Beowulf Review, Part 1.
The new Beowulf was an evil movie. It was a full attack on Jesus Christ, and that fact should not be missed. In this regard, it should also be noted that the new Beowulf movie (I will never simply refer to it as “Beowulf,” since the original remains a Christian masterpiece) is one part of the larger attack of the new atheism. Da Vinci Code had the same “cherish the myth anyway” moral at the end of it, and I suppose the upcoming Golden Compass will echo similar platitudes.
The most striking thing about the new Beowulf movie, though, was its ugliness. Hrothgar was a fat, drunken, impotent, dolt. Beowulf was a prideful and greedy betrayer. The mead-hall was a place of debauchery rather than joy. Wiglaf seemed to embrace the eternal recurrence of greed and death. No one could have any kids, and life was always dying.
This is the atheist myth of origins.
It should be noted that the characters in the real Beowulf were fully the product of Christianity. Grendel, as the bad guy, was a descendant of Cain. Hrothgar did have kids. Beowulf killed the She-Wolf, Grendel’s mother, and went back home to reign. Wiglaf grants his aid to Beowulf as all the of the rest of the army runs away, and the noble Beowulf gives his life in the battle.
There are three major conflicts because the Christian life is always triune.
In the new Beowulf movie we note initially that Hrothgar declines to add the new Roman god “Jesus Christ” to the Danish pantheon. He gives us a Pelagian parable about how the gods only help those who help themselves, and then proceeds to show us just how that works out: dying and more death.
Towards the end of the movie Beowulf mentions that the “Christ God” has done away with all the monsters, and thus there is no room for heroes anymore. This is supposed to be dreadful. But hasn’t the movie already proven that the heroes are but fallible men? Hasn’t the movie itself demythologized the story?
The climax of the movie comes when we find out that the Song of Beowulf is a lie. It does not include the horrible sins that Beowulf committed. And that is just as it should be, we are told. History is not important. The song is important. The role that the song plays in your life is what counts.
This is atheistic moralism, but it fails to take note that the kids are tired of lies. Haven’t these guys seen Magnolia? The noble lie has run its course, and we’re not inspired by it anymore. Islam isn’t interested either. It believes it’s song. Be sure of that.
What we need is something real. A foundation for love and redemption. We need something to die for. We need something to live for.
We need the true Beowulf who renounces pride. We need the true Beowulf who kills the She-Wolf.
We’ve got enough of the ugly. We need the truth.
Review Part 2.
“A Few More thoughts on the Beowulf movie”
In the original, Beowulf lost his swimming match against Breca because of his avarice. He learns from this experience and thus renounces avarice, which is the root of all sins. The movie missed this one by about 180 degrees. Everything after this was all the consistent outworking of their inability to grasp the point. Atheism is dense and boorish. It is sad and ugly. It would do better to continue with the simple opiate-binge of Paris Hilton and super-sized colas.
The “believe the myth anyway” apologetic that the false song of Beowulf seeks to employ is no different from Tom Hanks’ character in the Da Vinci Code and the recent “Imaginationland” triology on South Park. The myth is important because of the role it plays in our personal life-stories. Beyond that there is no truth.
But doesn’t going along with this require you to know that you’re a phony? I mean, come on, you’ve already admitted that the story isn’t true! Telling people to “just go with it” isn’t going to last. Marx was better than this. Nietzsche was too. He had no tolerance for this new pretty-boy atheism. He knew the score, which is why he stormed out on Wagner. Lies are lies. Your choices are either Jesus or nihil, and no amount of flowery language is gonna change that fact. Nietzsche could deal with it (sorta). Why can’t these new moderns?
In combating this, the Christian appeals to the absolute historicity of his story. If Christ didn’t really rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. If God doesn’t really exist, we are without hope. The Bible is true- or else.
We cannot go down the road of the idealists who say that the literal-historical doesn’t matter. The earth was created in six-days. Six days, bucko. Deal with it. The genealogies in Genesis are real. The earth is about 6,000 years old from the creation of light. We believe this. Yes, all of those animals got on one single boat. It happened.
The Christian sings because the songs are true. The Christian tells his story because it is true. Good fiction needs to be true too.
The original Beowulf was true fiction. The new Beowulf movie was fake fiction. Between the two there lies a world of difference.
I think it was a highly christian movie meant to convict people… Beowulf entered into an alliance with a demon to secure empty riches and fame…
there are so many christian images…
the dragon rising out of the water…
beowulf offering the lamp back to the demon to end the violence and her telling him it’s too late (quite an analogy for the immoral state of america)
the “idol” like form of demons, covered in liquid gold
and the morality tale moment at the end leaving you decide what you’re going to do with your life….
live in honor and truth
or gain acccess to monetary power and the praise of men through lies and deceit and evil alliances, all in the end to watch your buried in the “Sea” with your riches and fame. Note(the boat that he was buried in was in flames)
Keep in mind… the characters in a movie don’t have to like the name of christ for it to be a pro christian movie.
By: Ben on December 3, 2007
at 3:30 AM
Ummm…Beowulf is a story of Danish and Anglo-Saxon myth. The version we have today is the only surviving version and was REwritten by a monk back in the 1100s more than likely. The only way it could have survived Christian invasion of the northern shores of Europe was for it to “Christianize” itself.
By: Jersey on December 4, 2007
at 10:27 PM
I agree with Jersey. The only reason Beowulf has any Christian elements was due to it being written by monks. In fact, many other songs and stories were “Christianized” as well because the monks realized they were a good medium for spreading the teachings of the Bible.
The movie sucked. My brother read the entire Beowulf poem and he said the movie doesn’t even come close to showing the events that “really” happened. It did have a lot of occult symbology in it, though. The dragons on Beowulf’s crown as well as “his seed” that created the dragon are reminiscent of the old Order of the Dragon or the Draconis family. But then again, Narnia and Lord of the Rings had a ton of occult teachings and symbology in them, but you don’t see anybody pointing the finger at them.
I imagine it will be the same way with The Golden Compass. I’ve read a few articles about it and the writers of the movie took out everything controversial or that had to do with God. It will probably suck just as much as Beowulf did.
By: dianarn on December 5, 2007
at 3:20 AM
I would encourage you to question the presentation of Beowulf’s “Christianization” that you heard in High School. I heard it too, but it is often times far too shallow.
The first distinction has to be made between any sort of “myth” that the story came from, which can never be spoken of objectively, and the actual work we now know as Beowulf. Beowulf has its own credibility apart from any hypotheses regarding its sources.
Now, an audience familiar with Christian imagery, specifically the allegory of Medieval Europe, can spot the significant aspects of Beowulf from a mile off.
The villain is from the seed of Cain. The hero is a king from a far-away land. The story is three-fold. Avarice is the root of all evil. The final villain is a dragon, and the King’s people all desert him as the King gives his life for them.
My original reviews were blogposts which I gave permission to be reprinted. I was presupposing a sort of familiarity with the Christian elements of Beowulf and Biblical imagery. A more detailed explanation of these points can be found here: http://www.leithart.com/archives/001835.php
Once you grasp the fullness of the original Beowulf, you will see how the modern adaptation loses so much. If the intent was to add Christian elements in a round-about sort of way, this was doomed to fail simply because of the damage done by subtracting from the original, as well as the fact that contemporary American Christianity is wholly unfamiliar with its own tradition, thus images and allusions usually fall on deaf ears.
I still think that the point was to replace historic Christianity with modern “morality.” The two are not the same.
By: Steven W on December 5, 2007
at 5:39 PM
First off Beowulf is not a “Christian” Masterpiece, it was revised from the spoken word version to convert barbarians to christianity. The person who wrote this review should be shot, for they know nothing. Christians are so dumb.
By: The Smart One on December 7, 2007
at 3:30 PM
The CG version of Beowulf is a re-do of the 1999 version, which also bastardized the myth. While I agree that the movie versions fall short of the myth, I don’t think this critique of the movie lends itself to denouncing Islam.
>Islam isn’t interested either. It believes it’s song. Be sure of that.
You are pretty small minded and over obsessed with your personal religion if you think a burning cross and a few comments in a movie are something to get all riled up and bigotted over.
By: A. Bartzat on December 11, 2007
at 7:28 AM
To the one that has the presumption to call himself “the smart one”. You can tell the ignorance of a writer by the implication of violence in the absence of rational argumentation. Thanks for that. Saying that people should be executed for disagreeing with you always raises the level of discussion a notch or two.
Still, what you write is no more than an opinion. A guess. A speculation in the face of plain and commonly accepted historical data that was presented in the review. We know when and how the book Beowulf was written (within reason). Why it was written changes nothing of either its force nor its place in history. As it is, your statements carry the usual less than thoughtful enthusiasm of those that recieve all of the benefits of a Christianized culture but repudiate the source. If only we had stayed “barbarians”. Things would have been so much nicer around the holidays.
By: cognative on December 11, 2007
at 6:49 PM
“You are pretty small minded and over obsessed with your personal religion if you think a burning cross and a few comments in a movie are something to get all riled up and bigotted over.”
A Bartzat,
I think you are missing the writer’s point in the statement you quote. A thoughtful Muslim might even see what was said by the Christian writer as a compliment, in that they too see the bankruptcy and confusion in an “atheistic moralism”. He does not accuse them of anything but knowing what they think, which is not an accusation that burns for a defense.
The problem in your response is the implication that any disagreement between thoughtful people is a kind of incipient prejudice. Your reference to cross-burning is hardly helpful in real world Christian-Muslim relations. Our differences must be pursued vigorously while still dealing with everyone with gentleness and respect, hoping that God will bring them to a knowledge of the truth. The idea that we would simply pretend not to notice that we think each other are wrong is neither noble nor reasonable.
Save the accusation of prejudice for those that deserve such, or the claim begins to lose all meaning and thus all moral force. If everyone that disagrees with you is prejudice, then every act of prejudice is merely a disagreement.
By: cognative on December 11, 2007
at 7:41 PM
Ben, you are completely right. When I first walked out of Beowulf, my thoughts were similar to what this reviewer has written. However, after talking it over and thinking about it, I came to realize that this truly is a pro-Jesus movie. Those who decide against Christ were sorely punished.
Good analysis, Ben.
By: olive on December 16, 2007
at 8:29 PM
I see nothing “satanic” or “anti-jesus” about this film. I’m christian and I LOVED this film. And I obviously like the old epic poem too. Until I see ACTUAL EVIDENCE of anything bashing jesus, I’ll just type this. So what if Hrothgar is a drunken king? Isn’t that what alot of ancient (REALLY ancient) people do? Drink? And you have to admit. Even though the old Beowulf poem was the best, Beowulf didn’t have much character. He WAS brave and a shining warrior but that was all. A perfect character (Besides Jesus of coarse) would be boring for a story. Now if they flawed Beowulf like in the movie, he would be (And was to me) an interesting character. So what if they burnt down a church or have other bad religion things? It’s not like the movie is trying to show that Christianity is bad.
By: Somebody on February 8, 2008
at 11:13 PM
I think those are all very interesting points. A thoughtful analysis.
Cognative
By: cognative on February 8, 2008
at 11:26 PM
I’m certain that christians are not meant to take offense to this movie as they are just trying to depict an extremely different culture and time. the references to Christendom are simply meant to emphasize how nietzchien and meritocratic this society was.
As for the original text, the story was was an element of oral tradition for centuries before it was written down and the christian elements are almost certainly a corruption of the story. Norse society was dramatically different to christianity and this (rather poor) movie was a corruption of the original book, but to say that Beowulf was a christian text is wrong.
By: fergus on March 3, 2008
at 4:24 PM
«The earth is about 6,000 years old from the creation of light. We believe this. Yes, all of those animals got on one single boat. It happened», says it all….
Beowulf was NEVER a christian masterpiece. I read and re-read it a few times, since i was 14. It’s simply the tale of a hero, who WAS proud and conceited, among other qualities/defaults. IT’s first of all, a legend, such as King Arthur.
You must not have read the Song of Beowulf at all, and the same goes for Marx and Nietzsche. You purely don’t make any sense, apart from a collage of prejudiced ideas in that little head of yours.
«In combating this, the Christian appeals to the absolute historicity of his story. If Christ didn’t really rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. If God doesn’t really exist, we are without hope. The Bible is true- or else»—- heads up, god doesn’t exist…
By: M|kE^ on April 25, 2008
at 7:56 PM
Does to.
By: Neiswonger on April 25, 2008
at 10:23 PM
Yes, the film differed greatly to the poem. Yes, they made a few disparaging references to god and jesus. However, in depicting a pagan culture on the brink of conversion surely it is more accurate to demonstrate religious attitudes in this manner?
It is most likely that the poem was written (or at least transcribed later) by monks, who may have adapted it to include more christian elements appropriate to their own literary purposes. This happens a lot with medieval literature. The poem looks back at a pagan past though, which is demonstrated in the inevitable deaths of its characters- it shows the Old Norse belief in Ragnarok, and the fact that all good things are doomed to die. I know this isn’t particularly christian, but that’s the early Middle Ages for you.
As for the complaints about Beowulf being flawed in the film, he is not perfect in the poem either. He was never intended to be a christ figure. This is why he boasts with Unferth about his prowess in the swimming competition, and why he goes after the dragon’s treasure in the first place. Line 2535b- ‘With daring I shall get that gold.’ It is for no truly noble reason, just greed. The last line reads- ‘the kindest to his folk and the most eager for fame.’ I thought they put that across quite well.
They were always going to change the poem when they adapted it for the screen, and while I don’t particularly like what they did with it (Hrothgar’s complete alteration of character especially) I admire it for the imagination they used.
By: Freothowebbe on April 30, 2008
at 12:41 AM
It is great to read responses that show how stupid you all really are. Beowulf is infact a pro-christian work. The poem is in English, but it is about characters who are pagan. The writers of the poem are christian, and what do christians do best?…. They spread the word of god, hence, the allusions to christ and cain and abel and all that good stuff. Nice try everyone. Good job pontificating and wasting time.
By: English Teacher on September 2, 2008
at 12:56 AM
Thank you for being so generous in your tone and creative in your explication.
By: Neiswonger on January 6, 2009
at 1:03 AM
All you jesus freaks do is care about yourself! #$@& JESUS! this was a great movie. theres enough *&%^% jesus &$%. good thing he DOESNT EXsist! he just gives false hope to people who thinks there is mroe out there, when its just DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!
Mara.
Comment edited by staff
We love you anyway Mara.
By: mara on September 2, 2008
at 11:19 PM
This article is just piecing together something that doesn’t exist. Though there are religious references, the theme of the movie (and poem) is not a religious (or anti-religious) one.
Comb through any story and you can easily find metaphors and analogies to support an unintended cause.
By: Skeptic on September 14, 2008
at 7:04 AM
If there are religious references then there is a religious theme. That is not guessing; it is deductive certainty.
By: Neiswonger on January 6, 2009
at 1:05 AM
Hi fellows. Believe or not I just watched the movie last night first time. Honestly I couldn’t avoid noticing many elements which are definitely anti-christian. The original story was twisted badly. Just a few examples:
1. Graphical: crosses burning falling down (And yes, this is meaningful). Not only the dragon burns the town church, but also in Beowulf funerary ship, the main mast falls down at the end burning while Grendel’s mother kisses the corpse. It turns oput that the mast is a cross.
2. Dialogue: Hrothgar’s prohibits to pray to the new “Roman God”, Jesus. I agree with this post that the king mentions a pelagian myth. Also Beowulf mentions that the new Jesus god has taken away all the heroes.
3. Script: In general the final message the movie shows is not clearly defined as “good defeats evil” like the original poem. Evil characters are not so “bad”, for example, Grendel is more a victim that a monster. Wiglaf’s is about to fall into temptation again with Grendel’s mother at the end of the movie. Beowulf finally dies but the demon survives…
In summary, If you weight out all the elements, there is a clear anti-crhistian underlying message.
By: FDM on January 2, 2009
at 2:41 PM