7. How does the film Beowulf and Grendel
"problematise" the hero-myth of Beowulf?
There are few greater legends than Beowulf. Easily one of the most notable Old English works in
history, it describes the heroic tale of a young Geat named Beowulf, who,
throughout his life, battles and defeats several ferocious monsters and is
heralded as a great and powerful king. At its surface level, it is a tale heard
around the world. However, under the skin, Beowulf is a powerful tale
describing a hero’s battle with themselves, with masculinity, with the roles of
heroes.
While history has luckily managed to preserve the original
version, its many translations and adaptations have led to many different
interpretations of the great poem. One of the several films that have attempted
to translate Beowulf to the big screen,
Beowulf and Grendel, released to mixed reviews. Directed by Sturla
Gunnarsson, the film debuted in 2005 after a lengthy and difficult filming
process. Filming on location in Iceland turned out to be a harrowing process,
so much so that the resulting footage was edited into an Academy Award winning
documentary titled Wrath of Gods (which
ironically performed and reviewed much better than the film itself).
Despite such a difficult time filming, the final product is
an applaudable revision of the original tale. The fight scenes are brutal,
well-choreographed, and the cinematography is fantastic, relying heavily on the
beautiful landscapes of Iceland as its backdrops. However, there is one glaring
issue that many, including myself, have with the film. The narrative itself
spins several concerning twists on the original Beowulf, some of which have a damning effect on the film’s overall
interpretation of the tale. The inconsistent dialogue alone can, in one scene, showcase
campy, “Shakespearean” monologues, then suddenly shift to “more overuse of the
F-word than any two Samuel L. Jackson movies” (Arnold, 2006). However, the
greatest issue is its effort to “problematize” the tale of Beowulf.
Problematize – “make into or regard as a problem requiring a
solution” (Problematize, n.d.) Beowulf
and Grendel tells what is essentially the “first act” of Beowulf, in which our hero travels to
Denmark to assist in the slaying of a ferocious beast. The film opens with what
is already a massive change to the tale, however, one which marks the beginning
of the supposed problematization. We witness a group of Danish warriors chasing
a large, hulking figure and its child throughout the lands. One familiar with
the original poem could immediately assume this larger beast is Grendel itself,
and one would be wrong. In this self-contained reimagining, Grendel has a
father. It is the small child whose life is spared that grows up to be the
hideous, blood-hungry beast that pains the Danes in the years to come. This is
the first instance of a theme that is heavily discussed in the film’s
narrative: the viewer is made to empathise, and, most importantly, feel sorrow
for Grendel.
Originally, the beast known as Grendel is “a creature of
darkness, exiled from happiness and accursed of God, the destroyer and devourer
of our human kind” (Jones, 1972). He is said to be descended from Cain, either
directly or indirectly, and as a result, is an embodiment of evil, of original
sin, and of hatred. However, in this film, we see a much different portraying
of Grendel. Essentially, the only reason Grendel fights against the Danes and
bothers them so is out of a lust for revenge for his father. He keeps his
father’s skull in the cave that he makes his home and speaks to it in some
bizarre language. He cries and screams in anguish when he discovers that one of
Beowulf’s soldiers has desecrated the skull.
Beowulf himself questions the need to kill Grendel - “That
troll didn’t give a shit about us until we wronged him.” This is significant as
Beowulf fought Grendel in the poem as a statement of his own power and
greatness. Beowulf had long been regarded as a flimsy, “noble-type”, one born
from a higher caste that had yet to prove the feats to which he claimed. He
sought out Grendel as an opportunity to honour himself, his family, and, more
importantly, to disprove his doubters. He would show them, by defeating such a
great beast using no weapons, that he was the most powerful of all Geats.
The Beowulf we see in the film, however, seems regretful and
spurned at every encounter with Grendel or his ilk. When the battle with
Grendel finally occurs, it is not a “man-to-beast” display of strength and
determination; Grendel is caught in a trap, and Beowulf watches on as the beast
screams in pain and cuts its own arm off to escape. Beowulf looks disgusted,
showing great remorse for forcing the creature to go to such lengths – “This
thing is no more worm than you or I.” When our hero finally discovers that
Grendel only attacks out of revenge, upon Hrothgar revealing the reason for the
death of Grendel’s father – “He crossed our path. Took a fish.” – Beowulf is
visibly angered. Yet, he continues his quest, assumedly out of commitment to
his kingdom rather than his own selfish wants or needs.
Finally, we witness the death of Grendel, his mother, and
the discovery of a son. What does our hero do? He buries Grendel regretfully,
almost mournfully, and bows his head in a solemn, apologetic gesture towards the
gravestone. We witness him spare the young child of Grendel, the offspring of a
rape committed against a local witch. We watch as he sails home, satisfaction
creeping across his face, as the child and his mother stand ashore waving them
goodbye.
In its essence, the film problematizes the tale by making
Grendel out to be a wounded soul. By adding aspects of humanity to his
character – a father, a son, a purpose for his rage – we are made to identify
and empathise with the beast. Instead of describing great acts of heroism and
the ascension from man to legend, the whole film is doused with this thick
layer of apology, woe, and discontent for the ways of man. Beowulf is not a
hero – in some ways, he is a villain, only redeemed by his actions towards the
end of the film. This is very similar to John Gardner’s Grendel, in which the story is told from Grendel’s point of view.
In this instance, he is made out to be more of an anti-hero, possessing many
more human traits.
Perhaps the film took
inspiration from Gardner’s work. However, I do not believe that its explicit
enough in its attempts to reimagine the tale. The movie leaps between
historical, textual accuracy, to such strange and problematic discrepancies.
The movie really tries to make us think, “Is Beowulf truly a hero?”, while also
making him out to be one fantastic hero.
References
Arnold, W. (2006, June 15th). Potty-mouthed
dialogue mars scenically stunning “Beowulf & Grendel”. Seattle PI. Retrieved from https://www.seattlepi.com/
Jones, G. (1972) Kings,
Beasts and Heroes. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Problematize. (n.d.) In English
Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/problematize
No comments:
Post a Comment