quote:

Unfortunately, in the way of Disney movies, Mr. Gaiman's Beowulf is now going to be the image that we teachers have to fight against to tell the real story and teach the real values of the culture.

and

quote:

The film sets itself in AD 507 (not an unreasonable date), some two to three hundred years before Christianity began making inroads into the Baltic/Scandinavian world in which Beowulf was set. As such it was utterly unnecessary and a glaring anachronism.

But if you watched the special features it said that they wanted to tell the story of Beowolf as it might have been before being written down by monks. They wanted to explore what the poem could have been like before the influence of the church. So perhaps the original written poem did not really reflect the values of that culture as much as it contained lessons from the monks folded into familiar lore.

Who knows what the actual first version of Beowolf is? But I feel that the reasons for the changes were given in the special features, and I find it an interesting approach especially considering that this tale was passed around through telling long before being set-in-stone on paper. To me this means that the story was a living thing formed and influenced by the teller.

Shoot, I don't know! I'm not educated in literature, so many of the technical things being discussed here are unknown to me. I just think the movie was a fascinating treatment and it really made me interested in exploring the poem.

Been a few years since I read Seamus Heaney's modern translation of Beowulf, but I must admit that I honestly didn't feel that the movie, or Mr Gaiman's screenplay - betrayed the original source material. With any rendition, I feel it is much more vital to capture the spirit of the work than every allegorical nuance. Should we bitch because the dialogue has few - if any - kennings (the Old Norse allegorical word pairings, so beloved of Joyce - eg: whaleroad, meaning 'the sea')? I would also say that it is in the nature of heroes to be vainglorious; why else would they risk life and limb to be renowned as heroes? There's a line of Beowulf's in the film, when he's leaving his wife for the last time (I think) to go off and fight his battle with the dragon, his son, and he states that he isn't a hero, or a great king, but simply a man. Flawed, human, and all the more approachable for that - just like the rest of us. Personally, I think Michael Crichton took a great many more libertires with the Beowulf legend in his screenplay for The 13th Warrior. BTW: for the LOTR purists out there: I first read Tolkien's trilogy when I was 10, then Humphries' biography of him when I was 11 (where I discovered that old JRR died on the exact same day i was born 2/9/73 - and despite my many vanities, I don't really believe I'm his reincarnation), however, I have read the books at least 25 times since then, and, while I love them, there are many flaws, from a literary perspective, in Tolkien's work - the man himself would own to as much - and I always felt that Tom Bombadil was a particularly cringe worthy and largely superfluous character. That said, it's all a matter of personal opinion, and often, what works well in books doesn't carry to other mediums - I almost ran out of the cinema screaming when Pippin sings his lament to Denethor, Steward of Minas Tirith, as Faramir and his troops ride out to be slaughtered at Osgiliath, yet I've always felt deep affection for the many songs and verses in the books:

Galadriel's Farewell To Lothlorien

I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold,
And leaves of gold there grew,
Of wind I sang, a wind there came,
And in the branches blew,
Beyond the sun, beyond the moon,
The foam was on the sea,
And by the strand of Ilmarin,
There grew a golden tree,
Beneath the stars of Evereve,
In Eldamar, it shone,
In Eldamar, beside the walls,
Of elven Tirion,
There long the leaves of gold have grown,
Upon the branching years,
While here, beyond the Sundering Sea,
Now fall the elven tears.
O Lorien, the winter comes,
The bare and leafless day,
The leaves are falling in the stream,
The river flows away,
O Lorien, too long I have dwelt,
Upon this hither shore,
And in a fading crown have twined,
The golden Eleanor.
But if of ships I now should sing,
What ship would come for me?
What ship could bear me ever back,
Across so wide a sea?

(I'm writing this from memory, so any and all mistakes are my own)

I agree completely and one point i must get back to is something Neil is well known for in his novels and stories; deconstructing myths.

He makes a point of focussing upon the Man rather than the Myth; not the character created by repeated retellings and bardic tradition, to be a god rather than a man, but the real man behind the character. He does this in American Gods with the gods themselves, he makes them more human and rather needy in most cases. I think it's something which modern sensibilities and tastes now demand; we like our heroes flawed and human. Back when such heroes as Beowulf and Achilles were created people were at war constantly and such tales of unquenchable valour and skill at arms etc inspired people to war and to fight better etc; values were different. Now war is a less popular activity so we want to see what made this hero tick, who he really was, how human he was....we know that the bards and skalds, etc exaggerated and altered the tales, it's part of the tradition of their craft, so we want to see what they based their tales on.

Given the choice between beautiful lies and hard truth, who often chooses truth?

Yeah, truth's always the harder road to walk. War is never a pretty or pleasant game - I've lived most of my life here in Belfast, so I'm not just philosophising - 'heroes' and 'villains' are created more by those who recount the deeds than those who perpetrate them, and very little in life is truly black or white. Mr. Gaiman even manages to make Lucifer sympathetic, and does a better job of that than the Rolling Stones ever did. Those who wrote epics of old depicted characters and events in an exaggerated manner, much as tabloid newspapers cover the activities of celebrities and luminaries today. Propaganda has always been a part of the myth-making process.

SPOILERS!
I have to say that my favorite moment in the movie was when Beowulf calls Grendel a monster and Grendel answers: "I am not a monster. What are you?"
And then later, when Beowulf says on the battlefield that men are the monsters now. This, I realise, has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion ;-).
Or perhaps it does. Because I liked the movie. And I like my heroes flawed because that makes them (to me) more realistic.
And perhaps even greater heroes, when they overcome these flaws.
In the end of the movie Beowulf is a true hero. He refuses his wife when she tells him to leave the battle with the dragon to another (younger) man. He doesn't want history to repeat itself (like it did with him). I think realising your own mistakes (facing your demons, ha) and trying to put thrm right make you a hero in a way.
And nothing could be more conventionally heroic than cutting of your own arm ( nice irony there, by the way) to defeat the monster.
It is said, that not being afraid doesn't make you a hero. Being afraid but acting nonetheless is far more heroic.
So Beowulf remains a hero in the movie. Perhaps only a different kind of hero.

I totelly agree with your sentiments, and being a huge fan of the sorely missed hero-maker, Mr Gemmell, I think I know precisely where you're coming from - perhaps Mr Gaiman took a leaf out of his book when representing Beowulf, for all Mr Gemmell's heroes were flawed, from Druss to Jon Shannow, and that made their redemption all the more poignant - I also reckon that it is a salient point for a hero to die at the end of his story - people appreciate sacrifice, no matter how cynical we may have become.

I, too, adore Neil Gaiman, especially his speaking style and that he writes fairy tales for adults. I never stopped loving fairy tales and stories of the medieval hero. I wish he would do more, more, more like Stardust. I truly love a good British-styled fairy tale. If I were given a literary wish for Neil it's that he would become the next Tolkien and mesmerize me with fairy tales for adults for many years to come. A compendium of fairy tales for adults would rock my literary world. Heaven would be a fairy tale book for adults as an audiobook with Neil narrating. Aye me! *She swoons!* Any wonder I became a medieval literature English major? Good choice on my part.

So, as confessions go, I, too, teach British literature to Seniors and can understand your sense of loss in the didactic aspect that the Hollywood version of Beowulf offers. We medieval lit teachers rejoice in knowing the underlying, didactic moments in literature, see these as teachable moments, and like our movies to follow the book/poem. The film doesn't lose the sense of his might, but it is more the secular and more carnal version of Beowulf...I detected his interest in Hrothgar's wife in the poem, but the movie emphasizes this moreso as does Mel Gibson's portrayal of Hamlet in the bedroom scene with his mother. Did you notice the absence of Christian allusion in Beowulf? Hoe! I did..especially in the fight scene between Beowulf and Grendel's mother...no magical sword appeared, no divine intervention as light from heaven and so on.

I felt privileged to know what Grendel's mother was seeking...weirgyld. I really enjoy knowing the secrets of medieval literature and passing them on. My students LOVE Beowulf. It's an awesome story, and my enthusiasm is contagious. I do a bang up job covering the pagan and Christian allusion, kennings, the epic hero, and so on. The connection to Cain was not made available and much of the Christian symbolism was missing. So, it was more pagan than Christian. I'm sure you've heard this, too, but Beowulf is also history in that it documents the time in which pagan cultures were being introduced to Christianity in literature. Both layers are present in the poem, Beowulf. I teach both layers as Christianity has its roots in paganism. (See the Christianizing of pagan holidays, etc.)

We are keepers of the flame. So I understand the flaring of your flame, but it is ours...to keep and pass on to our students...as it was passed on to us. Hollywood will never pay homage to this. It isn't within their scope of understanding as they aren't charged with being keepers of the flame as we are.

As far as being the image of the epic hero...don't lose sleep over it. We don't use Pocahontas for the same reason. It isn't a true depiction of Native Americans. The Education of Little Tree...out of there...not written by a Native American. So, you know, we have to use our education in selecting what we teach and also bring our teaching skills to video as well. For me, it's like reading Hamlet and watching the Mel Gibson version and asking students to find the departures. I know Mel plays a pretty dead on Hamlet, but there are departures in the sequences of scenes and so on.

Shine on.

So here's the thing. I am also a Brit lit teacher, and the truth is that Beowulf is a total douche. He is an arrogant moron who basically does nothing but talk about how awesome he is. Sure, that was important at the time, but kids hate him. They like the work, but think he is an idiot. I don't think that was the problem with the movie. The problem was they could have called it "JimBob the Monster Killer Guy" because the only similarity the story shared with the work is the character's name. What is with the love story crap? God. I hate Hollywood and I hate when they do this to literature. I just tell myself Neil had nothing to do with any of the mistakes.