In Depth:
Beowulf: The Movie(s)
A Comprehensive Look at the (Brief) List of Cinematic Adaptations
of the English Language's Most Enduring Epic Poem

Literally
hundreds of “muscle-man” films exist that are attributed
to the great, masculine myths of ancient times, among them Hercules,
Robin Hood, King Arthur and his knights, Jason and the Argonauts,
and Samson. Even more modern fantasy myths, such as Lord of
the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, have also
been given full cinematic treatment. Yet at the time of this writing,
it is curious that only three film versions, all considered minor
cinema, exist of the epic Norse poem that influenced at least
half of the aforementioned heroes: Beowulf. The epic
adventure poem about a brave Geat prince who travels to the castle
Heroet and fights the evil troll Grendel, his avenging mother,
and, finally, the dreaded fire-dragon has been heralded as “one
of the foundation works of poetry in English” (Heaney ix),
and since the text “was [first] written down sometime in
the 7th or 8th century” (Kiernan 13), it has since undergone
probably hundreds of translations over the proceeding centuries.
It is studied in English and history classes alike, and it is
truly one of the giants of English literature.
Where, then, is the cinematic love? Sans an animated, Classics
Illustrated rendition that was part of a series for children,
and another animated version based on John Gardner’s book
Grendel, neither of which really count as feature films
that directly and seriously try to tackle the poem’s themes
and storyline, there have been only three attempts to bring Beowulf
to the big screen, one of which is still in production. Curiously,
all of these versions came into production in a timeframe of less
than five years: Sony Pictures’ The 13th Warrior
(1999, directed by John McTiernan), Threshold Pictures’
Beowulf (2000, directed by Graham Baker), and Arclight
Films’ Beowulf & Grendel (currently in production,
slated for an early 2005 release, directed by Sturla Gunnarsson)
are the only members of the very short list of cinematic attempts
of the poem. Of these cinematic adaptations, two are low-budget,
independent films financed by obscure European production companies,
and the other, produced by a major Hollywood studio, had a box
office performance that can only be described as lackluster.
The
purpose of this essay will be to reflect upon the adaptability
of the poem, the process in which it could be interpreted for
the cinema, and then examine the choices made by the filmmakers
when adapting the ancient story. This discussion should shed light
into the reason why more filmmakers haven’t tackled this
complicated work, and the problems that the existing productions
have faced.
It
should first be noted that adapting the poem into modern English
has notoriously been a difficult, challenging task on its own.
J.R.R. Tolkien famously said, “Beowulf is not merely
in verse, it is a great poem” (49), and this is generally
regarded as the key idea that modern day translators take into
consideration. Two questions must always be asked when in view
of an adaptation of the poem: A) How do we maintain the spirit
of the original, and B) how do we maintain the spirit of the way
it was written? At first glance, these might seem like simple
questions; in truth, they have driven many a potential translator
into torment:
Translating
Old English into 21st Century vernacular is not as easy as it
first
appears. It is not just as simple as changing an old word for
a modern one;
the grammar is entirely different as is the method and importance
of inflexion
so where a couple of words in terse old Saxon with stress placed
on
particular syllables can convey a meaning graphically it can take
a very long
sentence to give the same result in our much more complex language.
A
choice therefore sometimes has to be made between writing a line-by-line
translation as close to the original as possible, which may be
mostly
unintelligible to the majority of readers, or to completely re-write
the
whole work in the contemporary fashion. (U.K. 1)
When adapting the poem into a film, these are issues that must
also be considered. Do we, the filmmakers ask, want to preserve
the lyrical traditions of the poem, so that the film plays sort
of like a Shakespearian adaptation? If we do, what translations
do we use, and how much dialogue should remain intact? If we don’t,
how do we keep the film’s words at least true to the spirit
of the original language?
Andrew
Berzins, screenwriter of the most current film project, Beowulf
& Grendel, admits that while he “read about six
or seven translations, along with half-blindly crawling through
the original almost twenty-five years ago,” he believes
that “you can do a respectful film adaptation of the Beowulf
story, [but] the poem is an entirely different
creature” (1). His motive for this assertion is from a narrative
viewpoint—Berzins believes that the poem is exciting and
works on its own terms, but the very nature of the story causes
problems in plausibility for a visual, literal adaptation. Berzins
points out:
Beowulf,
though living barely more than a day’s sail from the Danes,
only finds
out about Grendel twelve years after the latter starts his rampage!
We’re
talking [about] trading seafaring cultures here. Twelve years
for the story
to get from the Danes to the Geats? A walrus could have brought
it in
a week. … The Geats arrive after a one-day sail. Beowulf
kills Grendel the
first night. … That’s a pretty abrupt rush to climax.
… It’s fine in the poem,
[but] I don’t think such a time-frame suits a film. Then
there is the ‘dialogue’
of the poem: With very few exceptions (such as the Unferth/Beowulf
friction at supper), it’s substantially a series of monologues
by various characters. It is absolutely unwieldy in any conventional
sense of film dialogue. (3-5)
Berzins evidently speaks on behalf of the previous filmmakers
who have tackled the poem as well: At the time of this writing,
no version exists that completely and faithfully follows the storyline,
and little to none of the poem’s rich, long-winded dialogue
remains intact in any of the films.
What,
then, does remain, and how faithful do the current versions stay
to the original source? By analyzing each version carefully, we
are able to see the different approaches that each filmmaker takes.
In turn, this should give us a greater understanding of the poem
itself, as it will reveal how different artists have both interpreted
and recreated Beowulf for the movie audience.
The 1st Warrior: The “Historical” Beowulf

The
13th Warrior, John McTiernan’s Norse epic, is chiefly
notable for its expansion on the fact that “several of the
named kings [in the poem] exist in the historical record”
(Berzins 2). Is it so outlandish, the film argues, to suggest
that Beowulf himself is also based on a historical character?
Thus, humans have replaced all supernatural villains contained
in the poem, and all superhuman feats that are accomplished in
the poem are reduced to exciting action sequences that are not
quite so outlandish. Additionally, the Christian overtones in
the poem, inserted into the decidedly pagan poem at some point
in its scribing process, have been omitted, restoring the Norse
and pagan traditions from the oral, source material. Despite these
changes, however, The 13th Warrior manages to remain
true to the spirit of the poem, especially in its emphasis on
good versus evil and the glory of a war-like existence.
The
film, written by William Wisher and Warren Lewis, is a faithful
adaptation of Michael Crichton’s novel Eaters of the
Dead, which was the best-selling author’s attempt at
unraveling the Beowulf myth and speculating on the poem’s
true origins. Mostly a faithful adaptation of Beowulf
itself, both the film and book are also influenced by Akira Kurosawa’s
classic film The Seven Samurai, as the storyline follows
the Norse prince Buliwyf (the “historical” Beowulf,
played in the film by Vladimir Kulich) and his band of warriors
answering the distress call of a nearby village of poor farmers,
who are under siege from a mysterious group of bear-like creatures
call the “wendol” (which is, of course, a play on
the name “Grendel”). These “creatures”
turn out to be a nomadic group of humans, living like bears (in
Crichton’s book, they are Neanderthals, but the film leaves
this detail out), and in a matter of days, Buliwyf and his ever-dwindling
group of warriors defeat the animal-like army, kill their mother
(Grendel’s mother, of course), and finally, triumph over
their dreaded leader (a variation on the fire-dragon of the poem).
Buliwyf meets his end in the final battle, and he is buried liked
a king on a magnificent funeral pyre.
The
film’s attempt to speculate on the historical origins on
the poem is validated by the inclusion of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan (Antonio
Banderas) as the chief protagonist, the “13th warrior”
of the title. Fadlan, an important, real-life historical figure,
was a Muslim poet/explorer who chronicled his many journeys around
the world. It is not outrageous to suggest that he might have
experienced an adventure such as this. By making him part of Buliwyf’s
band of warriors, standing in the background as sort of a silent
observer, the film creates a credible claim of historical authenticity,
albeit a counterfeit one.
Despite
this historically friendly “upgrade,” the themes,
the basic storyline, and many of the images remain very true to
the poem’s overall themes and spirit. For example, the film
keeps the nature of Buliwyf’s motivations simple, as the
poem did. Buliwyf is not a philosopher or a man driven by any
secret agendas (traits we will see in the other Beowulf
films), but simply a man moved to action by duty and the glory
of war. There is a scene in which twelve men from Buliwyf’s
tribe are asked to volunteer to fight the wendol is battle, and
as each man stands up and volunteers melodramatically, the village
cheering them on and the music swelling all the while, we realize
that this is exactly the spirit of warriorship and brotherhood
contained in the poem. Consider the passages of the poem in which
Beowulf and his men arrive on the shore outside of Hereot, the
castle beseiged by Grendel:
The
leader of the troop [Beowulf] unlocked his word-hound;
The
distinguised one delivered this answer:
“We
come in good faith to find your lord
and
nation’s shield, the son of Halfdane.
Give
us the right advance and direction.
We
have arrived here on a great errand
To
the lord of the Danes. …
So
tell us if what we have heard is true
About
this threat, whatever it is,
The
danger abroad in the dark nights,
This
corpse-maker mongering death
In
the Shielding’s country. (258-259, 267-271,273-277)
Note the strong sense of patriotism in this passage, and the pride
that Beowulf finds in serving his people through war. Beowulf
calls Grendel a “danger” and “corpse-maker mongering
death,” and he immediately follows these descriptions by
making it very clear that Grendel is attacking in “the Shielding’s
country,” which is what justifies the beast’s
death. Certainly (and paradoxically) Beowulf and the norsemen
are guilty of as many unjustified, violent crimes as Grendel.
Case in point: there is another pasage around line 1810 in which
Unferth, who maliciously slayed his brothers, is forgiven because
he happily lends Beowulf his sword. This forgiveness is not granted
because of Unferth’s repentence but rather because of his
patriotism, and this reveals Beowulf’s nonchalant attitude
towards cruel and needless killing that is certainly no less vile
than Grendel’s nightly slaughters. Yet Grendel cannot be
exempt because his sins are against Beowulf’s “lord
and nation’s shield.” Grendel is a stranger, and he
therefore must die, and Beowulf is the embodiement of heroism
because he volunteers to be the man who will kill him. His goodness
is proven by his patriotism.
The
measure of Buliwyf’s goodness is exactly that of Beowulf’s:
His greatness is found in his sense of duty in relieving an oppressed
people of a savage enemy, even though earlier scenes of Buliwyf
slaying fellow Norsemen at a dinner table force us to question
whether he is any more noble than the wendol. One of the deep
flaws, I think, of The 13th Warrior is its thinly-drawn
characters; we never see the workings of Buliwyf’s mind,
nor Fadlan’s for that matter. Events happen, people die,
and characters never come to any realizations or emerge as dynamic.
But to be absolutely fair, the poem works on exactly the same
level. It is composed of speeches and action sequences that emphasize
patriotism and honor, without any character ever considering what
they are doing, or why. The 13th Warrior replicates this
feeling exactly, to the point of both cinematic excitement and,
more often, violent redundancy.
The
film also strips away the Christian elements found in the poem,
which is appropriate considering the pagan traditions of Beowulf’s
origins, and spends a great deal of time focusing on Norse culture
and lifestyle—the examination of which includes their grooming
habits, superstitions, and religiouns rituals. Among the retained
pagan traditions kept in the poem is Beowulf’s funeral pyre:
The
Geat people built a pyre for Beowulf
Stacked
and decked it until it stood four-square,
Hung
with helmets, heavy war-shields
And
shining armour, just as he had ordered.
Then
his wariors laid him in the middle of it,
Mourning
a lord-far-famed and beloved.
On
a hieght they kindled the hugest of all
Funeral
fires; fumes of woodsmoke
Billowed
darkly up; the blaze roared
And
drowed out their weeping. (3137-3146)
The 13th Warrior replicates this image exactly in Buliwyf’s
death march, emphasising an important pagan ritual—the funeral
fire, the “helmets, heavy war-shields” of the pyre,
and his warriors carrying his body among the mourning people before
it is swept into the sea.
In
replicating such images, the film manages to be more faithful
to the original, pagan spirit of Beowulf than the perhaps even
the poem’s ultimate Christian scribes, who infused the pagan
work with their own traditions, permitted. By keeping this strong
emphasis on Norse traditions, The 13th Warrior eventually
is a fascinating tribute to historical facts that births myths
such as Beowulf. It is a flawed but ambitious project,
and probably the most faithful of the two version currently released.
The Son of Baal: Beowulf
as Antihero

Graham
Baker’s Beowulf is a little more difficult to pigeonhole.
Perhaps more so than The 13th Warrior, it understands
that liberties must be taken with the poem’s characters
to create a more cinematic experience, and there are moments that,
even in its liberties, it reveals a deep appreciation for the
poem, and a profound understanding of its ideas. There are other
moments, however, that seem so absurd and outlandish that we wonder
if the writers, Mark Leahy and David Chappe, have even read the
poem.
Perhaps
the most bizarre departure from the poem is its setting: The film
takes place in a post-apocalyptic, techno-feudal future that owes
more to Mad Max than Beowulf. Some unrevealed
catastrophe has taken place that has caused civilization to reverse
itself, and people now roam the earth in eccentric armour assembled
together out of ancient, now worthless remnants of techology.
King Hrothgar (played by Oliver Cotton), the king under Grendel’s
attack in the poem, is now a border-lord living in a medieval-looking
outpost with a few remants of advanced civilizations left—including
a loudspeaker and methane-lit torches.
In
the opening scenes, we learn that the outpost is under attack
from an evil, reptilian beast who feasts on its inhabitants every
night, and Hrothgar can only watch helplessly as more and more
soldiers and innocent civilians are killed. In the meantime, the
situaiton is only made more hopeless as an enemy seige-line circling
the outpost keeps Hrothgar and his kingdom trapped within the
castle. The seige-line believes the inhabitants to be cursed because
of their demonic tormenter, and they are unwilling to allow even
one to escape.
The
notion of the seige-line is an inspired idea; after all, the poem
is so rich in description and so patriotic in its sense of war
and honor that we never think to stop and ask why King Hrothgar
doesn’t just pack up his bags and leave Hereot instead of
being plauged by a seemingly unstoppable creature for twelve years.
Adding a seige line that traps the kingdom’s residents within
their outpost restores a sense of continuity that, while we would
never consider it while reading the poem, would automatically
be a question for movie watchers.
Yet
transforming the setting into a futuristic, punkish future (complete
with a techno soundtrack) removes altogether the deep-seeded patriotism
and proud sense of lineage that is so prevalent in the poem. It
is hard to sidestep the poem’s opening passages that set
its agenda: “So. The Spear-Danes in days gone by/ and the
kings who ruled them had courage and greatness./ We have heard
of those princes’ heroic campaigns” (1-3), not to
mention’s Beowulf’s own charge when first stepping
off of his ship: “In his day, my father was a famous man,/
a noble warrior-lord named Ecgtheow./He outlasted many a long
winter/ and went on his way” (262-265). The poem portrays
a people whose honor and heritage depend upon their proud lineage
of warriors and their glorious deaths; removing these elements
from the equation removes an important, essential ingredient of
Beowulf.
On
the other hand, there is no denying bizarre setting adds an effective
sense of timelessness to the story, successfully creating an atmosphere
comparable to that of Julie Taymor’s Titus, which
places Shakespeare’s play in a sort of ancient-modern hybrid.
Unlike The 13th Warrior, this Beowulf creates
a world in which demons and monsters can exist as easily as humans.
In the midsts of this unusual world, Beowulf (played by Christopher
Lambert) fights his way through the seige-lines, rides to Heroet,
and informs Hrothgar that he is there to fight “the Darkness”
because he has “no choice.” Beowulf’s personality
is probably the most drastic departure from the poem; he is no
longer a rugged, heroic warrior with noble intentions but a dark,
tortured man, equipped with all sorts of interesting gadgets (including
an automatic-reloading crossbow), bleached-white hair, and a spider-like,
blood-red tattoo on his neck.
We
come to learn that Beowulf is half-man, half-demon, the bastard
son of Baal, Yahweh-God’s most prominent foil in the Old
Testament. He can sense evil, and he came to Hrothgar’s
aid because, as he claims, “The only thing that keeps me
from becoming evil isfighting evil.” Lambert is certainly
effective as this revistionist, reluctant warrior: Unlike his
alter-ego in the poem, he is isolated (he has no fellow warriors
who come to Hereot with him), of few words, and stares at other
characters icily as if he is in the constant state of reading
the evil secrets in their guilt-ridden minds. He senses evil because
it beckons him—Grendel feels as pulled towards Beowulf as
Beowulf does to him, and when they finally confront one another,
Beowulf laments, “Each of us is the other’s strength.
I’m like you: I’m one of the damned.”
This
is certainly a departure from the poem, yet it also reveals an
understanding of the Christian traditions within the source material.
According to the poem, Grendel
[lived]
in misery among the banished monsters,
Cain’s
clan, whom the Creator had outlawed
And
condemned as outcasts. For the killing of Abel
The
Eternal Lord had exacted a price:
Out
of the curse of his exile there sprang
Orges
and elves and evil phantoms
And
the Giants too. (104-108, 111-114)
Grendel, then, is a descendent of Cain, the biblical character
who had to wander the earth with a curse for murdering his brother
Abel. The Bible also speaks of Nephilim, human-demon hybrids who
wandered the earth, and by turning Beowulf into such a creature,
the film elaborates on the supernatural, biblical traditions of
the poem. The change also raises the stakes for Beowulf, making
him a much more tragic, human character: He desperately seeks
to become more human, and he can only do so by betraying his natural
tendency towards evil. This theme is nowhere to be found in the
poem, but it is also not far from the type of character that such
traditions might create, as Grendel’s origins in the poem
reveal.
By
putting the Christian traditions into the poem, of course, early
scribes were attempting to deviate from Beowulf’s questionable,
warrior-like motives and create a pure warrior for God, who now
seeks to destroy a monster whose origins are found in the biblical
birth of murder. By revising Beowulf’s character in the
film, the clear-cut battle between God and evil in the poem isn’t
just revealed in the battle between Beowulf and Grendel, but in
the internal struggles of Beowulf himself. By his own admission,
this Beowulf is “trapped between two worlds.” To be
demon means that he is subject to the temptation of evil impulses;
to be human means that he wants to do good and follow the upright
way of righteousness. The film, then, soon turns into something
like The Last Temptation of Beowulf—a man struggling
to overcome his duo nature and find equilibrium. This spiritual
quest, as it were, places the poem’s biblical emphasis front
and center.
The
film also revises the characters of Hrothgar, Grendel, and his
mother, here called the Witchmother (played by Layla Roberts),
in ways that cleverly compensate for the lack of narrative structure
in the poem. The Witchmother here is an ancient demon who does
not take kindly to humans building an outpost on her territory.
We learn that twelve years prior to the film’s opening,
she visited the Outpost in the form of a beautiful woman, seduced
Hrothgar, and then gave birth to his son, Grendel, who now attacks
the outpost to reclaim his rightful title as ruler of the land.
This change adds a certain coherency to the storyline, and it
also challenges the simplicity of the characters in the poem,
who remain static throughout. Hrothgar is now not simply a proud
king, but also an lustful adulterer. Grendel and his mother are
not only angry trolls, but ancient, mythological demons with resentful
grudges.
In
addition, Beowulf now fights a human-demon hybrid that is essentially
his equal, only the situation is more complicated than that: In
the film’s closing scenes, the Witchmother subtly reveals
that she very well might be Baal himself, and thus Beowulf’s
father, rendering the Beowulf/Grendel fight with a brother vs.
brother element. One wonders, as Beowulf tears Grendel’s
arm from his body and presents it to Hrothgar (in a scene replicated
exactly from the poem), whether or not sibling rivalry comes into
play, in a feud continuing since Cain first struck down Abel.
None of this, of course, is found in the poem, but it certainly
continues to reveal an expansion of the poem’s Biblical
traditions that blends well with the source material.
These
clever ideas aside, the film is unfortunately mediocre at best.
The set design and some of the revised storyline are both stupendous,
but the overall experience makes for poor cinema: The low budget,
bad acting (from everyone sans Lambert and Cotton), unnecessary
love subplots, lousy dialogue, distracting techno-soundtrack,
badly-choreographed fight scenes, and a curiously tongue-in-cheek
tone (the film sometimes plays as a parody of The Good, the
Bad, and the Ugly, complete with the “whistling”
as Lambert rides up to the outpost) ultimately make the film seem
less like a serious adaptation of Beowulf and more like
a low-rent Mortal Kombat. The insightful additions to
the Beowulf-lore are therefore muddled and underwhelming, and
it is the movie’s own fault that more students of Beowulf
don’t take it as seriously as some of its ideas probably
demand. That is a pity, because there are plenty of interesting
interpretations to be seen here. If the film is finally laughable,
it demonstrates a healthy understanding of the poem at least on
its simplest storytelling levels.
Politically Correct Warrior: Black vs. White, or Gray
vs. Gray?

It
is difficult to make any direct statements about Sturla Gunnarsson’s
Beowulf & Grendel, as it is still in post-production
and will not be released until later next year. However, there
are a few speculations that we can make on the film based on interviews
with the actor portraying Beowulf, Gerard Butler. Evidently, the
film seriously explores the nature of Beowulf and Grendel’s
relationship (which will be more complicated than the poem reveals),
and it will call into question the heroism of the former, at the
same time showing sympathy for the latter.
Butler
reveals,
[Beowulf]
is a hero, but …he’s not somebody who enjoys what
he does. He
needs what he does. He loves the quest, but he hates it as well.
Killing is
a necessary evil, but it’s something that he does a lot
of. He sees the folly
of what he does. There’s a piece of him who loves to be
an adventurer,
but there’s a part of him who would have liked to have settled
down,
been a farmer, lived a simple life. [Fighting Grendel] makes him
consider
ideas of spirituality and humanity that he has never thought about
before.
(www.beowulf-film.com)
Sympathy for Grendel is not an original idea (in fact, it is the
theme of John Gardner’s aforementioned book Grendel);
more interesting is the idea of Beowulf as sort of a politically-correct
hero who is neither inherently good or evil, but can rather see
the “folly” of his lifestyle. He is a modern man,
Emerson’s “thinking man,” trapped in the confines
of an ancient time and mentality. If Buliwyf, like the poem’s
protagonist, was committed to his honor and his people, and if
Lambert’s Beowulf fought because he had no choice, then
here is a Beowulf who does what he does perhaps because he has
done it for so long that he doesn’t know anything else.
Interesting.
There
is a hint of a lonely hero questioning his warrior ways in the
poem, but it only comes after the battle with Grendel and his
mother. The poem points out that after the encounter at Hereot,
Beowulf “behaved with honor/ and took no advantage; never
cut down/ a comrade who was drunk, kept his temper” (2178-80).
This doesn’t strike us as the warrior that we see in previous
passages, and even other kings and Geats notice the change:
He
had been poorly regarded
For
a long time, was taken by the Greats
For
less than he was worth: and their lord too
Had
never much esteemed him in the mead-hall.
They
firmly believed that he lacked force,
That
the prime was a weakling. (2184-89)
“Weakling” and “poorly regarded” are sharp
contrasts to the praise that Beowulf received when he struck down
Grendel. This passage reveals a much more mellow Beowulf than
his previous days of fighting, when he proudly declared, “When
it comes to fighting, I count myself/ as dangerous any day as
Grendel” (677-78). Perhaps the point of Beowulf &
Grendel is to reveal what might have sparked the change within
the warrior—what might have moved him from his youthful
zeal for fighting evil and led him into a gentler, “weakling”
king. Perhaps as The 13th Warrior tried to strip away
the myth from the tale, this film tries to strip away the heroic
myth from the man. This places a contemporary spin on the legend
while at the same time keeping the variation reasonably close
to the traditions of the literary tale from which it came. Only
time will tell how it favors, and how it will rank against the
other two flawed but genuinely fascinating adaptations.
One
thing is certain: A “faithful” version of the poem
has yet to be done, and carefully studying how these films hold
up to the poem and its themes gives us clues as to why an absolutely
faithful version might never be done. Cinema works in
movement, clarity, and abstracts, and Beowulf, for all
of its adventures, offers too little of these elements: The never
ceasing dialogue would slow down the action, the unresolved and/or
inexplicable plot developments would detract from clear plausibility,
and the poem’s constant shifts in time would keep the film
from coherency. So what is left for filmmakers who wish to tackle
the ambitious project? For screenwriter Andrew Berzins, it boils
down to a few elements in the poem that transfer to the big screen
just fine: “The bones of the story. The horror. The beauty.
The doom. The weird” (8). His point? There are plenty of
cinematic elements in the poem. The trick is to find them and,
in translating them to screen, create a visual piece that is true
to the poem’s spirit. By looking at the various film versions,
we can at least see what different filmmakers felt the “spirit”
of the poem was. If we don’t agree with them, then perhaps
we should get to work on adaptations of our own.



Works Cited:
Beowulf. Dir. Graham
Baker. Burbank: Dimension, 2000. VHS.
Berzins, Andrew. “The Challenge of an Adaptation.”
Beowulf—The Movie. 11 Aug
2004.
http://www.beowulf-movie.com/
Butler, Gerard. “Gerard Butler talks about the role of Beowulf.”
Beowulf—The
Movie.
30 Nov 2004. http://www.beowulf-movie.com/
Grummere, Frances. Beowulf. 1910. UK Early Poetry:
http://www.earlypoetry.co.uk/beoindex.htm
Heaney, Seamus. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux, 1999.
Kiernan, Kevin S. Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript.
New Jersey: Rutgers University
Press, 1981.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Monsters and the Critics, and Other Essays.
Boston: Houghton,
1984.
The 13th Warrior. Dir. John McTiernan. New York: Sony,
2000. VHS.
Questions? Comments? E-mail
me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com