NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 6505597" data-attributes="member: 10479">I'm still missing your point, I think.  Whatever version of Beowulf one could have learned, it seemingly always has been as a narrative by one person telling the tale of Beowulf.  The general thinking is that the one first written down of which we know had some particular additions to it that were religiously Christian, and many agree those are awkward in the overall context of the narrative.  Like product placement, it can be at times subtle but at other times stand out as not original to the tale.Nevertheless, Crichton merely adjusts the focus/POV we've seen in most Beowulf films back for his text to a first hand account by a religious narrator, though he switches to Islam.  He may have done this because many versions of Beowulf already have touches of Christian add-ons (mostly, purposefully awkward and imposing).  I am guessing he did what good storytellers do and find a way to make the narrating-protagonist sympathetic.  He's there to observe and from a culture looking (at that time) to expand trade, not proselytize.When you think about it, the narrative viewpoint of The 13th Warrior (Eaters of the Dead, but the film is the topic of the thread I guess) is closer to the first written Beowulf of which we know than most other film versions in that they all bypass the original narrator and zoom into the tale to make us the narrator, so to speak, and any mention in such films of the semi-religious narrator we know from that first written version is either cut out altogether or turned into a sort of punchline.</blockquote>

Verification