Showing posts with label Beowulf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beowulf. Show all posts

Beowulf (2007)

Computer generated imagery, or CGI, tends to get a bit of a bad rap. And it's not entirely undeserved, because when it's used badly, it can be very, very bad indeed. But when it's used well, you get something like Sin City, or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, both of which used CGI to create a world totally unlike anything you could create with just sets and a camera. Beowulf takes things one step further.

The entirety of Beowulf has been created using computers. The A-list cast were filmed using motion capture techniques, then digitally rendered and inserted into a completely computer generated environment. The amount of effort that's gone into creating this movie is mindboggling. So it's a pity that it doesn't entirely work.

If you read Beowulf at school and can't really remember the details, or if you've never read the poem at all, it's probably not worth refreshing your memory. The first third of the movie, up until the battle with Grendel, more or less adheres to the poem's version of events, but beyond that, we're into unknown territory. Rather than playing Beowulf as a straightforward hero, he's instead a bit of a boaster, given to flights of fantasy and constantly exaggerating his own stories, much to the amusement of the men. And when Grendel's mother turns out not to be a monstrous old hag, but rather a gold-painted Angelina Jolie who promises him unlimited success and immortality, Beowulf's heroism fails him. And in the end, it's his own hubris that leads to his downfall - in the mould of the traditional tragic hero, really, his own vanity and obsession with building his legend ends up being his undoing.

That's all the plot you're getting, really. The film is built around three main set-pieces, each more stunningly rendered than the next - and if you're watching it in 3D at an IMAX cinema, you'll quickly have to get used to making your eyes really work for it. There's so much going on that it's difficult to take it all in, which is a shame because most of it looks great. There's a slight issue with the eyelines of many of the characters, which tends to make their faces look a bit squashed, or at least makes them seem slightly cross-eyed; although you can make out the pores in the characters' skin and see every individual hair in the men's beards, there's something still slightly off about them, something that undermines the illusion that you're watching real people. Not that that stops several of the actors looking like, well, themselves, though: Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie, particularly, could almost, but not quite, really be there on screen.

The problem is mostly to do with the tone of the movie. It swings wildly between dark and serious (the massacre in the mead hall, for example) to wacky slapstick (Beowulf's naked battle with the monster) and though a lot of the jokes hit their mark, sometimes it's hard to be sure if you're supposed to be laughing or not. That kind of uncertainty permeates the movie - the animation makes it look almost like a children's film, though all the violence and nudity kind of negates that; the comedy undermines much of the epic nature of the story, but it's not played straight nor for laughs, really. Neil Gaiman commented that it was originally imagined as a low budget, Terry Gilliam-esque movie, and the script bears that out, except that the visual style doesn't really mesh with that sort of writing.

It's hard to decide what I thought of this movie. I can't decide if I like the changes that were made to the segment dealing with Grendel's mother, because it doesn't quite seem to make sense (what does she do for all those decades between seducing one king and the next, anyway?) and because it makes Beowulf into a very, very flawed man, rather than a hero. Some of the historically accurate touches are handled very nicely, only to be contradicted by an enormous anachronism in the next scene; considering this is essentially fantasy, that shouldn't matter, but somehow, the fact that some nods to reality were given makes it confusing. I can't persuade myself to like the rewrite of the final battle, and Beowulf's attitude to the women in his life, which matches the attitudes in the original text, somehow jars because the film is very obviously a modern (if not postmodern) take on the story.

That image of a naked Angelina Jolie emerging from the water dripping gold liquid kind of sums up the whole film. It's Angelina Jolie naked, except it isn't really. It's neither one thing or another, and something doesn't quite add up. Looks pretty, though.

IMDB link

Beowulf: interview with Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary

These two don't really need much of an introduction, do they? Didn't think so...

You started writing this movie 10 years ago now…

Gaiman: 10 and a half! May 1997.

So what made you think: hmmm, Beowulf, that'd make a good movie...
Gaiman: I can't remember running into the story and not thinking it would make a good movie. I first ran into Beowulf in a comic called Look and Learn, and I was a 7-year-old, and I remember thinking "that looks cool." And later I found a copy of the Penguin translation and read it and – it was monster-fighting! It was dragon-baiting! It was absolutely Tolkien-esque and amazing!

Avary: I was taught Beowulf in high school. I was given the book and I slogged through the text, and as difficult as it was, the first thing I noticed was - guys with swords, monsters, dragons, demons... and as a guy who grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons - Excalibur was one of my favourite films - I couldn't believe that a movie at that time hadn't been made from the material.

We had study aids, like the Peter Brook movie of Lord of the Flies, and that was being shown to us when we were studying the Golding novel, but why was there no Beowulf? I couldn't understand it. So I kept sticking with it - you know, this was 25 years ago - and sitting and reading it but there were certain suspicious deficiencies in the text that were really bothering me. Questions about the motivations of the characters; questions about Grendel's motivations in particular. Why does Beowulf emerge from the cave after the fight with the mother with the head of Grendel and not the head of the mother, after battling her for eight days? - which is an awful long time to be battling…

These things were plaguing me, so cut to about 10 years ago in May, I had just walked off the Sandman movie because I had had a disagreement with John Peters, the producer of the film, on whether Dream should be throwing punches and beating up the Corinthian, and I didn't want to be the guy to ruin Sandman, I didn't want to be vilified for the rest of my life. So I walked off the movie after working on it for a year and a half and so I'm sitting at home thinking, "what am I going to do next?" and I started going over my Beowulf notes, and then the phone rang.

Gaiman: And it was me.

As if by magic.

Avary: He was glad that I wasn't going to ruin his baby and he asked me what I was up to and I started explaining to him these theories that I had about Beowulf, all these, what I felt were, some radical ideas that I hadn't seen addressed in academia, in all the books that I had read on the subject, and Neil said, "well, Roger, if what you say is true, if this, this and this are true, then so too must this be true..." and he came up with a revelation that was not insignificant at all. It was something that cohesively unified the fractured two halves of the Beowulf epic in a way that made it possible to utilise a traditional three-act structure for a movie. And so with that, I jumped up and I said, "when are you available?"

Gaiman: And I was available in May, so we went off and wrote it.

Avary: We flew down to Mexico…

Gaiman: And did two weeks of mad writing.

When you originally wrote the movie, how were you envisioning it? As an animated feature, or live-action…
Gaiman: We were thinking live action, something along the lines of Terry Gilliam's Jabberwocky. Very, very low budget with a lot of shit thrown everywhere.

Avary: A very dirty film. That's one thing Gilliam does so well, he shows the medieval times as they likely were.

Gaiman: And that was really the plan.

Avary: But for one reason or another, the movie never actually came together. I mean, I had only done a small movie, Killing Zoe, that cost like $1.4 million to make and we were looking - even for a small Gilliam-esque type live action film - we were looking for $20-30 million and it was just not possible, so the project eventually kind of died on the vine. The option reverted back to us at a certain point, and I just figured I would do it in the future. And I went off and did Rules of Attraction and Neil went off and wrote several books, and one day the phone rang and it was Zemeckis and Company calling and he was impressed with our script and our specific take on it and these ideas that we had come up with, and simply had to make the movie himself.

He wanted to direct it himself, and he started to explain to us what he was going to be able to do, and how far digitally enhanced live-action, the process, had come, and how he was going to be able to make the movie in 3D, and in IMAX, and how it was going to be able to reach the entire world, and, you know, it would be seen in schools by people. And so we made the movie.

That must have given you a licence to add in all sorts of things that you couldn't previously have done…

Avary: Sure! Because originally when I was going to direct it, it was a much more talky ending, I think. We had all sorts of dialogue.

Gaiman: Also, we had all sorts of long conversations between the dragon and Beowulf…

[Neil Gaiman's phone rings - his ringtone is the theme from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly - he apologises, and the PR wraps things up. Bah, and indeed humbug.]
Originally published at Den of Geek.

Beowulf: interview with Steve Starkey, producer

Even if you don't recognise his name, you'll know plenty of the movies Steve Starkey has produced - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Back to the Future Part II and Part III, Forrest Gump, Cast Away ... and now, Beowulf. I caught up with him at the Dorchester Hotel this week to talk about motion capture and working with Robert Zemeckis...

How did you first get involved in Beowulf?

Well, I’ve worked with Bob Zemeckis for the last 20 years, and our company - Jack Rapke, Bob Zemeckis and I - acquired the screenplay for Beowulf that Roger and Neil wrote and we’ve been trying to make it into a movie these last ten years. Finally, Bob was making Polar Express and realised the potential of performance capture and decided to move ahead and make the movie. It gave him the ability of realising the characters that he saw, and, at the same time, getting the great actors to bring the characters to life.

Will Robert Zemeckis be predominantly using this technique in future, then? You’re making A Christmas Carol next, will that also be done using the motion capture technology?

You know, Bob’s committed himself to this art form and to seeing where it can go. As a director I think he likes the idea that he’s able to separate the performance, which is working with his actors, and not have to worry about, "well, is the camera right? Did they get the wardrobe, and the makeup right - is there a boom in the shot?" All that stuff goes away and he can just get the performance. Then he gets to go and do the perfect camera move later. So, I think, as a director, there’s less compromise. You know, he really gets the image and he gets the performance that he’s looking for all in one. So I think that’s why he loves the art form.

That form of filmmaking must throw up some different challenges and difficulties than traditional filmmaking, though?

The biggest challenge in making a movie of this style is that you can do anything, but the bad news is that you can do anything. So what that means is that, you know, you don’t go on a location scout and find the perfect mead hall, and then go shoot your movie there - every detail in the mead hall has to be constructed and designed in the computer. So if you see a sky, you see a sunset, or you see the lighting in a certain way, it’s not like, you know, there’s a gaffer and everybody shows up and it’s perfectly lit and you shoot it and you’re done. You have to light every scene. All the detail that you see like this, it all came from some artistic vision. And it had to be depicted in the film. So that is a hard unseen aspect of making a movie this way, it’s all a part of the vision of some filmmaker, or a group of artists.

How did you get all the cast together? It’s really an all-star cast...

Casting on a Bob Zemeckis film becomes a much simpler process because a lot of people want to work with him. But even with Monster House, with Gil Kenan, we got everybody that we wanted to work on the film.

Bob just usually starts with “so, in a perfect world,” - those are the words he uses - “in a perfect world, if I were going to have King Hrothgar, I think it would be Anthony Hopkins. Well, let’s call him and see if he wants to do it, send him the script!” You go down the list and each of your favourite actors, you know, for each part, said, "yeah, okay, when do we start?" And usually there can be some kind of scheduling conflicts that might prevent actors from coming in and doing a role, but the beauty of this process is that there’s no sets and there’s no facial hair, so it’s not like “oh my God, if I’m doing that movie I can’t grow a beard because I have to cut it for that one.” You just come and act any day you’re available. So with Angelina, I could just say, "look, Angelina, here’s a four month block, just pick the best four or five days in your life and we will make it work for you." Right away, that amount of flexibility that opens up the possibility for someone like her to say, "you know what, I think I would like to go and play that character, and now it’s possible in my life schedule."

Robert Zemeckis is known for being experimental – what’s it like to work with him?

It seems like when Bob makes movies he’s exploring a lot of different things, but he’s usually looking for a new type of story to tell, and also a new form of filmmaking. Like the making of [Who Framed] Roger Rabbit, that was the challenge of bringing a cartoon character to life in the real world. In this particular case, it was advancing this new form of cinema. It’s made it possible for him to make movies that he otherwise didn’t think that he could make. It’s almost like the chicken and the egg – is it Bob’s idea that’s driving the new technology, or is it the technology that’s catching up with his ideas? But I think that since he pioneers so many types of technologies and explores new styles of film that they’re both kind of working hand in hand with one another. It keeps you young, working with a filmmaker like Bob Zemeckis.
Originally published at Den of Geek.