This is, in my view, one of the better discussions of Nolan's Odyssey because it points out that a LOT of people got twisted in knots over the wrong question(s).
The notion of “historical authenticity” in Homer is a chimera, as if there’s some sort of antique reality behind the Odyssey (or the Iliad either).
There isn't.
Now sure, there probably was a siege at the ancient city of Wilusa (Troy) at the end of the bronze age. But the world that Homer depicted in his epics was a blend of late-dark-age Greek social structures and warfare styles with some genuine late-bronze-age elements tossed in ... like the figure-8 shields and boar's tusk helmets. As I've joked in my Greek history classes, Homer wrote fantastic, iconic war stories, but terrible historical fiction—because he didn't know what war (or life) was like in the bronze age, beyond distant echoes. Writing and centralized government was lost (as Nolan’s film presages) by this little interruption called the “dark age.” So, guess what? Homer sang about the world he lived in. His society (c. 700s BCE). The bronze age had collapsed c. 400 years earlier in the 1100s. (See Eric Cline’s 1177.)
Even the ancient Greeks themselves screwed up visuals in recreated scenes from both epics on pottery. I give you the famous Vatican Amphora (344) of Achilles and Ajax playing a boardgame:
Guys ... Look at the helmets. Those are archaic-era helms (as is the pot itself, c. 540 BCE). The shields are correct, but not the helms, and I'm unclear what they're supposed to be wearing on their bodies. Even the game they're playing may not have existed then.
THE ODYSSEY IS A FICTIONAL STORY. There was never an Odysseus, never an Achilles, never an Agamemnon, or Helen, or Ajax, or... You get the idea. Just like Spielberg with Saving Private Ryan, Homer created fictional soldiers set during a (probably) real war. Just not one he knew much about beyond the place itself and a few details.
And as that article points out, the right question, the interesting question, is how each generation retells Homer’s epics: what they focus on (and what they don't).
I went to see it last night. They were sold out of the Trojan Horse popcorn dispenser. (sob) Then I saw what was being charged for it ($69.66?!!), and my jaw dropped. It’s cool, but not that cool.
As for the movie, I liked it. I was a little startled by a couple choices, and very happy with some others, especially the famous Katabasis (the trip to Hades's realm). It was, in many ways, the heart of the film (and message) Nolan wanted to convey. It also happens to be the heart of the poem.
The episodic nature of the film fit Homer’s original. Although Nolan's version is somewhat more circular (intentionally). You get the beginning at the end—as it needed to be for us to understand.
Some things I thought Nolan might have included that he didn’t, but most of what he took out (including shifting the ending to something more Dante-esque) made sense for the story he was (re-)telling. Also, ditching the gods (for the most part) worked. And he had the common sense NOT to include Achilles, even in flashback. Achilles always sucks the air out of the room.
Two places I think he missed the mark, however, or at least missed a golden opportunity.
The first involved his dropping of the famous (infamous?) “Nobody” (outis/οὔτις) aspect of the Cyclops’ story. Odysseus naming himself “Nobody” is both funny and clever precisely because, when the Cyclops complains to his father (Poseidon) that Nobody blinded him, he sounds dumb, and it protects Odysseus. But then, as Odysseus is sailing away, he just has to give the Cyclops his real name, like some evil mastermind who can’t stand that his brilliance might be overlooked. Ergo, Poseidon learns who he is to hound him and his crew going forward.
That’s the whole point: Odysseus’s cleverness—and hubris (that his cleverness be recognized)—is precisely what gets him in trouble. And gets his men dead. Randomly shooting the Cyclops with an arrow (for spite?) just isn’t the same. Figuring out how to include the Outis ploy would have underscored more fully Nolan’s point and theme. So, he lost the narrative there, imo.
I also think he missed a golden opportunity with casting. NOT for the silly objections to non-white actors raised by the hard right. As one amusing meme put it, If you’re complaining about the skin color of a woman hatched from an egg, you might have an emphasis problem.
More interesting, though, would have been to choose a Greek actor for Odysseus (at the center), then fill out all the rest of the cast with non-Greeks as a visual analogy for how the Odyssey, a Greek story, spread all over the globe. (Not unlike the original Chinese story, Cinderella.) That’s no reflection on Matt Damon. I quite liked him in the role (even if the man has the most un-Greek-looking nose ever). And yes, I’m well aware Nolan wanted Big Names and there just aren’t any (current) Greek-American actors of the same calibre. (Sorry, John Stamos). But there are Greek-national actors who are. It might have been clever to surround a lesser-known (in the US) name with A-listers. And it would’ve returned a bit of Greek identity to their famous epic gifted to the world.
So those are among my personal critiques. But yes, overall, I liked Nolan’s Odyssey.
It is not, however, the best (imo) film version of the Odyssey.
That belongs to Uberto Passolini’s 2024 The Return with Ralph Fiennes (Odysseus) and Juliette Binoche (Penelope). It was a bit faithful to Homer, but had even less mention of gods—and only covered the end of the story (as the title suggests). It's quite different—certainly not as epic in scale—but both Pasolini's and Nolan's versions converged in their fundamental grasp of Homer's message:
War is terrible and those who fight it come back forever changed. Wounded in their souls.
So, go and see the Nolan film, and don't worry too much about the armor, or the casting, or any of the details. Remember, the ancient Greeks didn't get that right, either. There was never a "canonical" version of Homer until the Alexandrian mythographers of the Hellenistic age: Apollodoros, Asklepiades, Kallimachos, etc. And those guys (famously!) argued among themselves over what was "right."
The real question to ask: Why did Nolan remake the Odyssey? What’s he trying to tell us using a story that's 2800+ years old? Why does that story still resonate now?
-----
Some additional reviews of particular interest:
Emily Wilson's review of the film. She is the translator of the Odyssey whose version Nolan used. Then, in reply to Wilson's "damning with faint praise" review, Theo Nash wrote the second. It's an interesting example of academic "conversation."
An Uncomplicated Man (review by Emily Wilson)
Theo Nash's Response to Wilson's review in Slate
(These remarks are reposted [and somewhat edited] from the original on Tumblr because only those with an account could read it.)
No comments:
Post a Comment