Uncanny Valley Watch: Beowulf (2007)

I have no idea how to feel about them putting heels on Grendel's mommy

Watched:  03/26/2024

Format:  Paramount+

Viewing:  First

Director:  Robert Zemeckis

Selection:  Me

When Beowulf (2007) was released, all it did was make me feel guilty I'd never read the book.  I never had it as a class assignment, and despite owning a copy, I just never prioritized it.  However, it would still be 2023 before I finally got around to blowing through what is a quick read via audiobook.  

But then I forgot to watch the movie, which I have now finally taken care of.

First:  I had no idea the whole movie was animated - I'd only heard about animated, naked Angelina Jolie which is a YMMV proposition.  

Once I figured out Robert "Polar Express CGI Nightmare Fuel" Zemeckis was in charge of this venture, I settled in.  

Look, I'm not a Norse Mythology scholar.  Nothing close to it.  Neil Gaiman, one of the two screenwriters on the film (the other being Roger Avary) is, actually, a Norse Mythology scholar, so I bow to him on the many and significant changes he made to the brief story.  I don't know what his motivation was, but it's a re-shaping of the story that has an impact on the sparse themes and point-of-view of the original poem.  Which is a fair thing to do with a text that's about a 1000+ years old.  And it's highly unlikely the version we've been handed down was anything like the original 500 or so oral-tradition tellings of the story.

But, still.  Despite the fact Beowulf is a classroom assignment and endures to 2024, I guess I thought maybe they'd do a straight re-telling of the poem since it's not like we have many examples of a film adaptation, especially from a major studio.  But we can't get a straight superhero origin story, so why I thought folks would leave well enough alone is beyond me.  

If you're looking for a bit of insight into my mindset (and I know you are!), because this version is so different from the source, this is an example of why I tend to look back to "what was the book?  what was the first version?" before I'm interested in delving into some remakes or whatever.  Because this one has Neil Gaiman's favorite tricks baked in, it eschews the straightforward monster-slaying of the poem for a repetitious cycle, and the story is driven by curses that depend on man's obsession/ frailty (plus sex).

I'd argue the original story is much more about the curse of the crown and the expectations upon war chieftains well past the point it makes sense to look to a "hero" to uphold their code.  A lot of that doesn't translate particularly well to a modern world.  We rarely look to our old war horses to trudge back out for one more battle outside of Stallone and the Expendables team's need to pad the retirement account.  And, now, I guess, making the heroes of our 80's-era movies get back in costume so we can get excited about seeing a ghost once more busted.

Looking at Wikipedia, it seems no one involved (except maybe Gaiman) actually liked Beowulf as a piece of poetry or original work, or hadn't read it.  And yet they all signed up, including Zemeckis, and that's Hollywood in a nutshell I guess.  

Anyhoo, I was not a huge fan of what Zemeckis was playing with when he set up his CGI mo-cap studio.  And was well aware that his early efforts would age badly.  Even the usually nostalgic kids who grew up on Polar Express poke a bit of fun at the terrifying imagery that comes out of the "uncanny valley", where something seems like it's trying to be human and clearly is not.  The big celeb of that movie was Tom Hanks, but this movie has enlisted huge talent, from Anthony Hopkins to Robin Wright to John Malovich.  And I can see why they wanted to come and play (I also assume the studio kicked in enough to make it worth their while).

But 90-something minutes of what looks now like old video game cut scenes with a digital puppet that vaguely resembles Anthony Hopkins or Robin Wright is a lot.  I don't care how much we can move the camera around (one of the big mistakes of early-90's full CGI, btw, replicated here), or that they can do the whole movie in sweat pants and come out dressed like the missing cast of a LOTR movie, the effect draws more attention to the process than it does to enhance the story.  

I'd argue - say what you will about The Force Awakens, but Lucas knew that you still needed human faces and some folks in rubber masks to anchor all of this nonsense.  We need something to feel real, somewhere, or it really is just a trip into the Uncanny Valley.

The actors are doing some fun, very-serious-voice acting.  No one is playing this as silly, and everyone is actually doing their part as actors.  It can be bombastic, but... have you ever read any Norse myths or stories?

But, yeah, watching this 17 year old movie now, it looks like a video game, the physics are often quite a bit off, and when they do a close-up and it *does* accurately depict some captured bit of nuanced facial acting, it looks weird.  Especially when crowd scenes still have actors looking like floppy puppets.

I'm also not sure that the design on Grendel actually works.  It seems unmotivated and maybe a case where less was more.  

And, again, the "cool" camera shots also just draw attention to the process.  It all just feels like a massive demo reel for someone showing the potential of where this is going.  And they aren't wrong!  I'll argue that we're now living in the world of media-watching promised by this film, where people can complain about CGI that is not CGI and miss that the entire background is CGI.*

What's odd is how uninspired the sets and lighting are, minus a few bits.  You could truly do anything, and they went for some pretty basic looking stuff, and then lit everything flat and grey in the day, with what seems little thought to pushing the visual boundaries of their environs - which makes me wonder if bright light exposed the flaws in their CG puppets further.

Also, the entire final fight with the dragon is surprisingly uninspired.  What should have been a climactic battle feels... tedious?   It doesn't feel like he's fighting his own child or pondering the implications.  The dramatic elements that might have given it dramatic weight and mass are dropped for a lengthy battle in which the outcome is not in doubt, really.  What could have been a culmination of the kind drawn back into battle, of the fate of the kingdom, of the guilt over his actions...  its sort of there, but it's like grasping at smoke.  It never feels like the movie really cares about the actual story - which I would guess it does not.

I think we had to have this movie en route to other movies.  I like that Zemeckis and crew decided it was going to be basically for adults or older viewers, as long as he was doing whatever he wanted.  I love that they got top notch talent in (and it's always good to make sure Robin Wright can buy another beach house).  I can't imagine this with lesser actors in the lead roles, but it's also bizarre to see the actual human tics come through the cartoons, and things that are recognizably human, you're taken out of the movie thinking "ah, motion capture is nuanced".  

Which...  Look, my bottom line is that the movie itself is a distraction from the story it's trying to tell.  That is a rare and weird thing to say about a movie.  I'll accept that they wanted to change the story that is the poem (or add to it, however you want to frame it).  But I spent the runtime of the movie distracted with the visuals.  Which I don't think I've ever said before.  The cumulative effect of all the parts is somehow lesser than any individual piece.  It's kind of mind-boggling.

I'm glad Zemeckis tried it and the studio swung for the fences.  I just wish the product held up better than it probably seemed it would in 2007.  It really does feel like "videogame cut scenes the movie".

*what a time to be alive!