Monday, 22 March 2010
Monsters in Beowulf
As usual, the essay topic 'Monsters in Beowulf' was a popular choice, and after the tutorial discussions I was musing on the subject of Grendel and Grendel's mother and their general 'monstrosity', and how that's often interpreted by modern audiences. The recent Zemeckis film is a case in point, where Grendel is presented as a humanoid figure, and the aural torture he suffers at the hands of the noisy and inconsiderate inhabitants of Heorot is designed to ensure that we, the audience, feel some sympathy - or at least understand - his behaviour. Similarly, his mother is perhaps not like other women in that she's a golden version of Angelina Jolie, but once again, she is not presented to us in a visually monstrous incarnation, and is given the opportunity to express her grief at the loss of her child. While this nods to the complexity of the original poem, at the same time it seems to speak to the modern concern with motive, with the distaste for presenting evil as simply evil, but rather as something that can be explained or given a rationale. But I wonder how far a contemporary audience would necessarily have had similar sympathies? Would they, like the sculptors I discovered in my searching of the dark hinterlands of the web here http://www.grendelsmother.org/, have felt sorry for poor old Grendel's mother for being nameless? How far are we imposing modern expectations and interpretations on the monsters of the poem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the idea of a modern distaste for 'evil being simply evil' is intriguing, especially given some of the news coverage I've seen recently (I trust that I can vent my opinions on contemporary social issues here at least!).
ReplyDeleteParticularly with the recent discussion surrounding Jon Venable's anonymity, a lot of people have had difficulty deciding whether or not he was fully accountable for the murder he committed at the age of 10, and I have heard jarring comments about 'evil incarnate' surprisingly often (and not just about Venables).
To digress ever so slightly, it all reminds me of an article I read in February called 'The New Puritanism' by A. C. Grayling (http://tinyurl.com/yj7ff8k). He talks about the constant cyclical shift of social ideals between the 'progressive' and the 'conservative' (to use my own words as a crude summary). In his opinion, we seem to be heading towards another era dominated by conservative 'moralisers' - that idea seems to fit nicely with tonight's self-indulgent ITV news coverage of Ian Huntley having his throat cut in prison (they provided as many clips as they could find of the 'general public' wishing that he could have been 'finished off completely', or that they would have given a successful murderer a 'pat on the back').
Bringing it all back to Grendel and his mother's monstrosity, while recent film adaptations seem to have adopted the figure of the hard-done-by social reject in order to 'justify' their behaviour, I think such a portrayal could simply be because of the provincial scope of the poem (thus the films attempt to provide emotional and moral complexity, or the film would just be about a big fight in one scene). 'Beowulf' is just as fantastical as 'The Lord of the Rings', but the latter - with its challenges of global significance - can more easily rely on 'simply evil' adversaries such as the Orcs.
So I think that the idea that people (rather than monsters) can be 'pure evil' - perhaps having an 'evil' gene! - is not so alien to a modern audience as we might expect. Both Anglo-Saxon and modern audiences could probably equally enjoy the horror of a purely evil creature stalking out from the darkness of the nearest forest, but that kind of plot-line would probably find itself at the centre of a film more like 'The Exorcist' rather than the recent incarnations of 'Beowulf' we have seen.
Callum