I'm a sucker for obscure 8th Century (or so) Old English poetry, so when I saw that Beowulf and Grendel had been made, my inner lit geek trembled with equal parts trepidation and excitement. Danes and Geats fighting an evil troll, descended from Cain, the first murderer? Oh, yeah. And there's something to be said for manly Geat warriors strutting around in dead animal capes and carrying enormous swords. But what if they messed the story of Beowulf up? What if it was as bad as the godawful 1999 sci-fi version starring Christopher Lambert? Fortunately, in the hands of Sturla Gunnarsson, Beowulf and Grendel is a masterful film that fleshes out the decidedly one-sided epic poem, bringing Grendel to life with a humanity and warmth that adds layers of meaning to the old tale.
In John C. Gardner's novel Grendel, the author told the story of Beowulf from Grendel's point of view, going heavy on the darkish philosophy and making Grendel a nihilist who had deep conversations with dragons and came to view himself as the creator of the Danes. Scribe Andrew Rai Berzins, in penning the script for Beowulf and Grendel, takes a somewhat different tack, imbuing his Grendel with a deeper level of humanity and a reason for attacking the Danes. Beowulf (Gerard Butler, so perfectly cast he could have stepped right out of the ancient manuscript) is still heroic, but he is a hero with a conscience. Beowulf hears of the plight of the Danes, who have been plauged with attacks by a murderous troll. Distantly related to Danish King Hrothgar (Stellan Skarsgård), and being the heroic and manly warrior that he is, Beowulf sets sail with 14 of his strongest men in his mighty longboat , intent upon quickly and heroically relieving the troll of his head.
When Beowulf and crew arrive in Daneland, however, it soon becomes apparent to Beowulf that all is not as it seems, and that he's not getting the full story from the king. King Hrothgar built a spectacular mead hall, but he and his people are unable to sleep in it or enjoy it properly, because the pesky troll keeps coming along and killing people. It's starting to demoralize King Hrothgar's people, and Hrothgar, himself once a mighty warrior, now finds himself entrenched in gloom, despair, and too much beer. Mysterious asides about the troll, Grendel, from the local witch, Selma (Sarah Polley), start to make Beowulf question just why exactly Grendel has targeted King Hrothgar's hall -- and why he only kills men, never women and children. When Beowulf realizes that Hrothgar has brought Grendel's wrath upon himself, he suddenly finds himself unsure of whether to fulfill his promise to kill the troll. Into all this chaos also comes Brendan the Celt (Eddie Marsan), a wandering priest who, when he stumbles across the situation with Grendel, decides he has been divinely called to bring faith in God to Hrothgar and his people.
This is a very complex story with a lot of characters, each with their own motivations. Hrothgar is bent under the weight of the destruction of his people, caused by an act he committed, and has evolved from proud warrior to drunken king in the space of a decade-and-a-half. Selma, the outsider who lives alone in a cave, is an 8th century feminist of sorts -- sexual, fiercely independent and proud -- and has a mysterious relationship with the troll. She can also supposedly see people's deaths, and so Beowulf hunts her out to learn both about Grendel and the predicted outcome of his quest. Grendel, although he doesn't speak the language of the Danes, is far more human than any of them would like to admit. He's taller than the Danes by a good foot or more, and he's not too pretty to look at, but what do you expect from someone whose mother was a sea hag and father was a troll? Yet, in spite of his rough exterior, Grendel's actions show him in many ways to be more intelligent, more human, than those who are trying to kill him. And Beowulf, of course, wants to be the highly sung hero, and yet when he realizes that the fault of the conflict may not lie all on Grendel's side (and does any conflict ever have only one side, after all?), he is torn between the honor of his promise to Hrothgar and doing what is morally right.
The film was beautifully shot in a remote part of Iceland, where the cast and crew endured unbelievably harsh conditions, including 160 MPH winds. I felt cold just watching the actors on-screen; the constant wind, especially, grows to serve as almost a character in and of itself. The makeup and effects harken back to pre-CGi days (remember those?); Gunnarsson wanted a CGI-free film, so designer Nick Dudman (who is no slouch, having also created the prosthetics for the Harry Potter films) had to do things the old-fashioned way -- with a lot of creativity and ingenuity. The starkly beautiful lcelandic landscape also serves to set tone, transporting us back to those long-ago days when men were warriors with monsters to slay and women were queens, drudges or whores. The hair, makeup and costume design lends a hand to setting the scene as well; Beowulf and his fellow Geats are warriors, yes, but they are vain warriors with handsome cloaks and jewelry braided into their beards. Grendal looks both fierce and human.
In addition, the acting is great. Skarsgård is perfectly cast as the moody, downtrodden king whose world has been upturned by the consequences of an act of cruelty mitigated by an act of kindness, and Butler is perfect as the intelligent, fierce warrior who revels in his heroism while nonetheless recognizing that what he does is just a job, and not a very glamorous one at that. Sigurðsson, who is apparently quite famous in his native Iceland, has perhaps the toughest job of the cast: He must bring to life and fill with humanity a character who has not one line of distinguishable dialogue. Oddly, the only weak link in the cast was Polley, who I normally like very much. In a film where everyone is speaking with accents, her decidedly Canadian voice was distracting. That's a minor quibble, though, because overall I really enjoyed the film. The adaptation of the tale adds texture to the ancient story that makes it more intriguing and meaninful, and there are some great touches of humor woven throughout to keep things from getting too heavy. Gunnarsson has made a film that would make the real Beowulf and Grendel, if they ever really existed, quite proud.
Insert Caption: Indiana Jones DVDs_thumbnail.jpg)
Cinematical Seven: When an Animated Series Goes Live Action ... and Gets it Right_thumbnail.jpg)
Full 'G.I. Joe' Cast Photos!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-28-2006 @ 5:54PM
John Jordan said...
So let's see if I have this right. Some old white guy is really to blame for the problem, not the monster (who no doubt stands for some righteous undefined ethnicity). The monster is only killing white males, because in most movies and tv detective shows nowadays, they are the only ones who cause destruction and enact crimes--Cliche' No. 1. The woman (Polley) is an independent, sexy AND smart, spunky woman who kicks ass and everyone loves her outspokeness. What other kind of woman is there in movies today? Cliche' No. 2. The director says "no CGI...I am an ARTIST!" "I'm better than other films because I am telling a REAL story and don't NEED geegaws." Cliche' No. 3. The hero, who is also a hunk no doubt, and who lives to kill suddenly questions his very existence because of Cliche' No.2. That's cliche' 4. And finally, Cliche' No. 5, the monster is more "human" than the humans (it was done in Bladerunner, remember?).
I've seen all this a hundred times before. I suggest that it adds texture to what was once a fine story only in the politically correct sense.
Reply
6-28-2006 @ 6:18PM
Kim Voynar said...
John,
Answering your (somewhat rhetorical) questions without giving too many spoilers away:
1) I'd say it's fair to say that, yes, in this version, the old white guy is to blame, in the sense that he started the cycle of violence by killing Grendel's father, who lived there before the Danes came, and who did nothing more than cross their path and look different from them (for the record, both Grendel and his father were also fair-skinned in this version, and were not monsters as the poem describes, but simply larger and hairier than the Danes). If you want to get into a debate about whether white Europeans historically killed the people who were already living in the lands that they expanded to, that's an issue for a different forum.
2) Grendel only kills the white males because he perceives them as the ones who took his father from him as a child and who are now taking over his home. He doesn't kill the women and children because he doesn't see them as a threat. This is what clues Beowulf into the fact that there's more to the story than meets the eye.
3)The woman (Sarah Polley) is independent, sexy and smart, but no, everyone doesn't love that. In fact, she is completely outcast from the rest of the Danes, forced to live alone in a cave, and is frequently raped and threatened with death by the Danish warriors, until her friendship with Grendel protects her.
As for strong female characters being "cliched", I'd argue that we have a lot of years of female characters being one-dimensional arm candy for men, whores, or madonna wives-mothers to make up for, so I'll gladly take an extra helping of strong female character whenever I can find them.
4) You'll have to wait until the interview with the director, Sturla Gunnarsson, to hear his thoughts on why he chose not to use CGI, but I'd expect it had more to do with wanting to keep the film looking as authentically 8th century as possible than with Gunnarsson wanting to proclaim "I am an artist". And personally, I would consider CGI-ing a movie to death to be FAR more cliched than going without it, these days.
5) Beowulf is a hunk, yeah. If you want to find cliches in that, you'll have to dig back to the 8th century poem and blast the unknown author for that.
6) The fact that something was "done before" doesn't make it a cliche. There are a finite amount of stories and variations on stories that can be told (at least according to Joseph Campbell). Retelling a variation on a story does not in and of itself make a cliche, and the execution of this film overall is about as far from cliche as you can get. You want cliche? Go see X-Men or the latest version of The Fast and the Furious.
And finally -- I guess if you're looking to rip apart a film you (presumably) haven't even seen, that's your right. People who seek out the dastardly signs of political correctness in everything around them are likely to find it, whether it's there or not.
Reply
6-28-2006 @ 7:49PM
Lindsey said...
I absolutely completely agree about the Sarah Polley thing. When I saw the movie I was so thrown off by her normal accent that i found it really hard to enjoy the movie.
That being said, I love Gerard Butler (so yummy)and i thought he was perfect in this movie.
Why his is not the next big thing?
Reply
6-28-2006 @ 10:14PM
William Harryman said...
Thanks for the review Kim. Any idea if this film will go into wide release, or are those of us who live in the hinterlands of culture doomed to see this on DVD sometime in the distant future?
Peace,
Bill
Reply
6-28-2006 @ 10:30PM
Kim Voynar said...
William,
The release schedule on the film's website shows the following opening dates as of now:
SAN FRANCISCO - June 30th - Opera Plaza (Landmark)
NEW YORK - July 7th - Quad (not landmark)
CHICAGO - July 14th - Century (Landmark)
LOS ANGELES - July 28th - Westside Pavilion (Landmark)
BOSTON - August 11 - Kendall Square (Landmark)
DENVER, Colorado - August 4-11 - Starz Film Center
WHITEFISH, Montana - September 8-10 - Whitefish Theatre Co.
Beyond that, I don't know, but when I find out, I'll let you know.
Reply
6-28-2006 @ 11:06PM
SandraDee said...
One thing I've noticed about this film is that every one comes away from it with a different point of view. It gets people talking, and not just about the story line as it plays out on the big screen but as it applies to social issues throughout the ages. How can a person turn a film that portrays prejudice and hate in its most raw sense into a racially motivated tale about a vendetta, AND never actually see the film? Get out of your easy chair, put down the remote or your video game system controls and actually see the film, or any film for that matter. You've obviously spent too much time out of the sun.
See Beowulf & Grendel for it's lush landscapes and great cinematography, it's clever screenplay, and it's fabulous looking actors who do what they get paid to do...Act!
Reply
6-29-2006 @ 12:58AM
sturla gunnarsson said...
Wow John, where to begin? Have you actually seen the film? If you did, you would have noticed that all the characters are of a decidely Nordic ancestry and thus 'white' (more a ruddy pink to my eye, but never mind). This wasn't a plot to indict Caucasians but simply the palette we had to work with. Nor was Selma meant as an attack on the males of the species. It just seemed like a good idea to add a meaningful female character to the mix and I kind of liked the idea of Sarah Polly having sex with a troll. In retrospect, I should probably have asked her to do an Icelandic accent but it didn't seem important at the time. The tone of the film is meant to be pretty irreverent and I was more interested in her performance than her accent.
I don't remember ever claiming artistic superiority for not using computer generated imagery. It was mainly a financial decision -- I could never have raised the money I needed to make a CG extravaganza from a script that was deliberately anti-epic. And making an analogue film seemed more in keeping with the humanistic theme anyway.
When we get to the part where Beowulf "begins to question his own existence because of Cliche #2" you've really lost me. Wasn't #2 the part about making a CG free film. Never mind, maybe you meant Cliche #3 but I'm still confused. I don't remeber Beowulf questioning his own existence at all and I directed it.
You're obviously unhappy about something, John, but I'm not sure it's this film. Why don't you check it out and if you actually hate it as much as you think you do, I'll refund the price of your admission.
Sturla Gunnarsson
Reply
6-29-2006 @ 6:10PM
John Jordan said...
I apologize for coming off so harsh. You are all right about seeing a film before adding any comments. I guess the review was just a bit much for me at the time I read it (maybe I needed more coffee), but I retract my above comments. You are absolutely right about CGI not being necessary to tell a story--in fact it gets in the way sometimes. Next time, I'll engage my brain before engaging my mouth.
Good luck with the film! I look forward to seeing it.
John
Reply
6-29-2006 @ 6:36PM
Sharon Cathcart said...
Hi, everyone. I've been actively involved in helping promote this excellent film here in the US (it was in wide release in Canada). We feel very fortunate to have limited release, as Robert Zemeckis is doing an animated version of "Beowulf" that has stymied Sturla Gunarsson's efforts at obtaining distribution every step of the way.
Anyway, it's nice to see a level of discourse about one of the best films I've been privileged to see or be involved with in any way.
Reply
6-29-2006 @ 6:46PM
Susan KC said...
As long as Gerard Butler doesn't try to sing....
Reply
6-29-2006 @ 10:57PM
darkbhudda said...
"one-sided epic poem"
When was the last time you read it? The poem
actually says it was acceptable for Grendel's mother to go on a rampage as revenged for when her son was killed. It was when she continually killed every night that she went too far and had to be stopped.
Reply
6-30-2006 @ 1:53AM
Gilbert Davis said...
I have seen the movie and it was wonderful. A good movie telling a classic story without turning it into a cartoon. Respectful and engaging. Seeing the 'Grendel' and the way he was depicted I could well imagine how someone who is different and didn't fit into the society could end up being thought of a troll. An outcast, deformed, a huge man, perhaps mentally retarded, I could readily see how Grendel could be seen as a troll in the eyes of the Danes. I could have sympathy for Grendel and his very human emotions and reactions in a way I never would be able to if the troll/Grendel was a CGI creation. Just brilliant. I'm glad to see that the John fellow has recanted a bit in his criticism of a movie he hadn't seen. I read it when it was the first and only comment and it's bothered me enough that I came back to find the review and the comment. Kim has pretty much made all the points I was going to make in response to the criticism. The only thing I would say about that is that as I understand it there are only seven or so story lines in total and that everything is derivative of everything else and so to say that every aspect of the movie is a cliche is really a lack of understanding about story telling. For instance, for someone to say that the 'more human that human' part of a story was done in Bladerunner and so is therefore easily dismissed in this movie shows a poor memory at the very least. By that logic I would have to dismiss Bladerunner as a movie since um, Frankenstein did the 'more human that human' thing way way way before Bladerunner. When was Frankenstein? How's about 1831? So everything after 1831 that used that idea is crap? I don't think so. The rest of the criticism is just silly and well answered by Kim.
Reply
7-01-2006 @ 10:08AM
Carrie Suthard said...
I was lucky enough to see this film at the Sarasota Film Festival and again in Las Vegas at another gathering. I would have seen it more often if it had received the wider release it deserves. I plan to purchase the DVD as soon as it is available.
The story is well told. The cinematography is gorgeous. The acting is superb. The mixture of humor and drama gives this film a feeling of truth.
Good job Sturla!
Reply
9-11-2006 @ 6:32PM
Michael and Christina said...
I very much enjoyed virtually everything about this film. Grendel, a creature that didn't speak, spoke to me, and of course it was beyond beautiful to look at. I actually found all the performances to be excellent and the storytelling, of a poem I know very well, was so inventive, I was captivated at every turn. That said, Sarah Polley was absolutely awful, ruining the gentle beauty of the acting and the scenery every time she opened her perfectly-made-up mouth. I wish anyone else but her had been in it (literally, any actress you can name would have been better), as her blase delivery and dead eyes didn't seem to evoke her character's separation from the clan at all but instead it was as though she was channeling a medieval riot grrrrl through too many beers. Skip her scenes, and you have one of the most creative and daring films this year.
Reply