"I. AM. BEOWULF!" -Beowulf

Well that movie sucked. Regardless of how cool, accurate, or impressive the computer animated-ness of it was, the medieval accuracy of Beowulf was, in my opinion, sub par to say the least.

But, instead of dogging the film further, I shall focus on (the only) two aspects of the film that were commendable from my perspective. Both of them are in regards to Grendel, the first being his representation (physical, emotional) and the second being the apparent shadiness surrounding his lineage.

First, I do admit when Grendel first debuted I did not expect him to appear as he did. Standing in Hrothgar's animated mead hall in (essentially) the flesh and bone is not at all as I imagined him. From the textbook and Mr. Heaney's translations, the image of some dark, animal-ish creature was ingrained in my head and has been since our time with the epic poem. However, I believe the way the animators depicted Grendel in the film actually worked to their benefit...

So, if you can't recall what the animated Grendel looked like, see below.

Now, despite the expression he is making... does he look as demonic as the poem makes him sound? In fact, whom does he most resemble? That's right, us (in fact, me on most Monday mornings). But seriously, because the animators decided to have Grendel look like humans (only, in a more zombie-ish form) I think the symbolic point is clearly made. Although he is often characterized as an external villain that we must destroy in the world, he may just be the internal villain we keep alive in ourselves.

As I watched the movie, I couldn't help but feel bad for him. As we found out in the film, he's being forced to do his mothers doing and, subsequently, has to endure great physical pains (spears, knives, and men flying at full speed toward him, his arm getting chopped off by a steel door). We can examine Grendel's misfortunes all we want, however I think the questions "Why did Grendel have to endure these misfortunes and why did he attack Hrothgar's hall  in the first place?" are much more interesting.

If you watched carefully, there were a few moments where characters had lines that just seemed awkward and out of place in the grand scheme of things (like when Hrothgar says that thing about Grendel's mother being Beowulf's burden now or when, after Beowulf kills Grendel, he says he has no sons and gives the crown to him [Beowulf]). However, having read this scholarly article a few months back I think I knew exactly what they were getting at. I'll spare you the task of reading the article for yourself and just boil it down to this: Hrothgar and Grendel's mother were somehow related and ended up having Grendel incestuously. TWIST, right? I don't know enough about this family tree business to say much more about the issue but I wanted to bring it up because I thought it was fascinating AND logically sound.



Overall movie rating: 1.5/5 starz

Image citation (sorry if this is incorrect, the blog is in Icelandic or something and I can't differentiate between the name of the blog and the name of the Author...)

SÖk I DENNA. “Loke". Photograph. Hedniska Tankar. Wordpress. N.d., Web. 18 Dec. 2013.

A Knights Tale

After finishing up A Knight's Tale during Friday's class I was left thoroughly impressed with the film. Not only did it include two of my favorite actors but it was also surprisingly historically accurate.

Obviously we all are familiar enough with Geoffrey Chaucer and his magnum opus Canterbury Tales by now that it was impossible not to recognize the portrayal of both him and his tales in this film (Simon the Summoner and Peter the Pardoner respectively). Although his true personality may not have been as exuberant as Bettany portrayed it to be, I found it interesting the way the filmmakers decided to characterize Chaucer. I think they intentionally presented him as humorous and endearingly mischievous in order to get audiences to like him and pay attention to him when he appeared in scenes. This would work to their advantage because viewers would be more apt to listen to his lines which is where the real medieval accuracy lies. Since Chaucer is considered the father of English literature and noted for his poetic style, I believe the writers of the film specifically had Bettany's lines reflect historically what Chaucer is famous for (ex. nature of rhyming, use of prophetic imagery, and 'high brow' language).

Another character I was especially interested in was Heath Ledger as William Thatcher. It is easy to draw connections between his character and every other  Christ-like dream boat that appears in Arthurian Legend (Lancelot, Galahad, even a young Arthur) but I was more interested in his assumed name of Ulrich Von Liechtenstein he utilizes throughout the film. After some brief research I found out that Sir Ulrich did in fact exist! Not only was he real but historically he was known as a medieval minnesinger (people who wrote love poetry in the courtly tradition) as well as a ministerialis (a word to describe the unfree knights during the High Middle Ages). Moreover, Ulrich's claim to fame is his poetry collection Frauendienst which includes two stories, one of which is essentially the plot of A Knight's Tale: A man in guise travels to a nearby town, competes in jousts and tournaments for a noblewoman, and the woman demands more deeds and mutilation from him for the honor to hold her hand. I can't imagine that filmmakers didn't intentionally draw from the real Ulrich and his work when deciding what to do with Ledger's character.

Stepping away from characters and looking at the movie from a more holistic perspective, I think the entire gist of four rag tag pilgrims who are down on their luck by society's standards but  successfully 'change their stars' because of their inherently good nature is just another example of the challenges and pressures folks during this time period had to endure. It's odd because, before this movie I had never thought about it (or, I did but don't remember thinking about it) but, all of the modern day references embedded in this movie let me see just how similar the problems people dealt with then are the same problems we deal with today. Society shines the spotlight on the rich and famous, despite the fact most of them have been made sinful by their glory. Meanwhile, the everyday, well-meaning folks who are just trying to catch a lucky break are continuously being pressured by the world to stay in their socioeconomic place.

This isn't anything brilliant but...it just kind of sucks, ya know? I mean, society and civilization has advanced over 600 years since all of this and, regardless of how well we try to mask it, we're still dealing with the same exact issues. I guess that's why so many depend on their faith above all else. That promise of a better life/realm/place is enticing enough for people to leave the hope that their own stars may change up to a force so powerful and so personal that not even society can bring it down.

Overall movie rating: 4.5/5 stars