A Lenda de Grendel

I was fortunate to see Sturla Gunnarsson's "Beowulf & Grendel" at the Toronto International Film Festival. This film is MUCH MORE than the long epic poem we read in high school! It is a film infused with humor, heart, suspense, and qualities of character and motivation which make it memorable indeed! Yes, there is violence, but that is the nature of the beast, so to speak. The story tells of people living in rather primitive circumstances (compared to modern Western standards) and war is a way of life. Without going into the story, it can safely be said that the introduction of the hero Beowulf (wonderfully played by Gerard Butler) leads to a tale of honor, friendship, loyalty, bravery, horror, and retribution. The musical score, sets, costumes, armor and weaponry, and especially the landscape (filmed entirely in Iceland!) add to the splendor of this movie. I have recommended B&G to our friends, and we hope it is widely distributed.

My motive for seeing this film was mostly curiosity. I read it long ago (in a past almost as dim and distant as the times of the Geats), as a requirement for Grad English, and I wanted to know what a more modern sensibility would make of it. On the whole, I thought the film-maker was confused by it, and was forced by his twenty-first-century prejudices to turn it into something it wasn't. What he did, in fact, was feminize it.

If this had been the result of real artistic vision, it might have worked, but it wasn't; it was done by the book, in a Sensitivity 101 fashion, and inconsistently, so that the result wasn't either mythic or modern. Or not the way the film-makers hoped, anyway. Instead of being a synthesis, it was an uneasy mix.

Oh, it was moderately entertaining to a modern man and woman, the scenery was magnificent and the cinematography splendid - almost a given, these days. The acting, with one important exception, was very good. I'm glad I saw that and not... what was the other one? Snow dogs in Peril? Oh, 'Eight Below'. 'Beowulf and Grendel' was actually about something, and not just 'based on actual events' - the usual witless excuse for a dull and meandering story.

What was Beowulf about? Originally - think about this - the tellers and hearers of this tale lived the dullest and most dangerous existence possible. They were pioneers, always on the jagged edge of starvation, faced with endless toil and unremitting vigilance, just to survive against an unremittingly hostile environment. They must have longed for a single villain, an enemy they could strike at and defeat, once and for all. Thus, Grendel. Grendel is all their fear and drudgery rolled into one. And Beowulf. He is them, all rolled into one, their collective courage and strength.

It might be possible to adapt this to modern ideals, but it has to be re-imagined, which likely means changing time and place to, let's say, the recent old-west, the populace to sodbusters, the Grendel-menace to an unbeatable black-hat gunslinger and the hero to the man in buckskin. You can't just graft modern attitudes onto ancient warriors and pretend you've done something new and significant.

The addition of the witch, Selma, played by my countrywoman Sarah Polley, is the worst of the modernist grafts. She plays the part almost without affect, as if all her actions were the product of cool rational thought, and didn't matter very much, anyway. I picture the director ranting at her in Icelandic, while a very polite translator murmurs, "more intense, please". I hate to bad-mouth one of the more intelligent actresses of our time, and one most loyal to her Canadian Roots, but she really dropped the ball on this one, and it affects the whole movie's credibility. If she'd been crazier, dirtier, more savage, more a part of the threatening Other, the role might have worked. Since she chose to preserve the proprieties of a modern girl --don't flip out, even when a troll is ravishing you -- she sinks the whole enterprise.

Final comment: handsome, amusing, entertaining, but highly flawed.

Bear with me while I transpose my thoughts from my tangential, blonde head and hopefully it will be worth your read.

Let me first say that Grendel engaged me throughout the movie. There were good performances by many of the cast (Butler's conflicted hero, Skarsgard's noble-but-not-so-noble king) , but Ingvar Sigurdsson owned it as Grendel. Was it the skill of the writer and director in making Grendel a vulnerable human(?) and victim (drawing a sympathy vote from the audience)? Was it Ingvar Sigurdsson's acting skills to express intense emotions and engage the audience despite virtually any words in the script and enough prosthetic make-up to impede facial expressions? All I know is that I connected with Grendel's pain. And isn't that the point?

Another prominent character was the weather. It wasn't on the casting list, but it showed up nonetheless and fought for top billing. It helped to draw you into the ruggedness of the times and the story, but I also found it distracting. Perhaps it's my own distractibility, but for whatever reason, the scenery and weather engaged me more than the story a few times.

The soundtrack was indeed beautiful, but personally, I don't think it fit. To me, the campfire-to-mead-hall timeless folktale would have been better served by a more primitive collection of instruments rather than the majestic orchestra suited to an epic. But that's just my taste.

My main criticism is that to me, the film seemed choppy. I felt like I missed out on some important parts. (I didn't take any washroom breaks, did I?) It may have been the editing. There are others who enjoyed the film much better at the second viewing, so maybe it's all there in the movie beyond my distraction by the scenery and Gerard Butler's rugged good looks. Maybe the movie did its job; after all I'm still chewing on it 2 weeks later. Who knows? I did, however, catch the humor in the film. Andrew Rai Berzins' sharp wit and humor came to the rescue and drew me back in when distractions prevailed.

I'd really like to see it a second time now that my giddiness is over. I was anticipating this movie from the time filming began, and what film can live up to a year's worth of my ruminations and expectations? Now, don't ask me to rate the film with a number. I hate numbers. They don't mean anything. You should never see a movie based on numbers. See it because you want to.

…and if my review left you with more questions than answers, then I've done my job, because that's where the movie left me. Now go see the movie and find your own questions and answers.

This is a very updated version of the Anglo-Saxon poem "Beowulf," using contemporary English.This movie still has the mythical, epic qualities of the poem that have inspired readers throughout the ages. In an excellent performance, Gerard Butler effectively captures the conflicted hero Beowulf as he endures the slow erosion of his military code of conduct. Beowulf & Grendel is more than a story of blood and war. Themes of vengeance, loyalty and mercy are powerfully entwined with the beginnings of Christianity in southwest Sweden in 500 AD. Another theme which is explored is human inability to tolerate that which is different. Gerard Butler is extremely effective as Beowulf, but perhaps the best performance in the movie is that delivered by the tempestuous and weirdly beautiful land of Iceland. I think this movie is definitely worth seeing.

BEOWULF is one of my favourite works of epic poetry, but the subject matter, which jumps all over the place and back and forth through time, is fairly unworkable on film. I was interested to see what the makers of this fairly low budget epic would do with the material, and in the end I was more than satisfied. As the title indicates, BEOWULF & GRENDEL focuses on the central thrust of the story, ignoring side-stories and the later Beowulf vs. dragon showdown to deliver a simple retelling of the main part of the age-old legend.

The story is largely expanded from the original, with many peripheral characters added and extra scenes. Some of these work (Eddie Marsan's psychotic Christian missionary helps to set the film in its time rather well) but others I could have done without, such as Sarah Polley's witch. Still, for the most part, the story is well achieved, with plenty of atmosphere and a real sense of place. Somebody had the brilliant idea of filming in the bleak Icelandic countryside, full of mountains and rocks and waterfalls with nary a blade of grass in sight; the decision paid off (despite problems with the weather during the shoot) and you can really believe the action is taking place over a thousand years ago.

Gerard Butler does well as the hero, his Beowulf equally as rugged as the isolated scenery. His role feels like a dry-run for 300's King Leonidas. Most of the supporting cast are interchangeable, but Stellan Starsgard is fine as the complex, tormented Hrothgar. Grendel is a more sympathetic creation here than in the poem; he's given his own back story, which I didn't mind, and he looks like a caveman rather than a hideous monster. Some of the incident in the eventual showdown between man and monster is changed and the later sub-plot involving Grendel's mother feels rushed, but I felt these problems were insignificant. For the most part, BEOWULF & GRENDEL ably brings to life the heroism and terror of the Anglo-Saxon age.