arthur and his knights symbolize what has prevailed: a dream-like picture of dauntless knights in shiny armor fighting with uncomparable braveness for a common cause. The mere figure of King Arthur is still capable of evoking feelings of honour and pride.

Moreover, the legend of Sir Lancelot and his king has set the basis for most ‘heroes-centred’ stories to come in a mysteriously subtle way. Therefore, it is possible to trace what in this paper will be referred to as ‘Arthurian elements’ in numerous modern and also post-modern works, although the latter is not of relevance here. The aforementioned V for Vendetta is not an exception. And while some discrepancies are likely to be found between the components and characteristics of the classic myth and those of the film in question there are similarities which are worth pondering upon.

King Arthur’s legacy

The myth of King Arthur tells of an extraordinarily courageous Romano-British leader who defeated the Anglo-Saxon invaders that were raiding Britain around the end of the 5th century. However, more than a single victory is presumably needed to make a legend out of a name. Nennius, a historian of Welsh origin, acknowledges Arthur’s engagement in at least 12 battles in his Historia Brittonum: “(…) the magnanimous Arthur … fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror…” However, Nennius’ work is not considered true by most modern historians. Neither is the mere existence of the king himself. Actually, most of what is known about the legend – if not all of it - has come from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12th century narrative account, Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), and Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (1485), both pieces generally disregarded as factual information. With respect to this, Alan MacColl (1999), a lecturer from the University of Aberdeen, expresses in History Today magazine, “(…) Arthur and the hotly-contested topic of his historical reality are no longer the subject of serious academic study…”. And he proceeds:

“It has been suggested that the proliferation of such narratives in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is related to the emergence of the nation state (…). Originality was not a medieval virtue, and invention was often made respectable by the invocation of a fictitious authority…” 

Nonetheless, neither the existence of the head of Camelot nor further details of the popular myth in lieu of bare information are to be developed here. Instead, the focus is redirected towards the legacy of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table: a powerful romantic ‘picture’ onto which multiple ideological purposes can be formulated, for it is the idea (or the ‘picture’) what has survived, and not the men. As Allan McColl writes, “(…) the ideological uses to which the legendary hero has been put are important…”. In 1300, for instance, Pope Boniface VIII tried to induce Edward I to abandon the war in Scotland, but the King’s reply reiterated the claim over Scottish land pointing out, among other arguments, that Geoffrey had written about an Arthurian conquest of Scotland; James IV of Scotland and I of England and Ireland, for his part, believed himself to be a second King Arthur in charge of reuniting Britannia; and even the Scottish Conservatives invoked Arthur’s figure during 1997 General Election… 

But what exactly does the previously referred surviving image display? Although sources differ in their retelling of King Arthur’s life (and particularly his death), some elements can be identified as common denominators:

•The presence of a powerful leader – or rather the powerful presence of a leading figure.

•A widely unified and prosper British Empire.

•An ever-growing wish for defending and fighting for a common cause.

King Arthur is invariably depicted as a mighty leader with an innate capacity for motivating people, invigorating souls all over his Arthurian Empire. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, besides repelling the Saxons, Arthur’s achievements are outstanding: he defeated the confederation of tribes called Picts and the Scots; he conquered Ireland, the Orkney Islands and Iceland; eventually, he overcame Norway, Denmark, and he even defeated the Roman Emperor Lucius Tiberius in Gaul. In any case, Arthur had apparently had people’s support since he was able to withdraw the magic sword Excalibur from a rock, just as wizard Merlin had prophesied:  

“And at the feast of Pentecost all manner of men assayed to pull at the sword that would assay; but none might prevail but Arthur, and pulled it out afore all the lords and commons that were there, wherefore all the commons cried at once, We will have Arthur unto our king, we will put him no more in delay…” (Le Morte d’Arthur; Sir Thomas Malory - 1485)

Once crowned, Arthur gathered a court of nobles consisting of valiant knights willing to accept their King’s commands and twice as eager to fight in his name and for his cause. Knights did not dare questioning Arthur’s decisions for he was seen as a trustworthy leader, and after several years, the ‘once and future king’ proved those noblemen to be right: thanks to his many conquests and the aid of the laborious hands of the Knights of the Round Table, Arthur made an empire out of Britain. This deed covered his name with honour and mysticism. And this flourishing British Empire, product of a gigantic effort, all Britons had to defend.

Arthurian presence in V for Vendetta film

V for Vendetta is set in England in the year 2048. In this fictional reality democracy has fallen, to the distaste of the leading character of the film, V. A totalitarian party called Norsefire rules over the country. Thus, the democratic system is threatened to such an extent as to arise V’s anger. Sick of the authoritarianism exercised by PM Alan Sutler and his militia, V plans to blow up the English Parliament on November 5th. There is a reason why he has chosen this particular date: on November 5th, back in 1605, a man called Guy Fawkes tried to achieve the same goal in order to show his discontent and rejection towards religious oppression. He failed. He was caught, imprisoned, and eventually killed. But just as King Arthur’s legacy, Guy Fawkes ideas prevailed over time, and V planned to use them. 

For such purpose, V has a carefully designed plan that allocates no space for mistakes and which involves an active participation of the citizens of London. By raiding the government’s emergence broadcasting channel, V reminds people that they are ruled by an absolute dictator, and tries to convince them that the fact that they are under such condition is not good for anyone since freedom cannot exist within the given current parameters. “(…) truth be told,” V continues, “if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror”; his message is imparted in a cautiously yet harsh manner. He then acknowledges that fear lead people to become silent and obedient in excess, and invites them to revert the situation by facing the parliament the 5th of November the following year. Attending to the claims of the charismatic V, who, by then, has become a leader, people pour into the streets to confront the oppressive militia while their inspiring figure takes personal revenge on Adam Sutler and ends up blowing the Parliament under the attentive look of his followers.

But what moves V to perpetuate such a deed? Apart from his personal reasons, V is moved by a strong regard for the buried democratic ideals. This deeply rooted esteem for democracy seems to attain the same effect King Arthur had on people and, in particular, () knights: V’s ideals (which in the movie match those of democracy) motivate him to act the way he does as much as Arthur inspired his knights’ actions. With respect to this, it is possible to state that V for Vendetta features a ‘domino’ effect: whilst V is incited to fight by the ideals of that system which he believes in, he himself revolutionizes people in an unprecedented way – at least during Sutler’s government. Thus, abstract ideas can be found mobilizing concrete subjects, and this is another coincidence with the Arthurian myth: as exemplified before, the name of King Arthur has been evoked along history with different purposes, of which mobilizing people is certainly one of the most common. 

Seemingly, all the elements which inform the Arthurian myth integrate the plot of V for Vendetta: the role of King Arthur as the charismatic leader is played, in the first place, by the ideals of democracy which propel V’s actions, and, secondly, by V himself, who induces people to confront Adam Sutler’s authoritarian party. This, of course, presupposes the presence of people whom can be influenced: in the case of Arthur, this space was occupied by the brave knights who wished to fight at their King’s side and perhaps depicted in the Knights of the Round Table, the King’s closest comrades. In the case of V, it is ordinary people who, motivated by V, gather willingly to fight in the name of democracy and against a common ‘evil’. This, in time, leads to a third element: the evil within the existing system. The British Empire had to defend itself from raiders, while the democratic system is endangered by the totalitarian government in V for Vendetta. This analysis may be summarized as in the figures below. The first graphic displays King Arthur’s epitome, whereas the second is intended to reflect the situation proposed in V for Vendetta:

   

Conclusion

It appears that King Arthur’s paradigm is still imitated in artifacts of popular culture, either consciously or without awareness. The fact that the Arthurian myth persists as an inspiring legend, shaping the work of hundreds of artists event in recent times, speaks for the peculiar capability of propelling people with which it was formerly informed. Likening the plot of V for Vendetta to the Arthurian elements antecedently mentioned leads to a striking matching of ideas between Arthur’s and V’s stories: the existence of a system being threatened somehow by an evil, the wish for defending the system, the presence of a charismatic leader who induces people to fight for the system, and many other similarities which may have passed unnoticed

Personally, I believe that the apparently ever-lasting quality of the Arthurian Myth resides, at least partly, in humans’ constant need for identification with a higher being. Curiously, after the departure of the leading figure in V for Vendetta, Mr. Finch (an investigator who tries to capture V) asks Evey who the man who has just died is, to which she replies:

“He was Edmond Dantés... and he was my father. And my mother... my brother... my friend. He was you... and me. He was all of us.”   

Could it be a mere coincidence? 

Similarities between the film 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' and the myth of King Arthur

Student: Yanina Helvig

Year: 2009

Introduction  

Le Morte Darthur (1485) is a well-known book written by Thomas Malory, where the author tells the adventures of the legendary King Arthur, focusing on the spirit of the English Renascence rather than describing the elements of romance that were very well-known in the epoch (Scudder, Vida 1917). Modern authors resort to elements of the Arthurian legend with frequency as a source for their literary works, films, TV programmes, comic books and others (Slocum, Sally, 1992). The film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” (2001), based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling (1997), may present elements from the myth of King Arthur. The movie tells the story of Harry Potter, a young wizard who arrives at a world parallel to the Earth, in order to enter Hogwarts, the school of Witchcraft and Wizardry. In the school, Harry and his friends try to prevent Voldemort, an evil magician, from stealing the Philosopher’s stone, an elixir of life. 

This paper will attempt to show similarities between the film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” and the myth of King Arthur. For this objective, different elements appearing in both pieces of work will be compared.   

An Overview of Malory’s adaptation of the Arthurian Myth and the Film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”

According to Malory’s version, Arthur is a legendary British king who obtains the throne after pulling an enchanted sword from a stone. When he takes the crown, he rules and takes decisions under the guidance and support of the Knights of the Round Table, who swear loyalty to him. Arthur fights numerous battles with great courage and bravery using Excalibur, the enchanted sword, to defeat invaders who want to alter the order of the British Empire. 

Arthur’s valor and prowess can be perceived in the following example where the king is in a battle with the Romans.

“But in especial, King Arthur rode in the battle exhorting his knights to do well (…) he drew out Excalibur his sword, and awaited ever whereas the Romans were thickest and most grieved his people (…) and hew and slew down right, and rescued his people (…)” (Malory, Sir Thomas 1485)

This short passage may show Arthur’s heroism and bravery since he decides to fight where there are more enemies in number to save the life of his knights.

Besides, the presence of supernatural forces may be found in the Arthurian legend, such as the enchanted sword that chooses Arthur as the British King. Other magical elements may include ghosts, like the spirit of Sir Gawain, one of his knights, who warns him from death, and giants and monsters killed by the king and his knights. Arthur’s death may be also connected with a powerful magical element. The king is caught and placed in a boat by a group of queens at the sea water, and from that moment nobody sees King Arthur again. 

The legend of King Arthur may be analyzed within a system represented by the British Empire. This system is composed by a powerful leader, King Arthur, a group of knights who fight in the name of the leading figure and the evil that frightens the system and attempts to alter it.      

The film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” tells the story of Harry Potter, who learns he is destined to become a powerful wizard in Hogwarts and that he is considered a legend because he could survive from Voldemort. This malevolent wizard aimed at killing Harry when he was a baby but he failed, leaving a scar on Harry’s forehead. In The School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Harry and his friends have a great adventure. They fight against terrible monsters when they try to prevent Voldemort from recovering his body since it was destroyed the moment he tried to kill Harry. 

The film can also be analyzed within a system represented by Hogwarts. Some elements may be identified in this system as in the Arthurian myth. Such elements are: the head of the system, Dumbledore, the headmaster of the school of Witchcraft and Wizardry, a group of students who act in the name of Dumbledore, and the evil, Voldemort, who aims at stealing the philosopher’s stone to recover his body and thus, to take control of Hogwarts.   

A Comparison between the Arthurian system and the film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone”

By comparing the legend of King Arthur and the film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone”, some similarities can be perceived since the magical world in the film may be influenced by the Arthurian system.

One common denominator may be the presence of a powerful leader. In the Arthurian myth, King Arthur is the head of the British Empire. That is to say, he is a symbol for the nation he represents. The equivalent of Arthur in the film may be Dumbledore. He is an iconic figure who acts as the head of the school of Witchcraft and Wizardry.   

Another similarity that can be identified may be the existence of a group of knights who fight to defend a common cause in the name of the leader. In the Arthurian myth, the Knights of the Round Table offer support to the king and fight to defeat invaders who want to alter the British system. In the film, Harry and his friends attempt to prevent the robbery of the philosopher’s stone. They fight in the name of Dumbledore to protect Hogwarts from the malignant and powerful Voldemort. 

However, it is possible to identify a difference between the Knights of the Round Table and Harry and his friends. In the myth, the knights are loyal, which means that they obey their king. In the film, the concept of faithfulness seems to be transformed because Harry and his friends question and judge the rules every time they find it necessary to defend Hogwarts. Although they break the rules, this may not imply that they are disloyal to Dumbledore because what they do is to analyze the regulations and act upon their own view. 

Arthurian Elements in the film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone”

There may be other Arthurian elements that persist in the film.  The presence of supernatural forces is one element that the legend of King Arthur and the film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” have in common. 

Such fantastic elements may be monsters, ghosts, spirits, wizards and magical weapons. For example, in the myth, Excalibur, the magical sword that chooses Arthur to become the British King, may be the equivalent of the magical wand that chooses Harry Potter in the film.

Moreover, it may be possible to find a connection between Arthur and Harry since both of them are predestined to become a legend. On the one hand, Arthur is considered a myth because he was the one predestined by an enchanted sword to rule the British nation. On the other hand, Harry is a well-known child in Hogwarts due to the fact that he was the only one who could survive from the evil Voldemort and destroyed him.

Arthur’s and Harry´s early age may also present similarities. Both characters were not raised by their parents in their early days. King Arthur, son of Uther, was brought up by Sir Ector. Merlin takes the decision of hiding the baby from the king’s enemies when he notices that the king is about to die.  Harry was raised by his relatives, the Dursleys, after his parents´ death. Hagrid, the gamekeeper, is the one who carries Harry to his relatives´ house.    

Conclusion

Malory’s adaptation of the adventures of King Arthur may be found in different works by many modern authors. The film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” is an example of a popular culture artifact where Arthurian elements may remain present.  By comparing both the legend of King Arthur and the film “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”, it may be perceived that this popular culture artifact may be influenced by certain Arthurian elements and its system. 

Bibliography

Chris Columbus (2001) Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone 

Malory, Sir Thomas (1994) Le Morte Dathur: Sir Thomas Malory´s Book of King Arthur and of his Noble Knights of the Round Table, Volume 1 and 2. Keller, Charles (ed.) University of Virginia (1994)

Scudder, Vida (1917) Le Morte Darthur of Sir Thomas Malory & Its Sources. New York: E.P. Dutton. 

Slocum, Sally (ed.) (1992) Popular Arthurian Traditions. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press

More on Beowulf

Martín wrote a great review on Zemeckis' Beowulf film (2007) some time ago. He was quite upset with the film's rendering of the ancient Saxon poem. I hadn't seen the film by that time, but now, after a single viewing, I find it surprising that I disagree so much with Martín's opinion. Not that the film hasn't got weaknesses, but to me, the strength and weaknesses of the film are at odds with Martín's opinion. So I thought it interesting to write my point of view down. You can find the post on If I may say so... (just click here).

The question of freedom

Last meeting in L&C IV, while analysing the basic elements of political systems and applying them to the republican system, the question of freedom arose. That same topic had cropped up at the beginning of the year in L&C III, as a result of our preliminary approach to modernity. On that occasion, the debate moved us to see the short Brazilian documentary "Ilha das Flores," and to continue our exchange in If I may say so…

 

I invite you all to have a look at what we wrote and discussed then, and to resume the debate. You can also watch the video there.  Just click here. 

Beowulf: Poem vs. Film (by Martín Gómez)

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...