|
Just to clarify, I thought the animated feeling of the character movement in Beowulf was a positive. Anything that leaned toward it being an animated movie made it a better film in my eyes.
I love the adaptations to the story the filmmakers made, and I don't think it took things too far off. It was clear that Grendil's Mother could appear as a beauty, but that it was not her natural form (which seemed to be more a lizard-creature than a hag ... but i think the point being that she could appear as many things). The only bit I absolute hated about her appearance as a luscious siren were the stilletto heels she was sporting to aid the look. I couldn't help but think that, like Merlin in Disney's The Sword in the Stone, Grendil's Mother was a time traveler who visited the 20th century for fashion tips before heading back to the 4th century to seduce Beowulf. Ugh.
I thought the biggest change ... moving the third act from back in Beowulf's native Sweden to the Denmark of the earlier acts ... was spot-on brilliant. It let the tale keep the same set of characters (adding only Beowulf's yummy new concubine) and, for a movie, I thought that was clearly the best choice -- certainly warranting a departure from the version of the tale best known.
Keeping in mind, of course, that the written poem was set down centuries after the tale had been part of oral tradition for hundreds of years. I think it's safe to say the famous poem can not be considered the one, true version of the tale.
And though historians believe many of the characters are based on actual people, the tale of Ogres and Witches and Dragons clearly has fictional elements galore. Changing elements of Beowulf, then, is somewhat different an adaptation puzzle than 300 vs. historical fact.
|