Beowulf--The Poem

I read the translation by Seamus Heaney, with the Old English on the facing page. I can see why the movie producers & writers felt they had to "jazz up" the original: it's very talky and the description of the action is pretty minimal. Still, I would like to see someone present this as it must have originally been spoken, as a story around a mead-hall, with a winter storm raging outside.

Beowulf is a Geat, a people from southern Sweden, who sails across the water to the aid of the Danish King. After defeating the monster, Grendel, and Grendel's mother, Beowulf becomes king of his own people, ruling for 50 years, until a dragon threatens the Geats and Beowulf dies defeating it.

According to my edition, the fact that the English-speaking world even knows of this poem and this warrior is something of a miracle. There is only one manuscript, which survived a fire in the 18th Century, which has been, in Mr. Heaney's words, "...transcribed and titled, re-transcribed and edited, translated, and adapted, interpreted and reinterreted, until it has become canonical."

A fellow poet prefers the translation done by Howell Chickering--in his opinion it's more poetic. However, I found I enjoyed Mr. Heaney's translation. It reminded me of Leaves of Grass by Whitman: kind of a "natural voice" verse form, with consonant sounds repeated within the line rather than a forced rhyme at the end of each. If his transcription of the original Old English is at all close, it seems to me that this follows the original.

No, I don't read Old English. But I love words and it was interesting to look at the line in the Old English and compare it to the Modern. Some words, like helm, have come down intact through the centuries. Some make sense when read out loud phonetically. Others are a mystery. I enjoyed reading Mr. Heaney's introduction where he discusses why he chose the form he did and how he decided to translate some of the more obscure words.

As for the story... In Beowulf's bragging about his exploits, his courage, his strength, there is a lesson sent to young male listeners: this is how a hero behaves. These are his duties. If you act like this, your name and your deeds will also live on in song and be passed down through the ages. For Beowulf was no idle boaster--he was every bit as brave and daring as he claimed. He was loyal and was rewarded for his loyalty. In turn, he rewarded those who were loyal to him and he took care of the widows and orphans of those who stood with him but did not survive.

Embedded within the story of Beowulf are older stories: of betrayal, of the importance of having strong leadership, of the rubbing of old religions and ways of thinking and the new (Christianity).

The fragments is only about 3200 lines long--213 pages in my edition, which means about 107 in actual text pages. The story is simple and straightforward; much like I imagine the societies of that time to be. Yet, I recognize the beginning of the idea of chivalry, of protecting women and those who are weaker, that loyalty and reward run not just from subject to king, but also from king back to subject.

1300 years after it was written, Beowulf is still entertaining. And it just might have something to show us about ourselves as well.

On the March Hare scale: 4.5 out 5 Golden Bookmarks

crossposted at The Mad Tea Party

Beowulf--The Movie

I enjoyed 300 and even Troy. I was looking forward to seeing Beowulf, to enjoy another epic story, filled with outrageous heroes and fantastic monsters. I read an excerpt of the poem when I was in high school, which was a long time ago. I read The Song of Roland about the same time and the two were muddled in my mind. This summer I bought Seamus Heaney's translation this summer and was looking forward to reading it.

So I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, especially when DD#2 said that she could get extra credit in English for watching Beowulf and then comparing it with The Odyssey, which she is reading.

I was really disappointed.

First off, I found the computer animated human characters extremely off-putting. We saw the movie on a regular screen, not 3-D, so I don't know if that makes any difference. But the synchronization of their mouths with the dialogue was off and their movements were strange--not quite smooth.

And then there are the accents. Here is a story about Danes and Geats and Thanes and everyone speaks with a well-modulated British accent, except for the serving girls. They speak with a brogue. Robin Wright Penn is the voice, and the body model, for the queen. Her accent isn't bad, but weren't there any British actresses available? Angelina Jolie looks great with an airbrushed body in gold leaf, but I'm not sure what her accent was supposed to be. In fact, according to the credits, there was another actress involved. I guess they were going for the "dragon lady" effect--Angelina's character was rather reptilian.

But the tragedy of this movie is that it didn't engage me. I didn't care about Beowulf or Hrothgar or the queen. I didn't care about Grendel or his mother. The effects were amazing, especially the dragon. But emotionally, the movie had no impact, no resonance. While it was clear that Beowulf was attracted to Hrothgar's young queen and she to him, there was little to explain what happened between the time of Beowulf's encounter with Grendel's mother and his encounter with the dragon. They profess their love for each other--but what happened?

Update: DS#1 is home for Thanksgiving. We were talking about this movie, which he thought was great. Turns out, he saw it in 3-D and it's apparently "awesome." Then, too, he was probably watching for the effects while I was watching for the story. That might also be the difference between seeing this movie in 2-D versus 3-D. However, I'm not spending the money to find out.

Also, Cliff Notes Online had an article about the themes in Beowulf, the original poem. Robert Zemekis (and screenwriters Neil Gaiman and Robert Avary) should have checked the site out.

On the March Hare scale: 2 out of 5 Golden Tickets

crossposted on The Mad Tea Party

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Okay--who in their right mind would bring a two-year-old to a movie subtitled The Demon Barber of Fleet Street? The movie is rated R, it's by Tim Burton, and has Johnny Depp. At the very least you should have an inkling that it's going to be dark.

Yes, someone did bring their toddler and ended up taking her out just about every time the music rose to a crescendo and blood spattered the screen.

Just for the record: this isn't The Sound of Music.

DS#2 saw the movie with some of his friends. He enjoyed it, except for the music--he didn't realize Sweeney Todd is a musical. However, his biggest objection to the music is that the songs all sounded the same, just with different words. Part of it might be that Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman don't have a lot of range in their singing voices. But Jamie Campbell Bower, who plays Anthony Hope, and Jayne Wisener, as Johanna, are excellent. Helena Bonham Carter is Mrs. Lovett, who loves Sweeney Todd in her own limited way, and who owns "the worst meat pie shop in London."

Ed Sanders, who plays Toby, a young orphan Mrs. Lovett takes in, is a true find. I hope he finds work.

Hubs and I enjoyed it, although Hubs was expecting it to be more of a comedy. The ending is the only one it could have, but it's not happy. But it's not Old Yeller sad, either. The movie is shot in muted tones, which makes the red of the blood all the more startling and surprising.

I did find the fact that three of main actors, Rickman, Bonham Carter, and Timothy Spall, are also characters in the Harry Potter movies. (Spall plays Peter Pettigrew.) Rickman and Spall have several scenes together which just reminded me of Snape and Pettigrew. C'mon--aren't there other actors in England?

Johnny Depp does mad extremely well. I believed he was pushed over the edge of sanity and yet could remain capable of thinking logically. Rickman has done subtle evil so often it must be nearly second nature. (It must have been quite a relief to play a snotty British actor playing an coolly logical alien on Galaxy Quest.) Helen Bonham Carter walks the edge of madness and sanity, truth and lies, love and obsession. More than anything she wants a middle-class life: a home, a husband, a child. Mr. Todd is the closest chance she has of getting that and deep inside her, she knows he can't give normality to her. Toby is her surrogate child, but he forces her to see the reality she doesn't want to see and make a decision she doesn't want to make.

Several of the plot "twists" were obvious to both Hubs and I, in part because there are few resolutions for tragedies.

On the way home, Hubs and I debated whether or not DD#2 should see it and if she would enjoy it. (She's 14.) He didn't think so; I think she would, in part because, thanks to her older sibs, she's had a lot of exposure to dark comedy and to Tim Burton. I will admit several of the scenes made me jump even though I knew what was coming.

Can I recommend this movie? A qualified "Yes." Like the Stephen Sondheim musical it's based on, this won't be everyone's cuppa. IMDb classifies Sweeney Todd under "Thriller" and "Crime" as well as "Musical." I suppose those will do. I knew the general outlines of the story, so I was prepared and I enjoyed it. Hubs didn't know any of the storyline, but he's watched enough Tim Burton/Johnny Depp movies to have an inkling this wasn't going to be a light and happy holiday movie. He enjoyed it and is curious to see it as a stage play with actors who can sing.

On the March Hare Scale: 4 out of 5 Golden Tickets

crossposted at The Mad Tea Party

Introduction: March Hare

Julie D., blogmistress extraordinaire of Happy Catholic and Meanwhile, Back in the Kitchen, invited me to contribute to this new group blog. I was flattered to be invited and so I accepted!

My qualifications are simple. I read a lot. I watch a lot of movies, usually in the company of Hubs and/or one of our four children (24, 21, 17, and 14). My standards are pretty simple: was it a good story and was it told well? Did the actors do their job of suspending my belief and taking me into their world?

Oh, and I'm a cradle Catholic, old enough to remember the Legion of Decency and their classifications!

My tastes are all over the map, so at some point I should be reviewing something you might want to read or see or listen to!

The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep - PG

I took my nephews, ages 7 to 13, to see The Water Horse and it was a verygood movie. The setting is Scotland, during World War II. A little boy named Angus finds an egg which hatches into a sea creature called a water horse. For a while, it is in his bathtub, but it soon outgrows that. Eventually, he releases him into the loch (lake). He seems to be doing well there until the Army starts shooting a cannon into the lake. When Angus returns to the loch, the creature, who he named Crusoe, remembers him. Crusoe is now the famous Lochness monster. I don't want to say any more to spoil the movie, but it is very entertaining and there is no foul language, no sex scenes or anything else objectional. I highly recommend.

http://www.thewaterhorse.com

Enchanted

PG starring Amy Adams, Susan Sarandon, James Marsden, Patrick Dempsey, Rachel Covey directed by Kevin Lima 107 minutes
Did you ever wonder how a fairy tale princess spellbound by an envious wicked stepmother, would cope if she were alone on the unforgiving streets of New York City? It's a great premise for a holiday movie.
Enchanted begins like a typical 1950s Disney film with a beautiful princess falling head over heels for a handsome prince. Immediately she begins to make her wedding plans. It sounds like a perfect opportunity for mocking the winsome princess Giselle (Amy Adams) and showing her wide-eyed innocence to be utterly ridiculous in the real world. Fortunately Disney has more imagination than that.
Though cast into oblivion down a wishing well by a deliciously scheming wicked stepmother-in-law, played by Susan Sarandon, in the middle of her triumphant march to the altar with debonair Prince Edward (James Marsden), Giselle never loses hope in a happy ending. She emerges from a manhole in Manhattan and wanders the streets, jostled by the uncaring crowd, yet her cheeriness is undimmed. One feels for her vulnerability as her flouncy, low-cut wedding frock begins to wilt in the rain as she searches in vain for her castle in the sky. But this is a fairy tale and somehow she finds a safe haven in the apartment of reluctant hero Robert Phillips (Patrick Dempsey).
A cynical divorce lawyer and single father who deals in the marital misery of others like himself, Robert is determined to raise his six-year-old daughter Morgan "in the real world", suppressing her girlish inclinations to believe in fairy princesses. He has no intention of allowing her to build up romantic dreams which will surely be dashed to pieces upon the rocks of real life.
So you can imagine Robert’s alarm when little Morgan wakes him up to watch Princess Giselle making fairy-tale magic with the city critters who are doing his household chores! Morgan is thrilled with the idea of befriending a princess in distress. Robert is perplexed by a singing, sewing, certified fairytale princess. And his less-than-enchanted girlfriend Nancy (Idina Menzel) is livid when she enters the apartment and finds towel-clad Giselle cooing over her boyfriend. Menzel is perfect as the hardened New York City career woman who is longing for romance.
The appeal of Enchanted is the interaction of outstanding special effects, which make the impossible seem effortless with the alacrity of Spiderman, and Stephen Schwartz’s lyrical score, capped off with a spectacular Beauty and the Beast style dance scene in Central Park. Somehow disbelief is suspended and the story line works. The character stereotypes are good natured jabs at fairy tale conventions, without souring into the cynicism of the sequel to Shrek. A hilarious animated sidekick, Giselle’s faithful chipmunk friend Pip, follows her into exile and searches for her with Prince Edward. He provides comic relief, while the scheming courtier Nathaniel (Timothy Spall) pursues Giselle to thwart her happy reunion with Prince Edward, by order of stepmother Narissa.
Both Giselle's romantic impulses and Robert's cynicism are challenged by the outcome, with Morgan leading the way for both of them to learn the moral of the movie. And this is: "go with your instincts, but make certain you talk to one another first."
Don’t look for anything too substantial in Enchanted, but it has good performances and thrilling special effects. The film is not appropriate for younger children, however, due to some near violence, implied homosexuality, sexual innuendos (including a scantily-clad shower mishap). This playful romp in Central Park is appropriate for adolescents girls and their mothers. They can have some interesting post-movie chats about the place of romance in marriage, and the meaning of true love.

Cross-posted review at Mercatornet.

Have you seen "Bella"yet?

There's still time. "Bella" has been in theatres since October 25, and is still being shown in theatres in the US, and will go international from there. Click here for showtimes.

Here's my review at Mercatornet.

Deacon Greg Reviews Sweeney Todd

After months of waiting and wondering, last night I finally got to see the movie version of "Sweeney Todd." I'd seen the stage production years ago, with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn, and knew to expect something different with Johnny Depp wielding the razor. It is different. Very different. It's a brooding, disturbing, urgent, ominous, grisly, sweeping "Sweeney."

And it's also something I never expected: heartbreaking.

It's a story of revenge, and like all of these kinds of tales, the moral is the same: revenge begets revenge. (Or, as "Othello" puts it, "Sin will pluck on sin.") The grudges we nurse can destroy us -- even more so, when we believe that settling those grudges will, in fact, redeem us. When Sweeney throws back his head and sings, "I will have salvation," he's not talking about going to heaven, but to hell. And hell consumes, almost literally, the second half of the story, with bodies being burned and chimneys belching black smoke and corpses piling up like the last scene of "Hamlet."

Definitely Deacon Greg should have been a movie reviewer. Read the rest for his thoughtful and compelling commentary. He sees below the surface just as we would want in any well told story. For those who are fans of Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Steven Sondheim ... and well, horror-musicals (granted it is a small genre!) ... go read his review. (Cross-posted at Happy Catholic)

Movie and Book Review: I Am Legend

It is difficult to know how to review these without spoiling them

In brief, I can say that there are some definite parallels between them and yet they have a completely different feel. Both are cautionary tales about man's meddling with things that he should not. Both leave Robert Neville as the sole survivor of an insidious disease that either kills the infected or completely changes any survivors into monsters which prey upon normal people. In the book the people look normal but actually are regular cross-hating, garlic-shunning, sunlight-hating vampires. In the movie, the people become animalistic monsters that the girls and I dubbed "zom-pires" as they seemed a strange mixture between fast moving zombies and vampires.

The book, written in 1954, is fairly typical of a genre of science fiction of the time. The details of Neville's life are told completely from his thoughts. Between the daily details of making stakes to kill vampires, teaching himself science to try to identify what has caused the disease, and his struggles with loneliness, there are flashbacks from his dreams which fill in what happened to his wife and daughter. Neville was a worker in a plant before the disaster, not a high level intellectual at all, and thus is more of an "every man" than one would expect. I actually found this quite interesting and was riveted right up until the last chapter, which surprised me by entirely changing the entire tenor of the book for me. I will not say more because the I don't want to give away plot points. As I say, they are often parallel to the movie, but made for different reasons with different results which provides quite an interesting contrast when considering both presentations of the story.

The movie is also of its time and turns the scenario into an action-thriller which nonetheless remains strongly life-affirming and redemptive. The movie functions well as a tale of the end-of-the-world (images of abandoned New York are still flashing into my head two days after seeing the movie), an action/horror movie (those zomb-pires are freaky strong and scary with lots of sharp teeth and ear piercing howls), and a story that illustrates what is good about man as exemplified in Robert Neville. Neville in this scenario is a high level scientist who did not cause the disease but is dedicated to finding a cure and carries on his experimentation daily in a thorough fashion. Flashbacks are provided in dreams which fill us in on his family and what left New York City in the disastrous state in which it is presented.

The elements that bring the movie most strongly to life are the detailed touches such as herds of deer in New York, "renting" DVDs each day, a scene with Shrek (of all the unlikely things), and Robert Neville's stubborn dedication to finding a cure for the disease. This seems nonsensical at one point as the disease clearly has won and one wonders why he bothers. However, this is brought into focus by his telling of his hero Bob Marley's reason for putting on a concert two days after being shot by a gunman.

The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I? Light up the darkness.

All things considered I much preferred the movie to the book. That is not to say that there are not plot holes or flaws in the movie that some such as Roger Ebert have complained about. There is still running water for example. However, these also are things that the original book didn't bother explaining. The author, for all his dedication to various details of survival, left completely unexplained such things as running water, electricity, getting gas for the car. Movie viewers are unlikely to mind either.

The point of the movie is to tell the story and it does so in a compelling fashion. Well done indeed and it is going on my list of the year's best movies.

Note: Although this movie is PG-13 it is definitely horrifying in many of the situations and not suitable for younger children. Hannah and Rose saw a family with a boy of about 8 or 9 sitting near them. Thankfully, after about half an hour they left. I think that is just about the time that Neville is setting off with his flashlight ... a sequence so very suspenseful that I spent much of the time breathing deeply and deliberately looking around the audience just to break the tension. With that said, the violence is quick and not prolonged so that there are not scenes of a disturbingly graphic nature. It was quite well done in implying those scenes or showing them quickly enough that one is carried on in the action.



SPOILERS






Keep an eye peeled for the many times that churches and crosses appear in the background or tangentially in various scenes. Keep in mind Will Smith's statement about "be the light in the darkness" and think about the animalistic nature of the mutated zomb-pires who must exist in darkness and are doing all they can to destroy the person who is trying to find a cure and who lives in the light as best he can. Of course, at the end of the movie, there is a Christian theme of such clarity that some have complained it is heavy-handed. However, what about this film isn't? And I think that today we need some heavy-handedness to get people to get the point. I was stunned to see all this in a major Hollywood movie that has been raking it in for three straight weeks. Just think of the many people who have seen this movie ... every little bit helps I think.

Cross-posted at Happy Catholic.

Movie Review: Juno

By Jean M. Heimann, Catholic Fire

Juno opened here this weekend and I went to see it. This film really surprised me! I had heard it was good, but I had no idea that it would be so funny, and, at the same time, so touching. It was obvious from the reactions of the audience (the laughter and the tears), I was not alone in my feelings for this film.

Ellen Paige plays Juno McGruff, a brainy but zany 16 – year – old, who decides to have sex for the first time with her best friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera), who is also a virgin. Naturally, she gets pregnant and after a frightening trip to the abortion clinic, Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption. At the suggestion of her girl friend Leah (Olivia Thirby), she checks out the want ads in The Penny Saver and discovers a picture – perfect couple to be the parents of her child -- Mark and Vanessa (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman).

When Juno breaks the news of her pregnancy to her dad and stepmom, Bren (Allison Janney) and Mac (J.K. Simmons) they react in a calm and loving manner. They are older and wiser than some teen parents and seem to be understanding and genuinely concerned about their daughter, although it is obvious that they do not condone premarital sex. They do make some very candid comments, which are hilarious.

Mac goes with Juno to visit the would – be adoptive parents who, in addition to looking like celebrities, live in the perfect house in the perfect neighborhood, and are obviously more than capable of financially providing for the child. However, as Juno gets to know them better – she discovers their ideal relationship is not what it appears to be.

As we travel through the nine month journey with Juno, we learn that her wisecracks and jokes are a cover-up for her true feelings – deeper feelings she has about the pregnancy and the baby, the pain she is going through, and her feelings for Paulie. She is a sensitive, loving, unselfish young woman who faces the truth, thinks it through, and deals with it accordingly. We see the growth and maturity that takes place within her as a result of this experience.

This is a film I would like to watch again to laugh again, to cry again, to listen to the music again, and to analyze just a bit more. I enjoyed it that much and I think you will, too.

I give it 4 out of 4 stars and an A rating.

Juno" has been nominated for three Golden Globes, including best comedy, best actress in a comedy and best screenwriter.

This movie is rated PG – 13.