Situations Vol. 2 (Fall 2008) © 2008 by Yonsei University
Mads ielsen1
Beowulf
Being an animated adaptation of the Old English poem, Beowulf the movie is not the
disappointment one might expect. The structure of the basic storyline and the plot of
the film follow that of the original literary source. In the poem, Hrothgar, the king of
Denmark, is haunted by the man-eating monster, Grendel, until Beowulf comes to
Denmark to slay it. Consistent with the poem, Beowulf tears off the arm of the
monster, which nonetheless manages to escape but dies from the wound soon after
Grendel’s mother then avenges her slain son by killing many men, which causes
Beowulf to go after Grendel’s mother and slay her too. He returns with Grendel’s head
and is richly rewarded by the Danes. Like the poem, the film ends with the death of
Beowulf after he has killed a dragon. Diachronically, then, the film does not deviate;
but, as in most movie adaptations of literary works, compromises have been made in
order to make the story fit the film form more appropriately.
In the poem, Grendel, Hrothgar and Grendel’s mother are not tied to each other as in
the film, and Beowulf does not have any familial connections to the dragon or
Grendel’s mother. These two triangular relationships are purely imaginative or
1
Sogang graduate student
116
speculative; they do not find foundation in the source material.2 What the filmmakers
have done is to connect the dots to make one coherent tale, instead of keeping the
structure of the separate incidents that the poem presents. The connection between
Hrothgar and Grendel’s mother becomes apparent when Beowulf confronts her in the
cave. What happens to Beowulf has also happened to Hrothgar. Both men were
enchanted by the beauty of Grendel’s mother and her fine promises of wealth and
power. In return for these things, she wants Beowulf to give her a son to replace the
one he took away: “love me and I shall weave you riches beyond imagination, I shall
make you the greatest king that ever lived” (Beowulf). As for the relationship between
Grendel’s mother and Hrothgar, he admits directly or indirectly that he is Grendel’s
father, when he says “Grendel’s father can do no harm to man” (Beowulf) and later
admits that, with Grendel’s death, he has been set free. Wealthow provides us and
Beowulf with other and perhaps more obvious clues that Grendel is the offspring of
Hrothgar: “the demon is my husband’s shame…my husband has no other… no sons”
(Beowulf). By now we know that Beowulf is bound to have offspring with the female
monster. Our expectations are met when the dragon attacks the village; its attack on
the house of Unferth provides us with much insight into its affinity with Beowulf as
Unferth’s exclamation about “the sins of the fathers” alludes to Beowulf’s relationship
with the dragon as its father. Moreover, the dragon/golden boy tells Unferth: “I have a
message for my father” (Beowulf). The dying scene of Beowulf also confirms our
expectations as the sea slowly transforms the dragon into the golden shadow of
Beowulf, washing away its dragon shape. The resemblance between the golden corpse
and Beowulf cannot be otherwise interpreted. The film also deviates from its source in
that Beowulf does not return to Geatland but is crowned as the new king of Denmark
2
Here I rely on translations of the poem for support since I do not read Old English
117
after Hrothgar commits suicide, an event which is also not in the original text.3
These are but trivial divergences that do not damage the story. In contrast, an in-depth
analysis of Grendel and Beowulf will probably reveal the most important
discrepancies between the poem and this film adaptation I shall not venture to give
such a comparative account but instead lightly touch on the subject, as it would really
demand separate scrutiny. What we see in the adaptation is a Shakespearean character
clash between a Shylock and an Antonio. This is not meant in the sense that the
characters in Beowulf and The Merchant of Venice in any way resemble each other but
rather in that the characters are portrayed or interpreted in a contemporary manner.
Like Shylock, Grendel is the villain; and, like Shylock, the monster has been made
more pathetic than it deserves. Whether this is a blunder on the part of the script
writers or something rooted in a misreading or misinterpretation of the poem, I am not
able to determine here. Grendel has been given human qualities that in spite of its
ugliness make it less villainous. Here, Grendel is not the flat character found in the
poem; it has feelings and is able to speak4. In the grotto scene after its attack on the
Danes, for example, we hear it say to its mother that it likes the taste of men.
Moreover, Grendel explains its violent attacks: the monster is in pain, the Danes have
hurt its ears with their merry-making, and so it has had to make them stop.5 This does
not make Grendel the evil bloodthirsty monster of the original text, but a figure that
has been rendered more human and pathetic. In the poem, Grendel is a real monster,
“a fiend out of hell” who has “dwelt for a time in misery among the banished
monsters” (Beowulf 100-105). In the movie, however, the monster is portrayed as a
3
It should be noted that by “original” I refer to the text of the surviving manuscript residing in the
British Library
4
I use the pronoun “it” for the monster because it is not human. The fact that it has a name does not
change that.
5
I cannot provide quotes from the film since Grendel speaks in Old English
118
baby or a child; the way it talks to his mother, the way it screams — even its facial
features resemble those of a child. The resemblance becomes apparent during its fight
with Beowulf; Grendel shrinks in size, while the monster shrinks into the likeness of a
little boy. The heart-piercing outcry just before it loses its arm is another display of its
supposed humanity. Being portrayed as outcasts makes both the monster and the
mother more pathetic than actually evil, and we are made to overhear Grendel’s
mother state that men have hunted down and “slain so many of our kind” (Beowulf).
This evokes in the audience the sensation that an injustice has been done.
In juxtaposition, Beowulf does not receive the credit he deserves as a hero; instead, he
is shown in a bad light, even though he is supposed to be judicious in his actions. In
this respect, he resembles Antonio in The Merchant of Venice. Like Antonio, Beowulf
is not portrayed as favorably as one would expect a hero to be depicted; this is not to
say that Antonio is a hero or the hero of The Merchant of Venice, however, he is not
supposed to be the villain.6 Beowulf is depicted somewhat like an unreliable braggart
out only for fame and glory, “if we die it will be for glory not gold” (Beowulf). The
tale of the swimming contest with Breca helps to establish this; the comment by
Wiglaf: the “last time it was three” (Beowulf) directly undermines Beowulf’s
trustworthiness when he informs Unferth that he slew nine sea-monsters. Furthermore,
because Beowulf is a man of vanity and pride, Grendel’s mother succeeds in seducing
him by appealing to these weaknesses. We know this with certainty when he finally
admits to Wealthow before fighting the dragon that he couldn’t resist Grendel’s
mother because she was “beautiful and full of fine promises” (Beowulf). In addition,
his display of a violent temper during his fight with Grendel does not cast a
favourable eye on his character as a hero: “I’m ripper, tearer, slasher, gouger, I’m the
6
Of course, this depends on from what angle you view the play
119
tooth in the darkness, the talon in the night, mine is strength, and lust and power, I’m
Beowulf” (Beowulf). The poem sheds a much more heroic and honourable light on
Beowulf and depicts him as a faithful subject of integrity and later a good ruler of
Geatland:
Beowulf bore himself with valour;
he was formidable in battle yet behaved with honour
and took no advantage; never cut down
a comrade who was drunk, kept his temper
and, warrior that he was, watched an controlled
his God-sent strength and his outstanding natural powers. (2177-2183)
In spite of these changes, the film does hold true to the core of the tale; however, to
those who seek an orthodox adaptation of the poem, the film might be a source of a
disappointment, even though we cannot deny the possibility that the movie may
contribute to a renaissance of interest in the Old English poem.
The technical aspect of the film is a mix of digital pyrotechnics and rather crude
animation. The close-ups seem so natural that one has doubts whether the character is
real or animated. At the same time, in the establishing shots or in the shots of two or
more characters together, the animation is only animation. This is especially true of
the movements of the horses, which seem ridiculously rigid and clumsy, nothing like
the movements of real horses. There are other instances where the digital animation
falls short, but it is impossible to give a detailed description of its uncanny nature,
which is best experienced directly.
120