whæt þa?

I saw Beowulf the movie on the weekend, in 3D. It was predictably awful. Hrothgar is a toga-wearing drunkard, Grendel’s mother is a naked Angelina Jolie and I’m not quite sure how to interpret the symbolic self-mutilation of Beowulf, the dragon-turned-golden-boy or the “sins of the father” motif that runs throughout. There seemed to be a lot of unnecessary nudity for a story that’s set in a very cold place. And why did Anthony Hopkins dissolve in sea water? That’s not normal (or explained). I also don’t understand why Neil Gaimon and Roger Avary re-wrote the story to provide an alternative origin/paternity for the monsters, making them half-brothers, for what in the poem are two distinctive types of evil beasts. I suspect this ties in with a modern idea of “evil” that’s different from the concept of “evil” in Anglo-Saxon / Old Norse cultures. I’ve noticed that movies show evil as something that doesn’t get killed at the end of the story. Is this so they can have sequels? Surely they're not thinking of Beowulf 2. It's alreay "personal". I suspect contempory considerations of “what makes a hero” has something to do with the changes. Not sure how I feel about Ray Winstone as Beowulf either. In a way it’s great that they had an English actor play the hero, but at times his cockney accent lacked the gravity needed.

But, I was pleased that the movie kept some of the Old English words and used the oral culture of the time to further the plot (when Hrothgar ordered the scopes to sing of Herot’s misfortune); as a part of the story (when the players in Herot celebrated the anniversary of Beowulf’s victory over Grendel); and even to comment on storytelling itself and how truth and history are formed through oral accounts and boasting (Unferth’s questioning of Beowulf via the swimming competition with Brecca).