How to make a movie out of a national epic (and how you should rather not do that)

Example 1 (the version that is pretty good):

"Dark Kingdom - The Dragon King" (2006): This movie was directed by the German director Uli Edel and features both American and German actors. It incorporates elements of the Middle High German epic and the different Nordic legends. What is particularly interesting about this movie is that Siegfried and Brunhild are in love. Only with the help of a magic potion can Kriemhild trick him into falling in love with her. When Siegfried is killed, Brunhild is so desperate that she commits suicide upon his grave. What is particularly entertaining to me, is the choice of actors in that movie. The strong Brunhild is played by the same actress (Kristanna Loken) who also plays a cyborg in one of the Terminator movies. She also has these superhuman powers. Another funny fact is that Twilight-star Robert Pattinson plays Giselher, Kriemhild's younger brother in this movie. However, nobody knows that. If that became known, this fairly unsuccessful movie would become an instant success, even six years after its initial release.

Example 2 (the version mankind could have lived without):

"Siegfried" (2005): This is the trailer for the 2005 comedy "Siegfried" directed by Sven Unterwaldt. It features a bunch of German comedians such as Tom Gerhardt and Janine Kunze. It has been received poorly by critics due to the fact that the humor is just vulgar. It currently has an imdb rating of 3.7. So not just the critics consider this movie a failure but also the audience was very disappointed by the movie.

And here are some reasons why:

• Siegfried is a clumsy moron 
• Siegfried's companion throughout the movie is a talking pig (interesting connection to the Odyssey maybe?) 
• Kriemhild is a loud and annoying shrew 
• the movie bacially starts out with baby Siegfried throwing up (and the movie stays on that level of humor) 
• Gunther is portrayed as a gay king that is constantly playing tennis with his toyboy 

The plot differs considerably from the epic which is not necessarily a bad thing. The names have remained the same but major events have been omitted or changed e.g. Siegfried doesn't die in this movie (I apologize for spoiling the ending). The whole movie is just a farce on the same niveau as for instance "Date Movie" or something else nobody should never have to watch.

"The Ring of the Nibelung" by Richard Wagner:

This is a cycle of four epic operas by the German composer Richard Wagner. They are called "The Rhine Gold", "The Valkyrie", "Siegfried", and "Twilight of the Gods". The title "The Ring of the Nibelung" refers to the dwarf Alberich's ring. Wagner's whole interpretation of the epic is epic in itself. The story follows gods and heroes fighting over the magic ring of Alberich because it grants power over the entire world. It took him twenty six years to complete this work and it takes about SIXTEEN hours to perform the whole opera. A HUNDRED musicians are needed to perform the opera. Wagner clearly created something gigantic. His music is timeless and beautiful.

It is interesting that Wagner incorporates legends from the "Poetic Edda" and the "Volsunga Saga". Therefore, Brunhild and Siegfried love each other here and they even have a child. Perhaps the most famous part of the opera is "The Ride of the Valkyrie" which marks Brunhilds entrance. It sounds very heroic and dramatic and it tells about the Valkyries who come to pick up the fallen warriors to bring them to Walhalla. Today the excerpt is (mis)used in countless movies often in battle scenes. Moreover, Wagner's whole opera is still performed annually at the Bayreuth Festival which is supervised by descendants of the composer.

However, Richard Wagner has become quite a controversial figure since he was Adolf Hitler's favorite composer and he himself was an antisemite. The Nazis glorified his operas for they were considered "national music" and glorified Germanic heroism. Winifred Wagner, Richard's daughter-in-law even was a close friend of Hitler and the involvement with the Nazi-regime has cast a dark shadow on the Bayreuth Festival and Wagner's music itself ever since. Yet, one should not overlook the beauty of his artwork because of his personal life and the history behind his family.

The Valkyries are approaching

The Ride of the Valkyries

Today "The Ride of the Valkyries can be found in numerous movies and TV shows.


Apokalyse Now (1975)

Kill The Wabbit (1957)

Dragon Slayers (or "Why there are no more dragons in Europe")

Dragons play a prominent role in medieval literature. Siegfried is not the only one who has to overcome a beast like that. Tristan also has to slay a dragon in order to help out the Irish king. Slaying dragons, therefore, seems to be one of the basic skills that a Germanic hero has to have. In contrast to Sigfried, however, Tristan doesn't bathe in the dragon's blood, which -quite frankly- is disgusting, but he cuts out its tongue in order to prove his heroic deed.

To cut a long story short, this is why there are no dragons in Europe today. They have all been slain by some "heroes" who had to prove their masculinity by murdering an innocent creature living in the woods. Seriously, the dragons only hurt people when they try to steal the treasures they protect or when they come too close to them. So I guess if they had just left them alone, everything would have been fine. No need to kill those poor things.

Another example for a dragon in Germanic mythology is Níðhöggr who is the one that gnaws at the roots of Yggdrasil, the World tree. Okay, I have to admit that this is kind of a bad dragon since he is basically destroying the world. But he looks cute (see picture below).There is also the giant sea serpent which surrounds Midgard, the world of mortal men. And there is another kind of dragons which are called lindworms. The Swedish children's book author Astrid Lindgren, who also wrote Pippi Longstockings, mentions such a dangerous lindworm in "The Brothers Lionheart".

Siegfried and Fafnir

Níðhöggr

Linguistics

a) Names in "Das Nibelungenlied"

Siegfried
der Sieg n. =  victory in German
der Frieden n. = peace in German

Sieglind
der Sieg n. =see above
lindern v. = to ease, alleviate
lind adj. = mhg. soft, tender
but: die Linde n. =linden tree (the leave of a linden tree is responsible for Siegfried's vulnerability)

Siegmund
der Sieg n. = see above
der Mund n. = mouth

What is really interesting about the names of especially Siegfried's family is that his mother and his father as well have the German word for victory in their name. This word connects them as a family.

b) Die Nibelungentreue

This is a German noun that is used to express unconditional loyalty which is potentially fatal. When Kriemhild asks her brothers to give her Hagen who she blames for Siegfried's death, the kings refuse to do so because they have to remain faithful to Hagen because of the medieval honor code. This leads to their downfall. The expression "Nibelungentreue" has been in use since the early 20th century. It also was propagated by the Nazis since they demanded unconditional loyalty from their soldiers. Once again, the epic had been misused by them which is why the expression has a particularly negative connotation nowadays.

Brunhild, the Valkyrie

Of Warrior Queens and Valkyries

Probably one of my favorite characters in "Das Nibelungenlied" is Brunhild. If you do some research on her back story her life is just tragic. In "Das Nibelkungenlied" she certainly comes across as a total shrew. But considering that for instance in the Volsunga Saga, Siegfried has a child with her and promised eternal love to her, you can understand why she hates Kriemhild. In that account of the myth, Kriemhild enchants Siegfried, and he forgets about Brunhild and their son. So it is completely understandable that Brunhild has become bitter and revenge-seeking. She is a very proud woman and a Valkyrie. Those are the goddesses that bring the dead heroes to Walhalla.

Brunhild reminds me very much of another figure from Greek mythology: Hippolyta, the Amazon queen. Hippolyta appears in the legend of Heracles. She wears a magic girdle which her father, Ares, the god of war, has given her. It signifies that she is the queen of the Amazons who are a nation of female warriors. However, Heracles' ninth labor was to retrieve even that magic girdle from the Amazonian queen. Well, now this is VERY interesting because who else is a warrior and possesses a magic girdle that gives her strength? Brunhild and Hippolyta seem to be the same character to some extent. 

This also makes us ables to draw some parallels between Siegfried the dragon slayer and Heracles. Both of them have to solve some difficult tasks in order to achieve what they want and in order to become heroic. Heracles has his twelve labors one of which also involves slaying the nine-headed Hydra which is SURPRISE SURPRISE also a dragon. Furthermore, the female warriors do not get to marry the hero that has defeated them. Brunhild ends up with Gunther in all traditions of the myth and Hippolyta marries Theseus who killed Medusa. It is interesting that these strong women end up with well second rate heroes (well I would not really consider Gunther as a hero at all). Theseus does not defeat her in battle but he tricks her into boarding his ship and kidnaps her.

Hercules slaying the Hydra

Gender in "Das Nibelungenlied" (or Why do heroes always have to kill people?)

Violence is generally connected to gender. Most often it is the male characters who are violent whereas the female characters are mainly their victims. Masculinity is defined by how violent a man is, and the degree to which a man is masculine itself decides whether he is powerful or considered attractive by women. Siegfried's attractiveness is not just based on his looks but mainly by his heroic deeds: he kills a dragon and he is super strong and invincible. That is why both Kriemhild and Brunhild are attracted to him, instead of Gunther who is a very weak king. He is just not masculine enough. Hagen von Tronje, however, is also a very strong man, a fighter to which Brunhild is more attracted to him than to her own husband. 

The role of female characters in "Das Nibelungenlied" is even more interesting, I think. They most often are objectified: they are a prize for the hero and become his possession as soon as he has earned them. First, a women is the possession of her family (brothers, father, uncles etc.) until she is passed on to a new owner, i.e. her husband. Of course the hero can treat what belongs to him however he pleases. Therefore, when is wife is disobedient (e.g. when Kriemhild has the fight with her sister-in-law about who has the best husband), it is legitimate that he beat her in order to teach her a lesson and to punish her.

Yet, Brunhild seems to be exempt from that tradition at first. She is living isolated in Iceland, and is almost equal to a male. Her strength and her ability to fight and compete against most men has given her freedom and independence. This only ends when Siegfried deceives her and defeats her with unfair means. Then she suddenly has to comply to rules for females because she has shown weakness which is the only thing a man is never allowed to show. Her "punishment" is the marriage to Gunther. But even there she tries to inhabit the male role because she refuses to sleep with him. Only when Siegfried wrestles her down so that Gunther can have sex with her, she is finally giving in and she is submissive from then on. Consequently, masculinity and therefore, violence determines every relationship in "Das Nibelungenlied". How strong and violent a man is, determines his rank in the social hierarchy of the males, it also determines who he is going to marry, and if this marriage is successful, i.e. if his wife is obedient to him or not.

The heroic Siegfried slaying the dragon

The Daughters of El Cid (or When You Realize That Your Dad Sucks)

This episode within "The Song of the Cid" is particularly dramatic and tragic. The daughters of El Cid have almost been beaten to death by their husbands because they felt insulted by the Cid. This painting stresses all the cruelty with which both of the girls have been treated. They were completely innocent and unsuspicious about what was going to happen to them.

However, one question comes up for me: Why would the father not make sure that his daughters marry decent men? Cid is, of course, perfectly loyal and submissive to the king. He proves that by letting him decide about his daughters' marriages. The king picks two men who are not particularly the ultimate dream of future in-laws: they are arrogant and weak. However, in the king's defense: how is he supposed to know that. Who is really to blame here is the Cid himself. He marries his daughters off to two guys who are terrified like little children when a lion escapes from its cage. They obviously are NOT capable of taking care of his daughters.

But the Cid does not really seem to realize this or he just doesn't care what happens to his two girls. Because quite frankly, he doesn't even have a relationship with the two of them for his family were for the longest time his men. He hasn't seen his daughters grow up and at the same time he hasn't spent a whole lot of time with Jimena either. So is it unfair to ask if he even sees any of them as his most precious treasure? The only thing that really is important to him is his loyalty to the king and his reputation that he spends years on to get back again. Even after the king has made a bad decision the first time, the Cid still lets him pick the new husbands for his daughters. This certainly proves that he is loyal and obedient to the king but what does this tell us about how much he values his daughthers. 

The painting of the scene perfectly shows how much the daughters have to suffer for something that is not even their fault. They are simply the easier target than their strong father, and therefore, they are abused and beaten up because their father has ridiculed their husbands which they cannot tolerate since they are proud men.

t

"The Daughters of El Cid" by Ignacio Pinazo Camarlech (1879)

The Hero and His Men (or When Friends become Family)

El Cid is very similar to all the other epic heroes in the sense that he is too separated from his family for an immense amount of time. He and Jimena have to part already at the beginning of of the epic. Therefore, the Cid spends most of his time with his closest companions and his whole entourage. His family only plays a marginal role in his life. Although he is trying to gain his good reputation back for his wife too, he seems to do it mainly for himself because he cannot live in dishonor. So he deliberately chooses a life without his wife. And in the broader sense a life without women at all because he is only surrounded by man (INTERESTING, hmmm).

Odysseus also spends years away from his wife. But he obviously suffers. He can hardly stand being away from Penelope and he even breaks out crying in one scene. Indeed, he has female companions throughout his journey (Circe and Calypso), with whom he even has sex but it is only because he has to stay alive somehow, and cheating on Penelope is kind of the only way to do it. He does not enjoy himself while he is away. His only companions are his crew but he even loses them. 

Gilgamesh as another example does not really have a family to begin with (apart from his mother that is). He does not have a romantic interest but he sleeps with all the virgins in town to prove that he is the strongest and basically just because HE CAN. His closest companion, and thus, something like a family is Enkidu. They are extremely close, do everything together, and Gilgamesh beasically dotes on him. 

Consequently, part of being a hero is living without your family for some time and being surrounded by a bunch of guys which is of course always only a Platonic relationship. So, if you go on one of your epic journeys you can either be a loner (such as Siegfried) or you can take all your guy friends and spend a couple of years away from your wife only with them (did they not realize that this even SOUNDS wrong???). So the question is if some epic heroes have a homosexual side to them.

The Cid and his MEN

Slaying People instead of Monsters (or What makes the Cid special)

"El Cid" is very different from all the other epics in the sense that there are no fantastic, mythical creatures in it. There are no dragons nor cyclopes nor sea monsters. Yet, the Cid has something to fight: Muslims. The epic is very realistic in terms of the opponents the hero has to fight.

The Cid defines his heroism by fighting battles against the Moors and by killing some of them but he also shows mercy and just takes all their money and takes over the cities they occupy. Therefore, the Cid is a new kind of hero. He does not have to slay monsters, and yet, he is still noble, strong and heroic. But being a hero here means, possessing the characteristics of chivalry,  being merciful towards the enemy, being religious, and being loyal to your king. In "Das Nibelungenlied" these chivalrous characteristics are also evident (ere, triuwe, etc.) but there is still this animalistic side of the hero that just fights the mystic creatures.

Nevertheless, the Cid also defines his masculinity by violence. In that he is not different from the  other epic heroes such as Odysseus who hangs a bunch of women from a tree and deprives a cyclops of his eye sight or Siegfried who slays a dragon and is bathing in its blood. Apparently, violence is a vital part of being a hero, if not the most unifying characteristic of an epic hero. The degrees to which the hero is violent certainly varies and also the ways in which he is violent but never the fact that he has to commit an act of violence to be heroic. No one gains fame by just being cunning and clever; the hero also has to be strong. And strength in the epic is proven by violent behavior and by killing/ slaying things.

The Cid fighting with a Moor

Trust, Loyalty and Vulnerability (or Everyone has their Kryptonite and their Lex Luthor)

In many epics, the hero has to struggle with the question of who he can trust. In "The Song of the Cid", the Cid entrusts his daughters to the king who are very dear to him. They function as his weak spot. Nevertheless, he lets the king decide who they marry and does not question his choice at all. The king makes a very poor choice and the daughter's of the Cid end up half dead on the side of a road abandoned and beaten by they treacherous husbands. Yet, even when that happens, the Cid does not blame the king for choosing such unworthy husbands. He even lets the king decide about the same issue for a second time. His loyalty almost seems to be blind faith in his leader.

In "Das Nibelungenlied", Siegfried tells his wife Kriemhild about his vulnerable spot because he is certain that she is never going to tell anybody about this. Kriemhild on the other hand trusts her uncle Hagen, when he is asking her about Siegfried's weak spot. She is naive and tells him about the place between his shoulders where Siegfried can be wounded. Hagen lets her mark the place, attacks Siegfried from behind and kills him.  

Almost every single epic hero has a weak spot: Achilles has his heel and Siegfried the spot between his shoulders. Arguably, the daughters are the Cid's vulnerable spot and Gilgamesh's is certainly Enkidu. It is like Superman and the Kryptonite. The only way of wounding the hero or of defeating him is attack his weak spot. Therefore, the hero has a tough decision to make. He either has to keep his vulnerability secret or he has to tell their secret to a trustworthy person. But if he trusts somebody he can, of course, be betrayed.

The Daughters of the Cid

Hagen kills Siegfried

The Arrogance of the Epic Hero (or You kinda asked for that...)

It is a human flaw that we become increasingly arrogant the more we achieve. After proving that they are strong and heroic for a couple of times, epic heroes become vain and to bold. They just start doing reckless things because they think that they can get away with stuff like that. 

A good example for this kind of behavior is Odysseus. The hero of the Trojan War who came up with the brilliant Trojan horse idea, is struggling to get back into his home country Ithaca and lands on this island which is inhabited by Polyphemus, a cyclops and Poseidon's SON. Knowing how vengeful ancient Greek gods can be you should be really alarmed already. But what is our brilliant hero doing? He tricks the cyclops so that he and his men can escape from the cave. He is more than just successful in doing so. Polyphemus ends up blind and screams that Nobody has hurt him. Brilliant, so far. But then suddenly, as Odysseus is reaching his ship, he starts bragging and gives away his name. If that isn't arrogant, then I don't know what is. So it is not surprising that Poseidon eventually takes revenge for his son.

Another smart guy is Gilgamesh. First off, he starts out as this very arrogant guy who sleeps with every virgin in town because he is the most powerful man. This goes on until Enkidu challenges him and tells him that he disapproves of his practice. The second time Gilgamesh proves his hubris is when he kills Humbaba the monster who was put in the Cedar Forest by the gods to terrify men. He just disregards the gods will. On top of that, he proves his arrogance when Ishtar tries to make him her lover. He does not just reject her but he humiliates her. But all of these deeds can, of course, not go unpunished. Therefore, his best friend Enkidu has to die.

Thus, arrogance is certainly another characteristic of the epic hero. However, after the hero is punished for his arrogant behavior, he grows and changes that. So this is part of the hero becoming mature. Whereas, in antique tragedies, the hubris brings about the hero's downfall, it   only leads to a severe punishment for him in the epic.

Odysseus blinding Polyphemus

The Temptation of the Hero (or You Better Do What She Says!)

In many cases, heroes in the epic are tempted. Most often it seems that temptation is presented as a sexual offering and the seductresses are most often goddesses or mythical creatures. However, it is unclear whether it is better to pass or fail these tests because not giving in to a goddess' advances almost always seems to end badly.

Particularly in the Odyssey, we meet a bunch of seductresses. They appear in very different shapes: a nymph, an enchantress, and sea monsters such as the Sirens. First, he gives in to the nymph Calypso and then he becomes the lover of the enchantress Circe. He cannot resist the temptation. Admittedly, he has his reasons for doing so (staying alive), yet, he does not resist the women’s temptations and doesn’t remain faithful to his wife Penelope. But it seems to be the wiser decision to make because he gains a lot of advantages out of being their lover. Both help him to go on with his journey and give him advice. The only time he does resist, he is tied to a ship's mast and this is probably for the better. He only does not jump into the water when he hear the song of the Sirens because he is prevented from doing so. Therefore, Odysseus proves that he can resist but that most often it is the wiser decision to give in.

In contrast to Odysseus, Gilgamesh is able to withstand the sexual advances of the goddess that is tempting him: Ishtar. Instead of giving in to her offers, he humiliates her. However, his arrogant rejection of her wish as well as the fact that he ridicules her, have terrible consequences for him. He is punished with the loss of Enkidu. Ishtar takes revenge on him. Yet, it would not have paid off for Gilgamesh to become Ishtar’s lover since she is very fickle and her previous lovers all ended up miserable. So either way, it seems to be unfortunate if you have to deal with Ishtar for men always end up miserable after dealing with her.

Thus, in comparison it seems to be the wiser decision to give in to temptation, i.e. when a goddess offers you to be her lover you better say yes or you are going to regret this because her wrath will destroy you. Giving in to a temptation is not necessarily a weakness of the hero but can also show his strength: Odysseus for instance does not like being Calypsos lover but he endures that because it is what he has to do. And he benefits from that in the end because she helps him to go home.

Odysseus and Calypso

Gilgamesh and Ishtar 

Dreams and Omens (or Mr. Sandman, Bring Me a Dream)

Foreshadowing is somehow vital to the epic. The reader knows how the story is going to end mostly from the beginning on. This knowledge is either provided by a prolog, and invocation or directly through the story. If the story gives away the ending, then this happens mostly through dreams that one of the protagonists has. 

In "The Epic of Gilgamesh", on their journey to the Cedar Forest Gilgamesh and Enkidu are always performing a dream ritual before they are going to sleep. Gilgamesh is having five horrible dreams about falling mountains, thunderstorms, wild bulls, and a thunderbird that breathes fire. However, he is unable to understand what these dreams mean. Enkidu is interpreting them, as a good sign and he is certain that they are going to defeat Humbaba. 

In the Odyssey, the future is given away by omens sent by the gods. Not everybody, however, can interpret them. Apparently, you have to be skilled in order to be able to read these signs. Helen for instance reads an eagle carrying a goose stolen from a pen swoops down beside him as an omen that Odysseus is about to swoop down on his home and exact revenge on the suitors. Also there is the scene where the prophet has the vision about the walls of the palace that will be dripping in the blood of the suitors.

In "Das Nibelungenlied", Kriemhild has a nightmare about her falcon that is killed by two eagles. She, too, has to ask somebody for advice because she doesn't know what to make of that. Her mother Ute tells her that the falcon is her future lover and that he is going to die.

As we can see, omens and dreams appear in a number of epics. Not everyone, however, is able to read them. Most often the hero has to ask somebody to interpret the sign for him. Apparently, you have to have a special skill to be able to read omens. And indeed, it is evident that the characters who possess this skill are either women (or even enchantresses) or in Enkidu's case a man created by the gods (he is not human). Apart from that, the dreams and omens are a major foreshadowing device because they give away the further plot.

Kriemhild's Dream

"Odysseus" by Massimo Fecchi: 
This is a comic book version of the Odyssey from the Itailian artist Massimo Fecchi which I read when I was in elementary school. It is beautifully drawn and fun to read especially for younger children since it tells the whole story in a simplified and humorous way. I loved the way that the characters were presented although it alters the original story slightly.

Penelope, for instance is a -let's say corpulent- lady who wants Odysseus to come home whereas Odysseus is a trickster who doesn't really want to come home to his wife for she is bossing him around all the time. So Odysseus has the time of his life while he is on his journey. He isn't very sad about not being able to come home because he has a blast. He goes on adventures and meets pretty ladies while Penelope and Telemachus are waiting at home. There is this one picture which I absolutely love: Penelope is standing at the coast of Ithaca, seeing Odysseus' ship sailing away again, and she raises her fist and threatens him because he refuses to come home to her. It is very funny.

The whole story actually starts out in a hilarious  way. Hermes is telling the whole plot and he begins by introducing the reader to Homer who is in trouble because his wife is sick and tired of him writing his epic all the time. He supposedly hasn't left his room for five years. However, he doesn't care about her yelling and being upset. So she leaves and his last words to her are "close the door". Now that his annoying wife is gone, he can devote himself to his work even more.

Years later, he is already an old man, Homer finally finishes his Odyssey and it is almost lost because he wrote it all on loose sheets of paper. 

As you can see, this interpretation of the epic is very entertaining probably because the characters appear to be even more human and have everyday problems (such as a bossy wife).

About the artist: http://lambiek.net/artists/f/fecchi_massimo.htm

The Adventures of Ulysses: http://fecchi-odysseus.blogspot.com/ (also available in English and Italian)

Troy (2004)

The movie "Troy" appeared in 2004 and tells the story of the Iliad. Helen of Sparta is taken away by the Trojan prince Paris after they had fallen in love. Her husband Menelaus, however, is more than upset and wants his wife back. Consequently the Greeks sail to Troy and besiege the city for years. To set an end to this sheer endless war, clever Odysseus (the hero of the Odyssey) comes up with a plan: the Greeks build a huge horse and give it as a gift to the Trojans. In the inside of the wooden horse, however, they hide soldiers who come out at night in order to attack the city.

Wolfgang Petersen's version of the Iliad looks very impressive. Yet, there are some important flaws in the plot that interfere with the plot of the Odyssey. King Menelaus, for instance as well as his brother Agamemnon, are slain in Troy. Therefore, they could not appear in the Odyssey where they play important roles. Menelaus is the one who gives advice to Telemachus about how to find out about the whereabouts of his father. On top of that, Helen escapes together with Paris to an unknown destination. Thus, she remains an adultress. In the Odyssey, she is back together with her husband Menelaus and regrets her "life as a whore". These plot changes are apparently problematic for the Odyssey. However, the movie is very interesting to watch since the setting looks very beautiful and the actors embody the heroic characters such as Achilles (Brad Pitt) or Odysseus (Sean Bean) very well. 

"O Brother, Where Art Thou" (2000)

This movie is a very interesting version of the Odyssey made by the Coen Brothers. It is set in the US of the 30s. Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney) and his two friends escape from a chain gang and set out to retrieve the $1.2 million in treasure that Everett claims to have stolen from an armored car and buried before his incarceration. They have only four days to find it before the valley in which it is hidden will be flooded to create a lake. This Odyssey is, therefore, quite different. The protagonists make a journey through Mississippi after the Great Depression. A number of blind people appear in the movie who are references the Homer, the blind poet, the cyclops and also the blind prophet. The soundtrack is also very catchy, especially the song of the Sirens. Altogether, the plot of the Odyssey as well as the characters of the Odyssey are recognizable in this modern version, too.

"We're the Mesopotamians" by They Might be Giants (2007)

This song is actually pretty funny. It is a reference to "Hey, Hey We're the Monkees" by The Monkees.The song is very catchy and it revolves around a band that consists of four kings of ancient Mesopotamia, one of which is of course the main character of our award winning epic "The Epic of Gilgamesh". So this band is driving around but nobody has ever heard about them which slightly upsets them. I find it very interesting that the most famous rulers of the ancient world are portrayed as an unknown group of musicians. 

The four kings that are mentioned: Ashurbanipal was an Assyrian king, famed for sponsoring and building a giant library of tablets from all over the region, a radical undertaking for the time. He was the last great king of Assyria. Sargon the Great was a Semitic Akkadian emperor famous for his conquest of the Sumerian city-states in the 23rd and 22nd centuries BC. Sargon's vast empire is thought to have included large parts of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi was a Babylonian king, famous for being one of the first rulers to codify civil and criminal law. Instead of allowing escalating vengence, Hammurabi's Code worked on the "eye for an eye" premise, such that destruction to balance out wrong-doing must be demonstrably in like kind and measure. Gilgamesh, as is mentioned below, is semi-mythical, but might have been an actual king of Sumer, since he is in the list of kings from the Ashurbanipal library at Nineveh. There is an epic poem about him and his adventures, The Epic of Gilgamesh - his mother was a goddess, and he was reputed to have super-human strength. 

Apparently, all of these kings have achieved outstanding things. Yet, they have been forgotten in our time or aren't important enough anymore. They Might Be Giants critize that in a humorous way in my opinion.

 

"It's only epic if we slay something" 

Apparently, they didn't have dragons in ancient Mesopotamia. Therefore, Gilgamesh and Enkidu had to slay something else in order to become famous. In their case it was a giant monster named Humbaba who was the guardian of the Cedar Forest. He looks pretty horrific and intimidating. He has the head of a lion and he breathes fire, which is admittedly, really scary. The gods have put him in the forest to terrify men. So he actually has a purpose. But a hero wouldn't be a hero in the epic sense if he would give a damn about divine laws. I mean, laws are there to be broken. That's how you become famous in ancient times. But it's also how you create yourself an archenemy. Odysseus knows exactly how that's like since he and Poseidon are not exactly best friends either. He didn't slay the cyclops Poseidon but hurt him enough to make his father Poseidon REALLY angry. In the course of the Odyssey, however, Odysseus' crew slaughters the cattle of the sun which also can be seen as slaying something that was placed somewhere by a god or a goddess. Similarly, Gilgamesh didn't stop by killing Humbaba. He was bold enough to slay the "Bull of Heaven". (It's quite interesting that gods everywhere seem to have bulls and cattle!) This eventually leads to severe punishment by the gods. In the medieval epic the beasts that are slain suddenly transform into dragons or in the Cid's case: moors. The epic hero needs something to kill in order to become famous and to prove his masculinity it seems.It doesn't matter what it is. It only has to attract attention.