this is kind of interesting

so today, in history, FINALLY, we got information about our final projects. we're supposed to pick a topic about something Medieval from the fairly long list our teacher gave us, and then watch the movie about it, read some primary sources that deal with the topic at hand, and then compare the film with real history....give your own interpretation, blah blah blah. anyway, I'm doing Beowulf.

and I'm actually quite excited about it, except that I have to watch the horrendous 2007 reconstruction of this timeless classic with Angelie Jolie (say what?) as Grendel's mother. (I beg your pardon? I must have heard you wrong.) but afterwards, I get to thoroughly bash it in my paper.

my, rather long, paper.

anyway, I ran across this article online, and thought it was kind of interesting and might be a discussion-starter. read it and post your thoughts in a comment. it's...well....fairly thought-provoking, in my opinion.

New Beowulf Movie
Thursday November 15, 2007
I like Smallville. Of course, the primary reason I watch it is for the handsome young men that star in it, and I also like the special effects and the music. And it helps that it's not a strain on the brain, but, seriously, the plot arc has been intriguing and the character development is terrific. I never miss it.
Why am I blathering on about a popular comic-based TV-show in a post about a medieval-related film? Bear with me.
A while back I brought up Smallville to a friend of mine and asked if he'd seen it. "It doesn't stick to the Superman Universe," he said dismissively. I was reminded of another friend who'd reacted poorly to Coppola's version of Dracula because he didn't think it was close enough to Stoker's book. I pointed out how I thought some of the plot developments were clever and he shook his head adamantly. "I think it should have been more faithful to the book," he insisted, but he couldn't answer my question of Why?
All this got me thinking of how dearly we hold the classic works that fire our imaginations. When these books make it to the big screen, it's difficult for most of us to let go of the image we've built in our minds. Reality, even fake movie reality, can seldom live up to the fantasy.
But in my opinion, classic works should be reinterpreted -- and then reinterpreted again, every generation or so. (I loved Chris Reeve, but that never stopped me from tuning in to Tom Welling.) What's the point, really, of a word-for-word, plotpoint-for-plotpoint depiction of a story that you can read for yourself? Isn't it more interesting, more thought-provoking, even more exciting when a film-maker does something different, something unexpected, with a story we've heard over and over again?
Which brings me back, finally, to the new Beowulf movie by Robert Zemeckis.
You've probably heard by now that Grendel's mother is portrayed by Angelina Jolie. I must admit, the news made my eyes cross. Grendel is supposed to be a vicious, slavering beast, and his mother is described as "monstrous." These aren't exactly the qualities I usually associate with Angelina Jolie. What does Zemeckis think he's doing? I almost -- almost -- dismissed the movie out of hand.
But my friends' comments on their unwillingness to accept anything that deviated from the "original" of a work made me reevaluate my stand. Beowulf is nothing if not a classic. If I refuse to see the Zemeckis version just because it doesn't stick to the original, would that make me a hidebound old fogie?
So now I've decided to give the new Beowulf in all its animated glory a chance -- when I get a chance to drag my big lazy self to a movie theater, which isn't often. Maybe I'll drag my anti-Smallville friend along. Heck, if Kristin Kreuk can't get him interested in the show, I don't know what I'm going to do with him.