Beowulf's Movie Monsters

I would appreciate any feedback I can get on this for improvements in my writing.

Beowulf's Movie Monsters

Old literature is one of the most valuable treasures in the world, while movies are a modern wonder and source of entertainment. It would make sense if the two could mesh and show the stories of these ancient tales, except they do not. Old books are usually altered beyond reason when turned into movies, just like modern books usually are. A good example of this warping of tales is Beowulf by Anonymous. The story is nearly unrecognizable on screen, especially in the cases of the monsters the brave hero Beowulf fights. The fight with Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon from the movie reflect close to nothing of the beasts in the epic and everything of film corruption.

Grendel, the terrible monster and evil descendant of Cain, reigned over the land of the great king Hrothgar for twelve years. Celebrations in the grand mead hall of Heorot were ruined by the terror and bloodshed caused by this beast. Grendel's envy of the joys of the Danish people and their merrymaking in Heorot drove him to these murders, just like the envy of his ancestor led to the murder of Abel. This is the Grendel of the poem.

The Grendel of the movie came across as a sniveling, pathetic, and suffering coward. While the literary beast is full of rage, the film portrayed Grendel to kill out of pain, driven to the edge from the noise causing horrible pain in his ears. He also did not kill Hrothgar's thanes over twelve years - unlike the original tale told. The movie does not specify how long his sovereignty of dread lasted, but it can be safely assumed it was much less than a dozen years. Despite the great - and important - differences in both Grendels, both share the most important quality of the character. Neither can be killed with a blade - but movie Grendel can be harmed by one - and both die from losing an arm to Beowulf.

The terror caused by the first beast did not die along with him. As recompense for her son's death, Grendel's mother spills more blood in Heorot. She kills only Hrothgar's favorite thane in the original tale, but the film shows men strung up int he rafters and hanged in the chandeliers. This is the first of many inconsistencies between the movie and epic poem involving the she-demon. Originally, Grendel's mother is a hag with nothing but bloodlust and revenge on her mind. Though - for pop culture's sake - the movie producers decided to use Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother, playing on sex appeal to gather a wider audience rather than using the monumental battle. The monumental battle does not even happen, though Beowulf brags profusely about his victory over the hag. In film-reality, he gives her a son and the golden mead-horn in return for a prosperous rule as king, which comes back to bite him.

The son that Beowulf gives Grendel's mother in the film is his undoing. Years and years after he took the throne, Beowulf sees an unwelcome gift. The golden mead-horn he had given Grendel's mother as part of the deal is returned to him. Shortly after, a fire drake comes and terrorizes Beowulf's kingdom. People are burned; buildings are destroyed. The audience gets a clue of who exactly is causing this mayhem when Unferth - who is carried to the main part of the village on a stretcher after his family was burned alive in front of him - yells repeatedly "the sins of the father." While the cinema makes Beowulf into something hardly more than a soap opera, the oral tradition never says the dragon is Beowulf's son. He never had a son. Also, traditionally, Beowulf rules over Geatland, not Denmark, and never made a deal involving a mead-horn or a son with Grendel's mother in the first place.

With old stories dying, it is a shame that films are cheapening the plots of some of the greatest pieces of literature ever written. Grendel, his mother, and the vicious fire dragon are all cheapened. Their characters and storyline are diminished and corrupted just to add sympathy and drama where there is none needed. If producers continue this trend of turning great tales into jokes, no one will truly appreciate the real story.

Reviews

[Jacob Clifford]

I agree very much with what you've said here. It is very true that old classics aren't appreciate for what they are. I share many of your feelings. However, I don't feel that movie "corruption" is a bad thing. There would be little point in making a movie exactly like the book. If it's going to be identical to the book, why even make the movie? I say that, but part of me doesn't agree with it. Part of me thinks movies should be faithful to the original material, and part of me thinks it's fine to have deviation.

[unfathomd]

never knew there was a movie on this.. is there? :

[elizabethhowes2016]

Yeah, but it's hardly even recognizable as Beowulf.