Let me start this by saying I have truly loved Neil's work, books and movies. But I have a great exception to make to Beowulf.
I teach British literature to high school students, and Beowulf is the first thing any of them encounter in terms of the history of our language. In class we discuss the poetic style, the translation, the action... and the cultural values.
While the film "Beowulf" was a cinematic joy (although I don't fancy full cgi movies myself), the cultural values and message of the original was completely lost.
Beowulf was a hero. An epic hero, to be precise. He was used by the scops (bards) to teach values of honesty, bravery, and honor. His tale helped reinforce their ideas of justice and righteousness with concepts such as weirgild (manprice paid when one viking killed another) and comitatus (loyalty and honor between kings and their subjects).
Mr. Gaiman's Beowulf depicts none of these qualities. He is a vain and covetous man who gives in to temptation and betrays everything that his culture believes in. 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.
I am truly disappointed.

I think you're being rather limited in your viewpoint. I also teach high school, my seniors also read Beowulf, and I'm planning on making an extra credit project that requires the students to compare and contrast the two (once Beowulf is on DVD). I think discussion of the divergences could be just as important as studying the "original" (because, let's face it, what the students study isn't the original either). It could open up deeper discussions regarding the role the audience plays and determining what an author's intent was.

I like the idea of Beowulf as a realistic hero. I think it's entirely possible to teach how the story of Beowulf was used in the past and then move through how Beowulf might have been as a real person into how we regard heroes today.

I'm sorry you were disappointed but I hope you're able to use this movie to strengthen your lessons rather than considering a negative addition.

*Possible Spoilers Alert*

I've read some of the original Beowulf (as much as I know anything of Old English -- it's this nagging language -- it almost makes sense and yet ... it's so alien at the same time, so familiar) and I know the legend.

Personally, I don't really see the difference between the Beowulf of the epic poem and the Beowulf that Neil helped create. So he had greed, and vanity, and he was covetous. If you look at many ancient epic heroes, especially the Greek ones you find these qualities in spades. You have heroes with epithets like "Sacker of Cities" and whatnot.

No, I agree that this Beowulf in the film has many murderous and negative traits, but those ideals of bravery, and honor, and even honesty are still there in that film and in that character. There was something very feral and free about Beowulf as he fought Grendel. And yes, when he tells his stories he does boast and exaggerate but no more nor less than any hero. Certainly no more than Hrothgar would.

I see this Beowulf as the man that the legend was made from -- as a real man. I saw a man who had incredible strength and will, but who saw things he could not beat: death, and desire, his dreams ... (I'll stop before traveling the entire Sandman pantheon thanks, )

The message ... I don't really see a complete change. Perhaps there is a slight alteration in meanings, as most of these stories, and mythologies have when translated to another generation. But there are many levels you can look at this film. I especially like one metaphor that Grendel's mother represents with regards to humans and heroes: again -- dreams, desire and death.

So, I really don't think this film is or represents the "wrong" message. Just one interpretation. It was really quite fascinating.

And as for "bloodfeud," well ... perhaps we don't see it in Vikings, but we definitely do see it on a more divine and supernatural level -- which even in the epic was an essential that ruled both the mortal and immortal worlds. A victim's living relative must "avenge" their fallen loved one's murder. And the cycle, the cycle of myth and murder continues (I did a little project work on Ragnarok last year in University

I think the movie goes deeper than a reinterpretation. It adds a lot to the story that, in my opinion, makes it much more worth paying attention to.

I find it interesting that the story of Beowulf is echoed in so many other myths and legends: Heracles, Thor, Sts. Patrick and George. I wonder if there ever was an actual person who all these myths were based upon.

However, the "right" message that Beowulf left with me was that it's worth looking behind the legends to see what more human truth might be there.

Very interesting discussion, here, and I'm really glad to see what teachers are thinking about the movie (which I haven't see yet, alas).

I came on here looking for somewhere to post a link to this political interpretation of the movie:

http://www.alternet.org/sex/68959/?page=1

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, I love Mr. Gaiman's work and I'm going to be very excited to see the movie, but I think its true value, beyond entertainment, will be for opening up discussions like this one and the Alternet piece.

The problem comes any time people make a movie (or write a book - or comic book - that requires its audience to *think*. Lots of people don't want to do that these days, and there are plenty of axe-grinders of all persuasions happy to jump in and twist the movie or book to their own ends. Me, I go for the entertainment and leave the rending to others.

Thanks, teachers. I honor you. *bows*

well, he was taking the Tolkienist (is that a word?) stance on the epic--that it is a story, not a cultural artifact (and I must say that it's much more coherent as a story than the original is). if you're teaching Beowulf as a cultural artifact (basic values of Norse culture, how their society was structured, etc.) then, no, I might not want to highlight the movie, either.

but you can't use the movie--simply because of its medium--to teach students about verse form in Old English, either, which is far different than the verse form most poems they will encounter are written in. so studying the poem alone will obviously have a different vantage point than studying the poem alongside the movie.

the movie becomes advantageous if you want to study the difference between a society's ideals and its ugly realities (because, let's face it, human nature being what it is, not every Viking was a perfect Viking). and it can also highlight how, even though this particular character did not conform to his culture's ideals more often than not, he still reverted to the basic principles you mention before all was said and done.

now that it's out there, you can at least spin it so that it becomes useful to you--even if you want to teach it in the same way you did before the movie premeired. (it's your classroom, after all. )

I agree with the original poster. Warning the following contains spoilers.

The main criticism has to be how horribly they have distorted the story by making Grendel's mother some kind of monstrous seductress, who ensnares both Hroðgar and Beowulf. This completely negates Beowulf's role as the peerless hero of the tale, who not only behaves honourably and faithfully, representing in turn the virtues of the king's thegn and then later the king himself. He is the Anglo-Saxon paradigm of how nobility & royalty ought to act.

In addition the dragon in the poem is entirely unrelated to the Grendel/Grendel's mother episode (best described as a feud between Hroðgar & Grendel - again note Grendel's mother only kills Æschere, Hroðgar's most trusted retainer in revenge for the death of her son - thereby adhering to the rules of the feud: the retalation most be proportionate to the original need for vengeance. As <yet another> side note the author of Beowulf is at pains to point out that part of the monstrosity of Grendel lies in the fact that he will not accept compensation or any peacemaking overtures. The same is true of his mother - something, which to some degree, the film ignores).

Another major problem was the treatment of Christianity in the film. While the poem makes clear allusions to Christianity it is also explicit that it is describing a pagan world. 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. Furthermore it also serves to negate some of the central themes of the poem, notably the inevitable and destructive nature of feuding in a pagan context (Christian forgiveness and the primacy of sacrally anointed kings who removed the individual's right for vengeance) and the manner in which society's hierarchy and modes of behaviour were maintained by honour codes rather than moral/Christian imperatives. Perversely the loose sexual mores of the film which are employed, in part I suspect, to represent the pagan nature of society are entirely out of place. Germanic society was prudish with an acutely developed sense of status and honour - openly committing adultery against a woman was a slight to her honour and that of her kin (see Tacitus) - with shame playing a powerful role as a social control. The only exception might be the treatment of slave women but even here discretion was advisable. In the poem there is no suggestion that Wealhþeow is anything other than a loyal and loving wife to Hrothgar.

Finally in the list of major problems relating to the story there is the frankly bizarre treatment of two major characters in the story: Unferð and Wiglaf. The former (his name means Unpeace or strife in OE) is an important character as providing a contrast to Beowulf in how a King's retainer ought to behave. Wiglaf is placed in juxtaposition to Unferð. He only appears as a young man in the poem when Beowulf, as the by now aged king of the Geats (note not the Danes, where Hroðgar & Wealhþeow's eldest son, Hreðic suceeded to the throne only to be subsequently killed by the Heathobards), fights the dragon. The dragon, enraged by the theft of a gold cup from its hoard by a slave, is fought by Beowulf who takes twelve warriors with him (the final fatal encounter with the dragon can be seen as a metaphor for the evils of greed and pride - especially that Beowulf eschews the use of more warriors and leads the attack against the dragon as being an indicator of prideful behaviour contrasting with his earlier modest life) who then abandon him with the exception of Wiglaf. Wiglaf, therefore, stands in direct contrast to Unferð showing himself to be a true, loyal and brave retainer worthy of Beowulf's patronage/lordship. The two together slay the dragon by using sword (Beowulf's fails him) and knives.

A lesser criticism relates to the incident with Finn. In the poem Finn was long dead by the time of Beowulf; he is mentioned in a poem within the poem as an exemplar of how diplomatic royal marriages can go wrong and how feuds can destroy even the most powerful kingdoms. The fight at Finnsburgh takes place perhaps 60 - 80 years before the setting of the main events in Beowulf. Equally irriatating is the fact that in the poem it is the Geats under King Hygelac, Beowulf's lord, who attack the Finns and are bloodily repulsed with Hygelac losing his life.

the difference is just in the perspective you bring to the story. if you want to read it as a historical/cultural artifact, then fine, the movie's probably not your cup of tea.

but we're talking about teaching british literature , not british history. and, as such, the contrasts the film provides can only be helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by Apathy:
the difference is just in the perspective you bring to the story. if you want to read it as a historical/cultural

artifact, then fine, the movie's probably not your cup of tea.

but we're talking about teaching british literature , not british history. and, as such, the contrasts the

film provides can only be helpful.

I think by removing the historical/cultural context from the study of the poem as a work of literature you run the risk of going down a dangerous post-modern dead end in which any interpretation can be valid and the meaning of the poem ultimately becomes meaningless.

I would agree with your earlier post that the film is not in a position to provide insights into Beowulf as a work of poetry. It tells us nothing about the Old English metre or the use of alliteration rather than rhyme. Nor can
it provide insights into the significance of the absence of scandinavian loan words in the Old English or the poems adherence to Kaluza's law. The poet's deliberate parallels to classical literature such as Vergil's Aeneid and the Old Testament are all absent from the film. As such the film does not obviously help with respect to using the study of Beowulf to teach British (by which you mean English or Anglo-Saxon literature, the poem is most definitely not a British work like the Y Gododdin for example - the two are very separate things and the products of different, competing cultures and societies) literature.

This then leads to your contention that the film is helpful by providing a more realistic depiction of early Germanic society than the ideal given in the poem. This is a more interesting point. I would, however, disagree
and argue that the film fails in two crucial respects. The first is that it most definitely does not give a more realistic depiction of early Germanic or Anglo-Saxon society. Notablty the bawdy sexuality of the film was quite at
odds with the prurience of early Germanic society and their fairly rigid honour codes. Secondly it ignores the concept of feud (fæhð in Old English) and its importance both with respect to the interaction with the monsters and also as a social/political mechanism. Finally the film's depiction of christianity is anachronistic and jars as badly as the later medieval stone architecture. The second point is that while the poem does depcit a paradigm of heroic behaviour which was removed from the historical reality it also provides a much darker and more realistic depiction of the feuding behaviour prevalent to the time, notably through the Fight at Finnsburgh sequence and the discussions of the feuds between the Danes and the Heathobards and also the Geats and the Swedes. In this respect the poet gives a highly accurate depiction of early Germanic society, something which the film singulary fails to do.

Also I think you misrepresent Tolkien's point of view in his seminal paper, Beowulf, the Monsters and the Critics in which he does not attempt to remove the poem from its cultural/historical context. Instead he noted that the monsters were not allegorical but very real to the audience and their feud with mankind (through the microcosm of the hall at Heorot) allowed the poet to depict the heroic image of 'man at war with the hostile world, and his inevitable overthrow in time' (p.260). Without an understanding of the society and its cultural mores this point would make very little sense.

I don't, therefore, think that it is a matter of different perspectives and rather consider that the film is unhelpful, misleading and confusing as an introduction to Beowulf. If it, however, serves the purpose to inspire its audience to go and read the poem (and I would recommend Seamus Heaney's outstanding verse translation) then it will have been all to the good.

edited for formatting

all excellent points. ("british" was the term used by the original poster, so I went with it. )

when I say the movie is more realistic, I only mean that, unlike the original, its characters are portrayed as real people with flaws--no, Hrothgar probably wouldn't have been flashing his thanes in the meadhall...but he could have had a secret affair. yes?

and I did say contrasts. casual viewers won't learn a thing from it, no, but casual viewers who have a savvy lit teacher can be ambushed with it. compare/contrast is immensely useful in understanding works of literature, and using the movie's anacronisms to underscore important aspects of the epic would be easily done.

My brother happens to be studying Beowulf in a college Lit class. As an extra credit assignment, whe went to go and wirte a couple of pages comparing and contrasting the two stories. Myself, I wanted to seee it becasue I like the origional story, and Gaiman, and it came out on my birthday. So, we saw the film (at 1:50 in the morning!) and came out bemused to say the least. But the two of us talked about it, bouncing ideas back and forth about the concept. And I think that's something important to keep in mind. It may encourage more people to read the origional poem, and talk about it amongst themselves. I also thought that it was useful for explaining certain things which were odd in the origional (why DID Beowulf bring back Grendal's head, but not his mother's?). Is it faithful to the poem? For the most part, yes. I have always felt that Beowulf was something of a bully myself, so it was nice to see that on screen. I'll admit, the necessity for putting a strong, independantly minded female lead is a bit odd (not that I have anything against strong independantly minded women- far from it. It's just that the placement of such a character in these settings is somewhat silly at best).

But look. The movie never claimed to be entirely accurrate. And thank goodness- I woudln't want to sit through hours of Beowulf bragging about how mighty he is. Did it change the story? Yea, it did. But on the whole, it explained those changes. For example, it was pointed out on an earlier post that he is shown as caving in to Grendal's Mother, which would make no sense for the character. But consider- the idea is that she is not supposed to be just any good looking woman, and he is not only giving in to her for her beauty. The chance to bed her is only marginally part fo the seduction. The greatest part fo the seduction seems to be his attaining power and fame. Remember the Elder Edda? Men die, cattle die, but the deeds of a great man live on (pardon me if I'm slightly misquoting this- I haven't read it in ages). Beowulf is attracted to the idea the by giving in on one small thing, he can achieve the greatest of glories.

Alright, this isn't the thread for arguing back and forth about the ideas in the film. In any case, as I said, there are divergences but they are generally explained. And I disagree that the movie was a Disnification. Far from it- I was astounded to see that the movie was genuinly adult in nature. Frankly, I thought it should have had an R rating, for all the gore.

In any case, I disagree with the argument that the message has changed. It's only presented in a differant light. In the original, Beowulf is shown to be a man of honor and such and thus lead by example. Wheras in the movie, it is through his deceit that he is eventually taken down. This shows what happens if you are not a man of honor. Isn't the message the same, when it comes down to it?

quote:

Originally posted by Broklynite:
And I think that's something important to keep in mind. It may encourage more people to read the origional poem, and talk about it amongst themselves.

I absolutely agree if it gets people reading and discussing Beowulf then it will have achieved a great thing. I don't think its intent was to provoke discussion but its probably the best thing about the film.

quote:

I also thought that it was useful for explaining certain things which were odd in the origional (why DID Beowulf bring back Grendal's head, but not his mother's?).

That's a fair point but one, which I think is easily answered. Beowulf brought back Grendel's head to demonstrate the truth of his claim that he killed him, which was the task he set out to achieve. He killed Grendel's mother to avenge her killing of Æschere, Hroðgar's retainer and her death is demonstrated not only by his word but also by the end of any further activity. Had she lived then, according to the mechanisms of feuding, she would have retaliated further for the injuries inflicted upon her. The absence of any such retaliation is proof of her death.

quote:

Is it faithful to the poem? For the most part, yes. I have always felt that Beowulf was something of a bully myself, so it was nice to see that on screen.

I have to disagree here as by perverting Beowulf's character and linking the dragon with the Grendel episode it is very untrue to both the narrative and sense of the poem. As for Beowulf being a bully and a braggard I think this is a quite understandable modern misunderstanding. His apparent bullying and boasting would be standard behaviour in early Germanic world as a means of saying who he was and what he had done. He kills Grendel and his mother not only to serve Hroðgar (repaying his family debt of honour) and to win status at home with his own lord, Hygelac but also because Grendel and his kin are unnatural monsters at war with the world of men. By their unnatural and monstrous behaviour they put themselves outside the bounds of merciful treatment and are instead an evil which has to be eradicated precisely because it is not open to negotiation or a peaceful composition of the feud.

quote:

But look. The movie never claimed to be entirely accurrate.

Well yes it did both by virtue of calling itself Beowulf and in the credits and the pre-marketing. It would have been more honest to have renamed the story (in a manner similar to the 13th Warrior based in Michael Crichton's adaption of Beowulf, The Eaters of the Dead) and presented it as an adaptation.

quote:

And thank goodness- I woudln't want to sit through hours of Beowulf bragging about how mighty he is. Did it change the story? Yea, it did. But on the whole, it explained those changes. For example, it was pointed out on an earlier post that he is shown as caving in to Grendal's Mother, which would make no sense for the character. But consider- the idea is that she is not supposed to be just any good looking woman, and he is not only giving in to her for her beauty. The chance to bed her is only marginally part fo the seduction. The greatest part fo the seduction seems to be his attaining power and fame. Remember the Elder Edda? Men die, cattle die, but the deeds of a great man live on (pardon me if I'm slightly misquoting this- I haven't read it in ages). Beowulf is attracted to the idea the by giving in on one small thing, he can achieve the greatest of glories.

But this a major change to both the plot and Beowulf's motivation. In the poem he achieves greatness and lasting acclaim by virtue of his deeds and by adhering to the code of early Germanic heroic behaviour. What the film suggests is entirely the reverse, that he is seduced (literally) by his desire for power and fame. This goes against the description of Beowulf as a relatively humble man not prone to boasting in his own land.

quote:

In any case, I disagree with the argument that the message has changed. It's only presented in a differant light. In the original, Beowulf is shown to be a man of honor and such and thus lead by example. Wheras in the movie, it is through his deceit that he is eventually taken down. This shows what happens if you are not a man of honor. Isn't the message the same, when it comes down to it?

No, it's quite the reverse. In the film, as you say it is through his own deceit that he is brought down whereas in the poem he meets his end heroically sacrificing his life for the good of the people after the dragon's wrath was provoked by the misdeeds of a slave (the slave steals the cup from the dragon hoard to ingratiate himself with his master from whom he has run away). While you can accuse Beowulf of being proud his ending is an honourable one in which he kills the dragon for the good of the Geatish people. In this respect he continues to be a paradigm of heroic behaviour and also acts in a manner which would have had very obvious parallels to a christian audience. In my opinion the slant given by the film couldn't be any further removed from this.

quote:

Originally posted by Apathy:
when I say the movie is more realistic, I only mean that, unlike the original, its characters are portrayed as real people with flaws--no, Hrothgar probably wouldn't have been flashing his thanes in the meadhall...but he could have had a secret affair. yes?

Quite possibly although such behaviour is more common in Norse sagas rather than Anglo-Saxon literature. In general the Norse tales tend to be more earthy. I think also the point remains that other characters such as Unferth, Ingeld and Hygelac are depicted as flawed - the former killing his own kin while the latter is depicted as greedy and selfish. The poet deliberately creates such characters not only to provide contrast to Beowulf's actions but only to set the poem in a realistic world with which the audience could empathise.

quote:

and I did say contrasts. casual viewers won't learn a thing from it, no, but casual viewers who have a savvy lit teacher can be ambushed with it. compare/contrast is immensely useful in understanding works of literature, and using the movie's anacronisms to underscore important aspects of the epic would be easily done.

Agreed, that's a good point although without such guidance I think there is a risk that the film will create confusion.

This reminds me of a conversation I read on another board about The Fellowship of the Ring and it's lack of Tom Bombadil. A few English majors, a bunch of film majors and a bunch of just plain folks went after each other for days about how it was either a betrayal of Tolkein's work, a sound screenwriting decision or something else, but the entire conversation was summed up quite succinctly by the third poster on the thread: "Just what the movie needed. Another hobbit."

And, really, criticizing Neil Gaiman for creating a narrative turned on its head is like criticizing Mark Twain for writing in dialect. Sandman is chock-a-block with narratives and narrative elements turned on their heads. Some are imported from the existing mythology of the DC world, like Cain and Abel, but he's been disassembling myths down to their most basic components pretty much since he started writing fiction, whether it's having a heroic Knght of the Grail sitting in a drawing room sipping tea with an elderly fan of romance novels or ancient gods from a dozen different cultures writ in distinctly American flesh.

Note that I'm not saying that you can't criticize him for turning a narrative on its head, just that it means you're criticizing him for doing what he's made a career from.

I missed Tom Bombadil.

in general, I tend to be a rabid purist. or I have been in the past. as I get farther away from college (and the associated ability to show off by shouting, "that is not in the book! curse you, Ang Lee!"), I'm learning to respect film-makers and writers who take something that we know and twist it so that we have to look at it in a different light. it makes me think, both about what the new incarnation of the story is saying and about what the original said. and I can appreciate that.

I missed him too, to an extent. The message the character had for the reader wasn't one that really reonated with the way The Ring and the nature of evil went in the movies, though.

except as its antithesis...Tom Bombadil is probably the only polar opposite character we're given for Sauron (possibly even the evil dude before Sauron whose name I can never remember). but his story isn't as easily accessible, I'll definitely give you that.

quote:

Originally posted by Apathy:
(possibly even the evil dude before Sauron whose name I can never remember).

Morgoth or Melkor (2 names, same guy).

The movie has made me curious to read the poem and I am now half way through it. I would have to learn towards the opinions expressed above that a major change in motivation is a big change to the meaning or interpretation of the story.

I never expect films to be direct translations of any novel. They are mere representations of the IDEA of the story, usually chopped and written and pieced together to be more entertaining and, perhaps, to spark an interest in the original. At least casual movie-goers know who Beowulf is thanks to the film; certainly not everyone read it in high school and I've met my fair share of college students who have no idea who Beowulf is.

I had this discussion with my husband and a friend of ours after the last few Harry Potter movies, when the books grew to a length nearly impossible to catch in an average movie length. They griped about all the things left out but had no response when I asked if they'd want to sit through a four hour movie.

And? Kids were interested enough in the films to read the books.

I doubt it was anybody's intentions to replace the original Beowulf story --- I certai