The director’s Homer adaptation presents a modern, relatable Odysseus, rather than trying to understand the ancient world on its own terms, Richard Brody writes.
In my very lowly educated mind (but I have read The Odyssey twice), the movie pushed the magical aspects backward. It allowed the moviegoer to interpret for themselves where “the gods” intervened or influenced and where man’s own inadequacy or heroism took over. It was beautifully filmed, it had inspired casting, and it was artfully scripted. If it drives a new audience to read Homer’s work? All the better. After all, it might be good for people to learn more about the Law of Hospitality.
What an apologist (and to all others who agree). Let’s hope this screening inspires you to read it a third time. There’s a reason why academics devote years of their lives to art history—dilution of content isn’t one of them.
Your response actually supports my comment. The movie was not intended for academics. I’m sure Homer never expected his work to reach such wide audiences or provide inspiration to those of us who simply love the telling of a good tale that teaches a solid lesson.
“Actually”, no. “Actually”, Homer’s expectations are irrelevant. If the goal is simply to spin a good tale and teach a solid lesson, one needn’t The Odyssey or classical, historical material to do it—write a different story. “Karen’s Odyssey.” A fanciful rendering can be interpreted as a form of plagiarism; it’s no longer the original, though it aspires to be. Call it ”The Idiot’s Guide to The Odyssey” then, just not The Odyssey.
This reply brought to mind the recent christianization-of-Merlin movie. A NYT reviewer thought that "The Odyssey" was told from a Christian perspective. I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my list. Understanding the interplay between belief systems and their impact on human decisions is always instructive. If flattened to be merely human drama beautifully filmed, then even the subliminal richness of the interplay is reduced to calorie-free entertainment. Still, an old story well told or told in a different way is still fun.
The Odyssey itself is a story about storytelling as strategic adaptation, likely created not by a solo literary genius but a community of oral bards who were working with traditional material. The preoccupation with whether any given adaptation is faithful to the original misses that point. The original is already a sequence of earlier tropes strung together and adapted. To me that’s its beauty. And reading the Greek, as well as more and less straight-up adaptations of the same, and studying Perry, Lord and Nagy has shown me that to take this text seriously just IS to let go of the literalism we may crave bc of a high school or college experience we think we remember.
Watched the movie last evening in Scarborough CinePlex in Canada. Having read the book as a teenager in the 60s I find it amazingly creative and directed with great professionalism and quality. All of my family enjoyed it too although none of them have read the original Homer novel. Kudos to Nolan and the cast.
This movie was written from a woke translation. The actors utilized are an affront to Greek history and marshal culture. This was the story Alexander the Great slept with a hand annotated copy under his pillow. His copy was annotated by his tutor Aristotle. It wasn’t the woke story he followed, nor was the imagery or texture anything related to Nolan’s movie. This is a modern day affront and attempt to change the first great epic of Western literature. The movie is a complete failure.
I've read the Odyssey twice and it did not diminish my enjoyment of the movie. I thought it was a bold interpretation of the source material and I think a lot of the criticism especially the casting choices were unfair. In the end the Odyssey is an epic poem that belongs to all the ages and to all the people regardless of who they are.
While I have not read The Odyssey in Greek — Linear B or otherwise — I have read various translations. There are five on my book shelf. I read it in high school, in college, as part of a book group and on my own. I have discussed it up one side and down the other. All this being said, I loved the movie. The agony is Damon’s face and is the hubris. There is enough ambiguity to keep me thinking about it.
If you ever get the chance and time, please read the first chapter of my book and if you liked what I wrote, consider purchasing the book online. I’m also open to critiques.
I think you missed the point entirely- the goal was not to elevate or repeat canonical fantasy-adventure in the vain of either past Clash of the Titans films, where Perseus must negotiate with the gods. The goal was to make classical mythology *relatable* in that the gods were referred to, much as we refer to our own/pray to our own god/deities-- but we can't physically see them, even though we believe they control and influence much of our lives. Damon's Odysseus even says as much to his men when he states, "no one could stand between me and home. Not even the gods." The gods were irrelevant- he did not accept divine intervention or give up his human agency, which is made even more convincing by abandoning the whole 'deus ex machina' plot device. The film was about Odysseus the man, and his own motivations and passions.
In my very lowly educated mind (but I have read The Odyssey twice), the movie pushed the magical aspects backward. It allowed the moviegoer to interpret for themselves where “the gods” intervened or influenced and where man’s own inadequacy or heroism took over. It was beautifully filmed, it had inspired casting, and it was artfully scripted. If it drives a new audience to read Homer’s work? All the better. After all, it might be good for people to learn more about the Law of Hospitality.
What an apologist (and to all others who agree). Let’s hope this screening inspires you to read it a third time. There’s a reason why academics devote years of their lives to art history—dilution of content isn’t one of them.
Your response actually supports my comment. The movie was not intended for academics. I’m sure Homer never expected his work to reach such wide audiences or provide inspiration to those of us who simply love the telling of a good tale that teaches a solid lesson.
I take pleasure in a movie portrayal of something you obviously hold dear. I am happy with the movie. You are not. Move on.
“Actually”, no. “Actually”, Homer’s expectations are irrelevant. If the goal is simply to spin a good tale and teach a solid lesson, one needn’t The Odyssey or classical, historical material to do it—write a different story. “Karen’s Odyssey.” A fanciful rendering can be interpreted as a form of plagiarism; it’s no longer the original, though it aspires to be. Call it ”The Idiot’s Guide to The Odyssey” then, just not The Odyssey.
This reply brought to mind the recent christianization-of-Merlin movie. A NYT reviewer thought that "The Odyssey" was told from a Christian perspective. I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my list. Understanding the interplay between belief systems and their impact on human decisions is always instructive. If flattened to be merely human drama beautifully filmed, then even the subliminal richness of the interplay is reduced to calorie-free entertainment. Still, an old story well told or told in a different way is still fun.
I have read and studied both Homer’s Odyssey and the Iliad. I wholeheartedly disagree with the “points” being made here.
As a correction, there were other gods aside from Athena named or pictured: Poseidon, Zeus, Circe, Calypso, Aeolus, etc.
It’s like the writer didn’t actually watch the film or did so in bad faith. Eye brows raised, The New Yorker…
The Odyssey itself is a story about storytelling as strategic adaptation, likely created not by a solo literary genius but a community of oral bards who were working with traditional material. The preoccupation with whether any given adaptation is faithful to the original misses that point. The original is already a sequence of earlier tropes strung together and adapted. To me that’s its beauty. And reading the Greek, as well as more and less straight-up adaptations of the same, and studying Perry, Lord and Nagy has shown me that to take this text seriously just IS to let go of the literalism we may crave bc of a high school or college experience we think we remember.
https://substack.com/@popculturepedagogy/note/p-207850327?r=1lpnuy&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Watched the movie last evening in Scarborough CinePlex in Canada. Having read the book as a teenager in the 60s I find it amazingly creative and directed with great professionalism and quality. All of my family enjoyed it too although none of them have read the original Homer novel. Kudos to Nolan and the cast.
This movie was written from a woke translation. The actors utilized are an affront to Greek history and marshal culture. This was the story Alexander the Great slept with a hand annotated copy under his pillow. His copy was annotated by his tutor Aristotle. It wasn’t the woke story he followed, nor was the imagery or texture anything related to Nolan’s movie. This is a modern day affront and attempt to change the first great epic of Western literature. The movie is a complete failure.
I've read the Odyssey twice and it did not diminish my enjoyment of the movie. I thought it was a bold interpretation of the source material and I think a lot of the criticism especially the casting choices were unfair. In the end the Odyssey is an epic poem that belongs to all the ages and to all the people regardless of who they are.
Amazing movie!
Interesting Take! Hard to gauge if he liked it or not. Personally, I’m still on the fence on whether I need to see it in theatres.
For Lupita Nyongo 1000 ships were sinked? I dont think so
While I have not read The Odyssey in Greek — Linear B or otherwise — I have read various translations. There are five on my book shelf. I read it in high school, in college, as part of a book group and on my own. I have discussed it up one side and down the other. All this being said, I loved the movie. The agony is Damon’s face and is the hubris. There is enough ambiguity to keep me thinking about it.
A black Elena is equivalent to a SnowBlack Fairy tale
I have subscribed✨
If you ever get the chance and time, please read the first chapter of my book and if you liked what I wrote, consider purchasing the book online. I’m also open to critiques.
https://navophoto.substack.com/p/the-light-of-the-living-night-592?r=8r9si5&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I think you missed the point entirely- the goal was not to elevate or repeat canonical fantasy-adventure in the vain of either past Clash of the Titans films, where Perseus must negotiate with the gods. The goal was to make classical mythology *relatable* in that the gods were referred to, much as we refer to our own/pray to our own god/deities-- but we can't physically see them, even though we believe they control and influence much of our lives. Damon's Odysseus even says as much to his men when he states, "no one could stand between me and home. Not even the gods." The gods were irrelevant- he did not accept divine intervention or give up his human agency, which is made even more convincing by abandoning the whole 'deus ex machina' plot device. The film was about Odysseus the man, and his own motivations and passions.
A frank and generous review meets a brilliant movie.
Matt Damon too old for this role. Also, it’s been done recently by better actors
Well, Helen is half divine. But Athena wasted, certainly.