My take on the Beowulf movie

I wanted to put forth my thoughts on the movie while others in the blogosphere are still interested. For those who haven't seen it yet and would like to remain unspoiled, please just go to my last post and avoid reading any further. Otherwise, if you are interested in someone's reaction to the movie to decide whether or not it is worth your time and money...stick around. I will offer a different type of analysis of the movie than other reviews I have read.

I do not disagree with any of their assessments, but I wish to analyze through a lens focusing on drama.

First off, I will admit that I have not read the classic epic poem of Beowulf. I bought the Seamus Heaney translation and it is on my bookshelf in the "to be read" pile, but as of yet its spine is still pristine.

So I went into the movie without the expectations that fans of the epic poem had. I simply wanted to be entertained. I shall read it in the near future and see how they deviated from the classic tale.

I love engaging in that kind of analysis. I have read and dissected screenplays as well as take copious notes of movies scene by scene. There are choices to be made by screenwriters in translating source material to a different medium that deal with timing and narrative flow. Sometimes I agree with their choices and other times I disagree.

I have been delighted when certain aspects of books that I thought were particularly boring were cut or streamlined. I have also been disappointed when vital plot points or complexities in a story are cut in order to maximize action/adventure sequences. I feel that kind of treatment diminishes the overall dramatic potential of the material and confuses the audience.

I prefer deeply moving emotional scenes between characters over ones where I'm gripping the seat watching someone hang by their fingernails from a ledge or dodging the teeth from a monster for the umpteenth time. After a short while, I find myself annoyed with action/adventure sequences that seem to go on ad infinitum.

I feel the same way with car chases, fight scenes, etc. Very few do I think warrant the amount of screen time that they now receive.

Beowulf's action sequences fit that description. They went on too long for my liking, but that is not what bothers me the most about the movie. It is the lack of a sympathetic main character.

Beowulf was a jerk.

Not a hero. He was an ass.

He was brave and strong, but also vain and arrogant. He craved glory, but lacked honor.

He showed no attempt at trying to live up to the ideals of the Chivalric Code. He was a powerful warrior and king, but not a hero.

It is fine for secondary characters to have those qualities, but it should not be the main character in a story.

That I think is the fatal flaw in the movie. The audience is never allowed to care what happens to the lead character.

There is one scene in particular that illustrates to the audience how vainglorious our "hero" is. It could have been done much differently and achieved a different effect.

Beowulf decided that he needed to match Grendel in regards to arms and armor. That meant he chose to put them all aside. That is an honorable act. Similar to setting aside your pistol if you find your dueling opponent is wielding a knife.

However, Beowulf announced his plan to the queen as he began undressing while standing directly in front of her.

I found that scene to be an attempt to intimidate the queen. A woman he had been making eyes at all evening long.

Beowulf could have said gracious remarks about her singing and suggest that she turn in for the night as the fight would start shortly and he needed to ready himself. At that point he could have mentioned his need to divest himself of arms, armor, and clothes. She would then have had the chance to blush, leave and possibly sneak a peak at him after she left the room if she was so bold.

Instead he stripped in front of her as if daring her to not look down and assess his manly prowess.

Arrogance. Not a particularly attractive attribute in heroes.

Could that movie have saved with a different script? Maybe.

I tend to think it might have been a better movie if a better actor had been cast for the role.

The only way would have been in they had not cast merely a good actor, but a brilliant actor to play the title role. So that even if the main character was vain and arrogant, the audience would still like him.

It would be tough, but still possible.

I recall what I learned from the late great Michael Shurtleff. In his book Audition: Everything an actor needs to know to get the part he gave examples from his time as a casting director on Broadway. One was during the casting of Jesus Christ Superstar and the field was narrowed down to two actors to play the role of Judas Iscariot.

There were two camps of supporters for the different actors. The votes were evenly split with the musical director as the one to cast the deciding vote. Michael was asked by him why he supported Ben Vereen for the part.

Michael said that his reasoning was that even though both actors were very talented, Candidate A was "remote and disdainful" and Vereen was "lovable."

Here is his explanation about that subject of likability in performers:

"You're always ahead if you cast a performer who is likable. Unlikable performers can sometimes have long, even important, careers, if they have talent, fascination, sexuality, and uniqueness, but some odd chemistry always happens in their relationship to an audience. Frequently the audience does not know they don't like a performer, but they are disturbed by him (or her), and the elements work in a strange, frequently unpredictable way. I have seen too many productions in which the actor comes off with great notices and the project fails -- because the actor is arrogant." page 170 in the trade paperback edition.

I have reflected on his pearls of wisdom for years now and I recognize that as being the difference between good actors and brilliant actors.

Think of the television series M*A*S*H. I prefer the episodes with Charles Emerson Winchester III as the third man in The Swamp over the ones with Frank Burns because while Winchester was a pompous bore, you realized that he really did not want to be there either. His character was sympathetic. Burns was just an ass. There is nothing sympathetic about him. I cheered as Ferret Face bore the brunt of practical jokes and did not miss him when he left the series.

I feel that David Ogden Stiers is a far better actor than Larry Linville.

Getting back to Beowulf, I feel that Ray Winstone did not deliver on what was needed for the role.

The success of the movie hinged on the main character being someone audiences liked.

Another example I would like to mention is a movie where the pivotal role was cast appropriately: Thank You for Smoking.

Aaron Eckhart played Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for big tobacco, whose character said outrageous things, and yet, I laughed as he said them. Why?

Because he was charming.

The movie would not have worked with someone less talented.

It was imperative that Nick Naylor be played by someone who could smile with a wicked glint in his eyes while delivering logic that defied rational thought. It was wicked satire and it walked a fine tightrope, but it worked.

Robert Zemekis's Beowulf did not work.

And it was not because of the artistic choice of using motion-captured animation rather than live action, it was because the main character was unsympathetic.

It is imperative that audiences feel comfortable with the main character. If they do not care what happens to them or feel that the character deserves a tragic Karmic Fate - it does not bode well for overall audience satisfaction.

I cannot say that I would recommend the movie. Nor would I say that I am all that interested in watching it a second time. I would probably rent it on Netflix simply to see the extras, to see deleted scenes, audio commentary, etc. because I am adore that kind of information.

I would much rather watch Pan's Labyrinth again than Beowulf.

Linda

The show *must* go on or there are no "do overs" in live theatre

My son is in his first play and he's nervous.

It's an elementary school Thanksgiving pageant, so we're not talking Broadway or even with a local theatre troup.

It's also about fifteen minutes in length, so it's not a big production. However, it will be his first time in front of an audience. He also has one of the leading roles.

Today is his dress rehearsal and I am at work. I cannot be there with him to help settle his jitters prior to his first performance.

Last night as I was trying to get him to focus on finishing his homework, he had a minor meltdown. After a little questioning, he told me about his nerves about the play.

I was expecting that it was due to mere procrastination and dislike of homework, but once he admitted his fears I was able to give him a pep talk explaining my own tales from the stage.

Back when I was in high school I had been in a few plays and enjoyed those experiences thoroughly. I told my son about the magical nature between actors onstage and the audiences. That actors cannot know exactly how audiences will react to their production until their first performance.

One scene I remember vividly was where the character who played the patriarch of a family appeared to be dead. He sat in a chair motionless. Two characters approached him with apprehension and quietly suggested a morbid possibility.

His wife then came onstage and quickly assessed the situation realizing the others' fears.

She went up to her husband, gave him a hard shake and said, "Sander wake up!"

He shook his head, gave a grunt of "what?"

She followed with, "The children thought you were dead!"

The audience howled with laughter. They had been led to believe that the play was now going to be dealing with a death, and instead it was a false alarm. Their nervousness was replaced with laughter.

The first night that happened, I was surprised because for some reason I had not understand that scene at all. Its significance was not clear to me until we had an audience and heard their reaction.

I was not the only actor who was surprised by the audience's laughter. Only then did we truly understand the material we were working with and knew what to expect from audiences.

I told my son that he would have this same kind of magical experience the first time his class performed in front of an audience. Only then will they know when to expect laughter or gasps, etc.

A week earlier my son asked me, "What if I mess up my lines?"

I told him the old adage, "The show must go on."

Then I told him the story from that same play that had been a production of Flint Community Players entitled Time Steps by Gus Kaikkonen.

The second act of that play used several scenes using different parts of the stage. It was the start a scene - freeze - have other characters speak - freeze - continue until the act is finished style.

The first scene showed four characters playing a board game. I was in later scenes in that act where my character (I was seventeen and playing a fifteen year old girl) was with a twenty-something young man. One of those scenes included a stage kiss.

On closing night, the actor who played my grandfather made a mistake. His mind jumped ahead to the lines which opened the ending scene of the second act rather than the opening scene. So he said something like, "That's enough for tonight, I'm going to bed."

Everything could have been saved at that point if the next actor realized the problem and said, "No, come on, Dad, let's play just a little longer." Instead, he followed his cue and started to pack up the board.

I stood offstage with my partner in horror. There was the entire second act that now needed to be salvaged. We had to wait until there was a pause in the action for us to make our entrance.

The four actors did their best trying to insert lines of dialogue in a frantic manner to cover all the important plot points. Finally the actors quit talking so it was a "freeze" for me and "Benny" to enter the stage. We started our scene, but as soon as we kissed - the other actors started talking again!

Ugh!

That meant we had to keep our kiss frozen until they shut up, so we could finish our scene.

I remember thinking, "I'm going to kill someone over this."

I felt bad for my fellow actor since it probably was worse for him than myself to have a prolonged stage kiss. He had to have developed a krick in his neck having to keep it lowered to accomodate my short stature, because I'm sure I had not leaned upward to kiss him. If I had, I would have probably lost my balance holding that position for so long.

Later when the other actors stopped talking we finished our scene. At the end of the act, we left the stage.

I remember that the actor who played my father apologized to me backstage. He felt awful.

The man responsible for the debacle did not make eye contact with anyone. He slunk into the men's dressing room to change for the third act.

The thing was: the audience never knew we messed up.

They didn't know there were any problems whatsoever.

The most surprising thing to me was when I realized that the crew did not recognize the problem either. The backstage crew who had watched our rehearsals for over a month, and our performances for two weeks, did not realize that the second act had not gone according to the script.

The woman who was in charge of the props looked at me and asked why I was upset. I whispered, "Didn't you see what happened out there?"

She had no idea.

Because we covered all the bases so well.

I realized then how good of a theatrical team we had become. We had pulled together and avoided a potential disaster. The audience left without knowing how much different that performance was from all the previous performances.

I also had some extended family members in the audience and I asked them if they noticed anything amiss. They didn't.

:whew:

Lo these many years later, I still remember the nervousness and anxiety I felt that night when things did not go according to plan and feeling relieved when our teamwork had worked and the play continued.

We did not break the scene and ask that we start anew. We did not laugh with "bloopers" or "out-takes." Nope. We simply continued and made it work.

Being in live theatre means that you are performing without a safety net and the show *must* go on. No matter what happens onstage. You must keep going.

Now, my son will not have any stage kisses in this production, but he at least knows that his mother has survived theatrical mishaps and did not die of embarrassment.

He also knows about the phrase "break a leg."

Go get 'em tiger!

Linda