[Milton-L] Milton movies

Mike Selby mikeselby at shaw.ca
Thu Nov 29 17:21:59 EST 2007


Of course Zemeckis isn't the first one to (try) to film Beowulf:  Here is my personal list of films, if anyon knows of anyother, please mention it.  (boy this is a bit off of Milton; sorry).


The 13th Warrior. Dir. John McTiernan. 1999.
Beowulf. Dir. Graham Baker. 1999
Beowulf & Grendel. Dir. Sturla Gunnarsson. 2005
Clash of the Titans. Dir. Desmond Davis. 1981.
Grendel. Dir. Nick Lyon. 2007.
Grendel Grendel Grendel. Dir. Alexander Stitt. 1981.
"Heroes and Demons." Dir. Les Landau. Star Trek: Voyager. 1995.
Annie Hall.  Dir. Woody Allen.  1977

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michele Walfred 
  To: 'John Milton Discussion List' 
  Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:46 PM
  Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Milton movies


  It makes one shudder what filmakers can do (or will do) to Paradise Lost.  The thought of the Son with computer generated pecs??  The only director I think could do PL justice would be LOTR's Peter King. Which leads me to another question.I just read Hill's Milton and the English Revolution and he spends more time and conjecture on Milton's marriage to Mary than most I have read so far,  but has anyone ever attempted a novel of Milton's life (allowing some creative license based on sound scholarship)?  It would seem to me, given the dramatic times in which he lived in, both politically and personally, that a decent screenplay might be born from such a work. His chaos gave birth to such masterful thought and expression and a film about the process of his art would be just as fascinating as the work itself - a la Amadeus though less giggly for certain. 

   

  ~Michele Walfred

  University of Delaware  

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Jackie Murdock
  Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:24 PM
  To: John Milton Discussion List
  Subject: Re: [Milton-L] 17th Century contexts

   

  A similar discussion went on a couple of weeks ago on a Chaucer listserv. This posting, by Daniel Kline, is one that I found particularly interesting and may offer you all some food for thought. (Back to lurking now) 

   

  --Jackie Murdock

   

   

   

  I really enjoy these kinds of discussions where medieval culture
  intersects
  pop-culture topics because, I guess, I'm of the mind that my individual
  situatedness in my own culture (with all its attendant complexities)
  inevitably conditions my understand of "the medieval." 

  To whit, a snippet of Stephanie Zacharek's review of "Beowulf" from
  Salon.com:

  <begin quotation>

  "Beowulf" is Zemeckis' latest foray into soul sucking -- I mean,
  performance
  capture -- and if you're thinking that the so-called filmmaker has
  hunkered
  down to make a nice, faithful adaptation of the 2000 Seamus Heaney
  translation of that weird, melancholy epic poem (you optimistic thing,
  you),
  you should know that this "Beowulf" has been adapted, reimagined and
  souped
  up by writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. After the hero of the title,
  "played" by Ray Winstone, severs the arm of Grendel (Crispin Glover),
  the
  scary, anguished creature that has been terrorizing a community of
  mead-swilling Danes, a comely cutie wonders aloud if all of Beowulf's
  strength is in his arms -- or if he's got it in his legs as well,
  especially
  the "third" one. 

  You see, the "real" Beowulf is not a particularly sexy story, and
  Zemeckis
  knows it. "Frankly, nothing about the original poem appealed to me,"
  he's
  quoted as saying in the movie's press notes, recalling that he'd been
  made
  to read the damn thing in junior high school. "But when I read the
  screenplay that Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary did, I was immediately
  captivated." He asked Gaiman and Avary why their script was so exciting
  when
  the poem was so boring. They explained that the poem was written
  somewhere
  between the seventh and the 12th centuries, although its story had been
  passed along verbally for hundreds of years. Since the only people who
  knew
  how to write in those days were monks, Avary and Gaiman figured these
  reputable men of the cloth would have edited out all the juicy bits, so
  they
  added some back in. If you see "Beowulf," you'll have plenty of
  opportunities to stare down computer-generated cleavage, and one rowdy,
  bearded, tattooed warrior crows to one of his conquests about how much
  noise
  he makes when he comes. Personally, I file that under "TMI," especially
  coming from a cartoon character, but you have to admit it would knock
  any
  monk off his sandals. 

  <end quotation>

  I think Gaiman and Avary have created an important new form of textual
  criticism -- 'paleopornology' or perhaps 'pornocodicology' -- in which
  one
  simply adds the 'juicy bits' to lacunae in the text to create a salable
  screenplay. I also think it's interesting to see the textual
  assumptions
  that shaped the screenwriters' approach to the text.

  I guess I prefer to try to make sense out of what these adaptations
  achieve
  discursively and culturally rather than decry their 'authenticity' or
  'inauthenticity' (as I try to do with any movie adaptation of a written
  text. They're two different forms of media with their own sets of
  conventions.)

  As to Brian's question as to what makes something good or bad? On the
  one
  hand, I absolutely love good bad movies ('A Knight's Tale') but get
  cranky
  around badly done movies that could've been good ('Joliewulf') because,
  like
  'Polar Express' (Zemeckis's other 'motion capture' crapfest) it turns
  actors
  into animations and robs them of their most important assets: their
  bodies.
  I don't mind stiff and plasticated 3D rendering in a game character
  that I'm
  controlling, but I think it just deadens the characters in a movie. 

  Nonetheless, I'll definitely go see the movie and I'll likely enjoy a
  lot of
  it, but certainly not with the expectation that it's 'Beowulf' in any
  sense
  that I understand that Anglo-Saxon text or that it's anything other
  than an
  elaborate computer generated cartoon--that's not nearly as good as
  'Knight-Night Bugs.'




  Roy Flannagan <roy at gwm.sc.edu> wrote:

    I just reviewed the Beowulf movie for the local media here in Beaufort. I certainly hope that no English majors here say "I'm not reading the book because I saw the movie!"

    Roy Flannagan

    Beowulf, the Computer-Enhanced Movie

    The god of Wrothgar in the Beowulf movie seems to be Epicurus, not Odin, even if Anthony Hopkins, in character, often says, drunkenly, "Thank you, Odin." Poor old Sir Anthony has to show off enhanced muscular arms and lots of blubber as he appears as inelegantly nude from the rear as did Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets. Angelina Jolie, now called Angewulf in various blogs*well, she is another thing naked in gold paint. I guess all those old Geats, Angles, and Saxons used to party naked in the seedy meadhalls that in the movie look like road houses on a Fifties rural dirt road in the South.

    The movie is special-effected, rather than acted, even though the director, Tribeca or Duckmuckus, whatever his name is, has bought very expensive stars in Hopkins, Jolie, and John Malkovitch; and the actor who plays Beowulf in the buff, Ray Winstone, is undoubtedly an experienced actor underneath his enhanced, synthetic facial expressions and his all-too-perfect abs. For some reason, Winstone uses a Welsh accent to play a Geat. But, for his character, computer-generated imagery rules.

    Don't go to see the movie right after having read Beowulf the epic poem, because then you will wonder why Wealtheow, wife of Hrothgar, played by Robin Wright Penn, starts flirting with Beowulf as if she were Isolde married to King Mark and flirting with Tristan*or as if she were Lancelot's girly-girl Guinevere, off on her fling from King Arthur. All those medieval romances look alike, according to Zemeckis and his writers. And Grendel in the cartoonish movie is a rotting corpsy thing, something like the Gollum in Ring movies but able to fling Jutes or Geats or Danes from one end of the hall to another with a one-handed toss (until Beowulf rips his arm off, of course). He is not, as in the epic, spawn of Satan and descendant of Cain, and Christianity is sadly mocked in the movie and made to seem second-fiddle to the worship of Odin. In the epic, Grendel and his mother are both emissaries of Satan, sent to punish humankind for evil human deeds. In the movie, they are eit!
    her slimy or beautiful in gold leaf, and they have little or no theological significance.

    Grendel's mother is not younger than Grendel in the epic, or golden, or naked: she is a certified evil, strong old hag. She is fought with under water: she doesn't rise out of it slowly like the sword in some "wartery tart's" arm coming out of a puddle. You can tell that I like Monty Python and the Holy Grail better than I do this movie, which takes itself too seriously, for the sake of all the teenaged boys who are drawn to its violence, its teasing nudity, and its noise.

    I guess it is good for the continuity in the movie's plot to have the dragon that Beowulf fights in his declining years occasionally look like another of the shapes shifted into by Angiewulf, and for Angie-the-demon-bitch-goddess to be making out with the body of Beowulf as it burns in his ship burial, as he seems to be returning to the really sexy love of his youth, the beautiful Jolie hag.

    As an English professor, I don't know what exactly could be done with Beowulf in the movies, since it is a Christianized heroic wolfy folk tale written down by monks in about 1000 AD. In today's idiom, the plot certainly appears to have cartoon elements, though I don't think computerized graphic images are the way to make a cartoon based on primitive fears of swamp monsters facing totemistic super-strong, battle-hardened heroes. If I were making the movie on a human scale, a character-based movie, I might use a giant like the guy in the early Bond movies or an NFL tight end in the role of the monster, and, I guess, a pumped-up Brad Pitt type as Beowulf*the type Brad Pitt played in Troy. Hrothgar, Wealtheow, Unferth, and Wiglaf could all be played by fairly ordinary actors who could act kingly or queenly or snidely or loyally. And the mead hall should be a fairly substantial standalone structure, not a kind of outhouse adjacent to some sort of fairy tale futuristic medie!
    val town as it is in the movie. Things going on in the mead hall could be drunken, yes, but not as if we were attending a Roman Saturnalia with a paunchy Trimalchio figure leading the chuggers. And, I'm sorry, but really pretty modern women like Angelina Jolie and Robin Wright Penn don't belong in an era of crooked teeth and dred-locks not just for battle-worn men but for the hags they married.


    _______________________________________________
    Milton-L mailing list
    Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
    Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

   

    


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Milton-L mailing list
  Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
  Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20071129/2b12e30c/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list