Final Chapter Project: A critical analysis of Beowulf (the movie)

by Jessie Hausman & Lisa McWilliams

 

In 2007, the 3D movie Beowulf was released into the theaters.  It is directed by Robert Zemeckis of Polar Express.  The script is by the graphic novelist Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary of Rules of Attraction.

 

 

The film uses cutting edge special effects to bring the epic poem to the movie screen.  Many theaters were able to show the film in 3D, which is rather unusual.  Another unique aspect of this film is that the actors were animated; the characters were played by real actors, who really acted in the scenes, and were later animated by special effects teams.  Beowulf  is a stunning film that pushes to the boundry of current cinematic technology.  Below you will find a critical analysis of this film.

 

Film in 3D

Many theaters are projecting this film in 3D; it is also available in Imax 3D at theaters with this type of technology.  Watching this movie in 3D is a lot more interactive than it would be if it were projected in the traditional two-dimensional format.  During the battle scenes, you are not only watching swords and men flash across the screen; you are also dodging and squirming in your seat because sometimes the swords are coming straight at you.  Not many movies are shown in 3D, so this is a different experience than viewers are accustomed to in the theater.  During the previews to Beowulf  there were a number of trailers for upcoming 3D films, including U2 3D. This makes me wonder if three dimensional movies are going to become increasingly common.  This would make sense given the trajectory of film up to this point.  Over the past several decades, movies have become more and more like real life: silent films --> black & white "talkies" --> color movies--> Imax technology --> 3D.  This would be a very smart move for filmmakers given the popularity of DVDs, excellent television shows, large screen TVs in many homes as well as complete home theater systems.  As the price of movie tickets rises and people are opting to order the movie on NetFlix instead, the film industry needs to rise to the occassion and release movies that people can't watch at home--at least not in the same 3D way.

 

Here is a two dimensional preview of U2 3D:

 

 

Animation

Beowulf uses an interesting hybrid of animation, real actors, and special effects.  The actors filmed the scenes, then special effects crews animated the actors features to create the final look.  Before seeing this movie, I had heard that this was a rather annoying part of the movie.  However, I cannot imagine them doing the movie in any other way.  Because the actors were animated, the special effects of the monsters seemed more believable.  It probably would have looked pretty silly to have Ray Winstone, who plays Beowulf , doing impossibly high backflips and leaping from chandelier to chandelier if he looked totally real.  The special effects would have been shockingly obvious.  But because he is animated, the movements seem very natural and believable.

 

The quality of animation for each character varied, sometimes dramatically.  Beowulf was animated especially well.  For many shots, including close-up shots, it was very hard to tell that he was animated at all.  Other men in the film, such as King Hrothgar, played by Anthony Hopkins, were usually animated very well also.  The men generally looked very natural and organic; the women, however, were very obviously animated.  Sometimes this was a good thing, and intentional.  Angelina Jolie, who plays Grendel's mother, is supposed to look surreal; she is a monster, after all.  Thus, when she emerges from the water dripping gold, waving her braided hair/tail, and walking in high heels that are part of her being, the viewer is shocked only by the drama of the moment.  The fact that she does not look like a real person is okay; she is not supposed to.  She is a water demon, not a woman.  Her seductive beauty is augmented by the dripping gold and strange underwater light.  Other female characters though, were very poorly animated.  One example is Robin Wright Penn, who plays Queen Wealthow.  There is nary a scene that she is in where she could possibly be mistaken for a real actress.  She is clearly animated.  At times, she reminded me of Princess Fiona (not in her ogre form) from Shrek (see photos below).  Unlike Grendel's mother, though, Queen Wealthow is supposed to be a real person.  She should look every bit as organic and natural as her husband(s).  Her skin is too smooth and her eyes look like they are plastic.  Alison Lohman plays Ursula, and seems very out of place in this film.  Even though Queen Wealthow looks too perfect, she at least seems to fit the time period of the film.  She is dressed nicely for a queen in 507 AD Denmark, but she is not fancied up with elaborate hairstyles or make up.  Ursula, on the other hand, is wearing eye liner, perfect lipstick, and has her hair so nicely curled that I don't even want to know how long Lohman spent in her hairstylists chair.  Her skin is also too perfect, and it is made more obvious by the out-of-place and too perfect make-up she is wearing.  I am a fan of Lohman and I did not recognize her until I looked up the casting.

 

 

 

 

 

I (Lisa) have two theories about why quality of the male and female animation would differ so drastically.  Because Grendel's mother is not supposed to look real, these theories do not apply to her animation.  First, the more delicate qualities of the women's faces make difficult to animate so that they look real.  The men are more rugged, so the hair stubble and brute features look more natural even on an animated character.  The women are supposed to look perfect even in real life, so the animators did not have as much to work with when animating them.  Their skin was flawless in real life, so it looked flawless--and unreal--in animation.  Whereas, on some of the close ups of Ray Winstone, the viewer could see the pores on his nose.  Also, their delicate facial features were more difficult to animate than the wider action shots of the men. 

 

However, even in wide shots, the queen moves awkwardly.  This leads me to my second theory: the animators simply spent less time and energy on animating the women.  They were in a smaller portion of the movie than Beowulf, for example, and were secondary characters.  Therefore, they get less attention.  This is a bit cynical, but I also think that because Jolie is such a big name for this movie, they wanted to make sure that her character was flawless.  Obviously, the movies namesake also needs to look pretty good.  Furthermore, the plot hinges on her being convincing as seductive enough to part men from their morals.  I believe that they put a lot of effort into these two characters and figured that the audience would be okay with more unreal looking women.  While this serves to highlight her as seperate from ordinary women, the way the other female characters are rendered did draw me out of the story a little.

 

Jessie wants to add that it is possible that this is where animation is at currently.  The standouts for me (Jessie) where Grendel, played by the wonderful Crispin Glover; Grendel's mother, played by gorgeous Angelina Jolie; and Beowulf, played by Ray Winstone.  I agree that in general the men came through better than the women.  However, Unferth, played by John Malkovich did not come through well either. To me, his character along with Robin Wright Penn and Alison Lohman were the fakest looking parts of the film.  Probably this animation style must be used more to continue to make breakthroughs.

 

 

Philosophy in film

One of the ways that the film situates us is in the gods it mentions.  I remember the mention of Odin, and I'm unsure about the other god mentioned, it could have been Frey.  In this scene, a peasant mentions that they serving their old gods, but should they start praying to another, a newer god, Jesus Christ, as well?  The king replies no, they must rely on themselves.  This situates the viewer in the timeline of a convergance to Christianity.  

 

Is Beowulf's contract with Grendel's mother a deal with the devil?  Grendel's mother promises that he will be king, have all the riches and women he desires, if he will father a child by her and hold her in his heart.  Notably, Grendel's mothers is presented in an “idol” like form of a demon, covered in liquid gold.  Although Grendel's mother makes good on her promises, Beowulf is not happy.  His much younger mistress, Ursula, names off all of the privileges he enjoys, but he shrugs them all off.  He continues to brood, and gets angry when she tells him he is a hero.  This implies that although Beowulf gets his desires met, a deeper fulfillment: a spiritual fulfillment, is lacking.  The film cuts to a conversation between Ursula and Queen Wealthow.  Queen Wealthow, being a place where Beowulf could have received a connection deeper than the superficial.  However, when Ursula asks why Queen Wealthow and Beowulf are not still close, the Queen says that too many secrets came between them.

 

When Beowulf is king, many men challange him because they want the Beowulf's renown as a slayer of monsters.  As men futilely kill each other, a man comments that Christianity has changed the enemies from monsters into men themselves.

 

There are images of burning crosses in the scene where Beowulf's son ascends.  As Beowulf's son tries to hurt him, he repeats, the sins of the fathers.  This is a reference to the biblical idea that a curse carries down a family line for three to four generations.  This page interprets Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, and Exodus 34:6-7, and comments that if a family member misleads their family, the effects are often felt for generations.   

 

How do these disparate pieces fit together?  If one reads the film as encouraging Christianity, then it implies that the king made a mistake in the very beginning when he said that man could rely on himself along.  Man is easily tempted and then can fall down a well that has no end.  In the process, all his mistakes are visited upon his family.  However, how is one to fit the idea that Christianity has destroyed outer demons and made all struggles internal?

 

The world that Beowulf is set in is still haunted and mysterious.  Perhaps, to some degree, like in Neil Gaiman's American Gods, it is the people's belief systems that make gods live.  Are beliefs in the Norse mythology threatened by Christianity and therefore dying off?  Does this make the dragons and demons die too?  However, one survives, Grendel's dangerous and powerful mother.

 

If one is to look at this film in a postmodern light, the world is shaped by the living characters' philosophies.  There is no real religion, the world reflects what the people believe because that is the way that they organize and communicate their thoughts.

 

The philosophy machinery working underneath the surface is not simple and apparent.  Because of this, it would be interesting for students to research Odin and other gods mentioned and try to connect to the philosophy themselves.  In what filmic elements do they see philosophy or religion appear?  Can they list these parts and try to construct the author's perspective?  Emphasis will be placed on gathering evidence and making a hypothesis rather than getting the "right" answer.

 

This wikipedia page explores the use of mythology in the book Beowulf.

 

 

Gender roles

Beowulf is the ultimate hero: strong, brave, handsome, proven, etc.  Or is he?  While he is physically the most strong and brave, he is corruptable.  His whole kingdom must pay for his ethical mistakes.  While he is very talented in battle, how strong are his strategies?  No one in the film seems to be prepared for the shift from Norse philsophies to Christian philosphies.  Is his intelligence strong enough to face the dangers in Beowulf?  This would be an excellent question to ask a class.  Aside from being morally corruptable, where are Beowulf's other weaknesses?  Is there a weaknesses in his understanding of how the world works?

 

The movie opens interestingly, Queen Wealthow is the most sympathetic character.  The film opens following her.  We see her carefully filling and carrying the King's golden dragon cup.  When the King is carried into the hall, we are invited to be critical of him.  His beer belly is revealed, his robe is in danger of falling open.  When he consumes the drink the Queen gives him, it spills down his front.  In contrast to Queen Wealthow, he is loud and sloppy.  Furthermore, Queen Wealthow is shown to be a musican.

 

Because we follow Queen Wealthow, the viewer is invited to be critical of the mead hall.  The King's party and invitation to debauchery are superficial.  The rat running across the wooden beams is all the more dirty next to her purity.

 

Still, she must suffer because of her husbands mistakes.  This may be a reflection of the gender roles at the time.  The male is the head of the household and therefore, his sucesses and failures are what lead the family.  Or, looking at her through a more modern perspective, she may be flawed.  Like Beowulf, she has her weaknesses.  Her weaknesses is to suffer silently rather than seeking change.  When she is unhappy, she seems to withdraw.  She is physically present, but emotionally distant.  However, at this point in the movie, we are following Beowulf, so she is a side character, and we do not know much about her.

 

There is a strange side story with Ursula and Queen Wealthow.  Ursula seems to be the stereotypical mistress.  She's young, blonde, beautiful, and petite.  When Queen Wealthow and Urusula talk, the Queen does not seem to carry much animosity.  This suggests that her love for Beowulf was killed in the past.  However, their interactions were still awkward.  I wasn't completely sure what to do with them.  After opening with Queen Wealthow, I wanted to know more about her feelings at the end.

 

Grendel's mother is a true femme fatale: beautiful, seductive, cunning, and irresistable.  She ensnares both Hrothgar and Beowulf with her beauty, promises, and seduction.  Both men suffer for their weakness. 

 

There is a sea monster who kisses Beowulf when he falls to the bottom of the ocean.  This part was very mysterious.  No further explanations of Beowulf's flashback are supplied.

 

Another female character that shows up is someone whom Lisa and I refered to as "the boob lady," when talking after the film. We first meet her while she is scubbing tables in the mead hall.  She is shown bending over one of the tables, with her well-endowed chest practically falling out of her low-cut dress.  She is flirting with one of the men.  However, when we see this pair later later, with him pressuring her to sleep with him, she pushes him away because she does not want to.  Her purpose in the film, is basically a pair of breasts.  But in the film, her role is not to just satisfy men.  She has the power to choose what she wants.  Is she just there to tantilize the viewer?  Partially, yes.  I think that somehow she is also supposed to establish a pagan/hedonistic culture.  The Christian idea of marriage is not yet established.  Is there a more complex or interesting way to show hedonism?  Possibly.

 

Lisa read the film as anti-feminist, and I read it as ambiguous.  It is true that women fall into typical roles.  Possibly I was more sympathetic because I am a fan of Neil Gaiman's, one of the authors of the script.  In his other work, he comes across as feminist.  I'm not completely sure how to read what the film does with the gender roles.  Again, it is complex.  For this reason, this would be another area to have students share their thoughts and back them up with evidence.

 

 

Relationship to today's culture

Many critics have said that the movie Beowulf drastically differs from the original epic poem.  Here are a few links to some reviews that address this topic:

 

• Washingon Post article: "'Beowulf' Movie Magic Can't Conjure The Poem's Bare-Bones Enchantment"
• Associatedcontent.com review: "Beowulf: Great Epic Poem to Great Epic Movie"
• Time.com review: "Beowulf and Grendel — and Grendma"

 

So, one must ask themselves, why did director Robert Zemeckis decide to make such a departure from the text?  One reason might be to make the classic tale more appealing to modern audiences.  As noted above, the movie offers philosophical possiblities to the audience but stops short of directly preaching or making solid claims.  In today's society, spirituality is seen as a very personal decision.  Unlike in Anglo Saxon England, there are countless possibilities for personal philosophical and spiritual paths.  This contrast would be a great topic of study for students in a classroom.  Having the students compare the philosophical traditions and gods of the Anglo Saxon period with modern sensibilities about spirtuality would be an excellent companion assignment to the one noted above in the "Philosophy in film" section of this wiki.

 

Another way to broach this topic is through the script book by Gaiman and Avary.  In this book, they discuss editing the script and why they made the choices that they did.  Here, Gaiman talks about how he started working with Avary and Zemeckis. And Here, Gaiman responds to an email about the script.  Here, he talks about talking to Glover and Jolie on set.

 

The film can also be read as a marriage of different influences.  Gaiman, Avary, and Zemeckis have vastly different styles.  If one were to look into their other material, perhaps one could pull apart different inputs.