Murderous Movie Mayhem

You couldn't possibly know this, but I started this rant last night, and typed several pages before I realized I had gone way off topic. My beef today concerns the discrepancies between well established stories and themes that are a part of American pop culture and the positively shameless “re-working” by Hollywood to “improve” them. I can think of so many examples that it’s hard for me to concentrate, and I know I’m not the first person to lament the dumbing down of literature in film. Indeed, much of the pulp that flows out of Hollywood to be passed off as entertainment is truly insulting to thinking persons, and the outright audacity of movie makers’ plot changes when bringing classics to the screen is horrifying. Somebody has to keep sounding the alarm, though, lest we begin to believe that Hollywood knows what good entertainment is.

For context, let’s start with an old example. In 1975, Stephen King published “The Lawnmower Man” in Cavalier magazine, and it was later included in a collection of short stories called “Night Shift.” (If for some reason you haven’t read it, shame on you.) In 1992, the geniuses in Hollywood decided to make a movie with the same title, and even included King’s name in the title. Fans (like myself) who loved the story went to theaters expecting to see a fantasy/horror film with a bizarre plot and even some classic elements of Greek mythology. (King himself says his work is the McDonald’s of literature, but millions of satisfied customers can’t be wrong.) In any case, the movie had absolutely no similarities to the story at all. None. It was like going to see a film adaptation of Goldilocks with a brunette and no bears. King sued to have his name removed from the title, and in my opinion, he was being more than civil. If it were me, I think I would have used the murderous lawn mower on those who butchered my story.

In the present, the same problem still exists, and it’s getting worse. Tomorrow a film adaptation of the classic cartoon “Underdog” will hit theaters. I haven’t seen it, but I’ve seen the promotional ads, and I can tell you right now that the cartoon I loved as a child is nothing like the sappy, contrived shit that’s going to try to pass itself off as an homage to an American pop culture icon. You should be able to tell this is bugging me, as most of my loyal readers will notice that I rarely use profanity in this blog, but this movie is profane, and it deserves the worst treatment I can give it. Insult Underdog at your peril! And before anyone points their finger and accuses me of dismissing or deriding a movie I haven’t seen yet, let me say this: I loved the Underdog cartoon. I have seen the ads for the movie. There is no comparison. None.

The snippets we see in the promos portray Underdog as a snarky, wise cracking (live action) pooch whose utterances clearly imply that he is smarter than the bumbling humans that surround him. This attitude is completely out of character. Anyone who has seen the original Underdog knows that he is “humble and lovable.” Notice that humble is the first attribute used to describe him. With a penchant for speaking in rhymes, the cartoon Underdog was always polite, even when chastising villains. Wally Cox, who voiced the cartoon dog, must be spinning in his grave over the insipid dialogue, mundane delivery of those lines, and the overall distortion of the original character. I don’t have to see the movie to know that it’s going to suck; the promotional ads alone are all I need.

While I’m on the subject, how about I bash another movie coming out that, in my opinion, is going to seriously set back literary understanding for an unsuspecting generation of movie-goers? Any student of literature should cringe at the following announcement: Angelina Jolie is going to portray Grendeldame in an upcoming film adaptation of Beowulf. If you don’t know anything about Beowulf, again, shame on you. Wikipedia says Beowulf is “the single major surviving work of Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry…” in existence. It is the holy grail of written English literature. It is a printed work that is over one thousand years old; it is the only one of its kind. You could call it a classic, but it would be more apt to refer to it as THE classic.

I checked out the official movie site for the film, and found these quotes: After slaying Grendel (a monster), Beowulf “incurs the hellish wrath of the beast’s ruthlessly seductive mother.” Also, this quote: “Anthony Hopkins as the corrupt King Hrothgar.” The synopsis on the website was very short, but it was enough to provide me with some ammunition for my rant. Firstly, both Grendel and his mother, Grendeldame, are described CLEARLY in the story as being monsters. They do not speak. They do not seduce. They are monsters. They do kill and eat/drain blood from their victims, which is, in itself, a perfect way to portray them onscreen. Thanks to advancements in CGI, you would think Hollywood would relish the chance to bring a classic story to life without a guy in a rubber monster suit. But no, that’s not good enough. They have to give Grendeldame the power to appear as a human and to tempt and seduce the hapless men. How do I know this without seeing the movie? Call it magic, but I suspect that in order for Grendeldame to appear seductive, she’s going to have to appear as Angelina Jolie (whom, I admit, is very good at looking seductive). Again, the Grendeldame of the story does not seduce nor talk. She kills men, period.

Secondly, King Hrothgar is not corrupt. In fact, he is described as “protector” of the Danes, and if I may go one step further, he is based on a real person. He is not corrupt; in fact he is revered. He is thankful, although somewhat embarrassed that Beowulf has shown up to help him defeat the pall that Grendel has cast on his castle. In short, he is a mortal who is to be saved by the superhuman hero. (This should ring some symbolism bells.) Written when Christianity was is its infancy, Beowulf is a told by a Christian author to a pagan audience. We certainly wouldn’t want THAT to be told to the modern audience. I don’t know what kind of foolish “plot enhancements” the Hollywood whores will come up with, but you can be sure of this: They will be contrived, transparent, and wholly unnecessary elements that have nothing to do with the original story.

I will admit that it must be very difficult to bring the images of the written word to life on the big screen. The main problem, of course, is that readers see their own images and put their own faces on characters, and many times the movie images do not jive with what the reader has imagined. I will also admit that sometimes this works. For instance, in the novel “Jaws,” the character of Quint is described as being bald; Robert Shaw was not. However, his portrayal of Quint was mesmerizing. I can overlook that sort of thing. Indeed, in order to enjoy movies, it is necessary to suspend disbelief; no one would enjoy werewolf movies if they remained grounded in the fact that no such creature exists. I have no problem with monsters or supernatural occurrences in film. I do, however, have a problem with changing the core elements of characters or plots from literature or previous movies/TV and passing them off as faithful renditions of classics. I cannot figure out why so many movie makers feel it necessary to change what was a perfectly good story. Like a child in a store with shining baubles, they just can’t seem to keep their hands off, and they leave greasy fingerprints on what they’ve touched.