I got so pissed off after watching that movie. Read Beowulf in sixth grade and had a hard time with the prose. Came back to it and felt an inner viking rising.
We were assigned the poem in 7th or 8th grade (yeah, I’m old). We were all too young to understand it. When I read it years later, I started to understand it. Like most great works, it rewards multiple readings.
I'm glad I was never tempted by curiosity into watching such ressentimental dreck. As John Dolan said of Peter Jackson's LOTR, films have a way of overriding and desecrating your imaginative picture of a story. Perhaps that effect is lessened here, by the fact that Gaiman and Avery's bugman vomit is so utterly different from the epic poem onto which they projected it.
I'm interested also in the way that a movie is a large production involving a lot of people, which tends to dilute the vision of a creative genius. I can't help but suspect that the medium itself pulls the story and the experience toward mediocrity.
That's a good point, and relates to a wider way in which the modern need for collaborative effort in everything enforces the rule of Mediocre Human Capital.
That Roger Avery quote just blew my mind. I’ve never thought of that or seen anyone talk about it that way. He has an excellent point….like now I can’t unsee it.
If I remember rightly, some scholars have speculated (based on a notoriously ambiguous line in the 2nd chapter of the original text) that Grendel was unable to attack Hrothgar because of the sacrality of his kingship. Might have been the sort of thing that the Christian poet would have wanted to smooth over in the transition from traditional tale to literary work.
I got so pissed off after watching that movie. Read Beowulf in sixth grade and had a hard time with the prose. Came back to it and felt an inner viking rising.
Have you read Tolkien’s essay on it?
On my list now.
Is very good, as one would expect
We were assigned the poem in 7th or 8th grade (yeah, I’m old). We were all too young to understand it. When I read it years later, I started to understand it. Like most great works, it rewards multiple readings.
I’m glad I didn’t see this movie.
Do you remember how your teacher handled the poem? Did he/she help make you interested or help you to understand?
It was a few decades ago, so I don’t recall how the teacher handled it.
I'm glad I was never tempted by curiosity into watching such ressentimental dreck. As John Dolan said of Peter Jackson's LOTR, films have a way of overriding and desecrating your imaginative picture of a story. Perhaps that effect is lessened here, by the fact that Gaiman and Avery's bugman vomit is so utterly different from the epic poem onto which they projected it.
I'm interested also in the way that a movie is a large production involving a lot of people, which tends to dilute the vision of a creative genius. I can't help but suspect that the medium itself pulls the story and the experience toward mediocrity.
That's a good point, and relates to a wider way in which the modern need for collaborative effort in everything enforces the rule of Mediocre Human Capital.
That Roger Avery quote just blew my mind. I’ve never thought of that or seen anyone talk about it that way. He has an excellent point….like now I can’t unsee it.
If I remember rightly, some scholars have speculated (based on a notoriously ambiguous line in the 2nd chapter of the original text) that Grendel was unable to attack Hrothgar because of the sacrality of his kingship. Might have been the sort of thing that the Christian poet would have wanted to smooth over in the transition from traditional tale to literary work.
This is actually worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(2007_film)