The Odyssey

[TheLobster]

 

[JohnEngelman]

I have read of it, but I have not read about it. Does the movie have anything to do with Homer's Odyssey?

I have read Homer's Odyssey several times in various translations, but I prefer Homer's Iliad for a number of reasons: Homer does not take sides in the Trojan War; he presents it as morally ambiguous and tragic; he has more to say about the Greek deities living on top of Mount Olympus; he mentions the oldest fairly tale in existence, which is the Legend of Perseus.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/nolans-odyssey-not-homers/

A critique by a professor of classics at Oxford. Apart from the idea I insisted on, "Obey the gods," this professor seems to agree with me about almost everything else.

 

[Voboy]

https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/nolans-odyssey-not-homers/

A critique by a professor of classics at Oxford. Apart from the idea I insisted on, "Obey the gods," this professor seems to agree with me about almost everything else.

...why do you feel the need to be right?

Surely a film is a piece of art, which some people will enjoy and others will shun. Surely there is a part of it that is ambiguous, so surely it can have several levels of meaning, like any piece of art. Surely the creator's intent matters, at least a little, but so do the interpretations of SEVERAL consumers. Surely a professor of classics, a professor of film, and a professor of music are going to have different ways of looking at this, meaning your appeal to the authority of one of them isn't all that meaningful.

These posts are confirming me in my initial conclusion: go see it, or don't. Enjoy it, or don't. There's no need for anyone to have THE definitive interpretation of this.

 

[ColtonWrites]

Well now I really want to see it.

 

[Writer61]

Why should Nolan's Odyssey be an exact rendition of Homer's? It's an interpretation of another piece of art. Is every production of Shakespeare an exact replica? Is the ballet version of Swan Lake to be vilified because it's not what Tchaikovsky had in mind? Should Apocalypse Now be banned because it was not set in the Congo? Or Clueless because it is (however loosely) inspired by Emma? Should Blondie's version of 'The Tide is High' be forbidden because it is different from The Paragon's original? Should all cover versions be blacklisted?

They are all pieces of art inspired by others. A completely faithful reproduction is merely a copy. New interpretations are often a way to highlight issues relevant to the modern world. It happens all the time with theatre productions.

By all means, compare works; highlight their differences, say what you liked and didn't. It's OK to prefer one to another. But to criticise a version simply because it is not exactly the same as the original is ridiculous.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/nolans-odyssey-not-homers/

A critique by a professor of classics at Oxford. Apart from the idea I insisted on, "Obey the gods," this professor seems to agree with me about almost everything else.

As others have said, this is one of about 8 billion possible reactions to the film - but it's a good one, I think, and worth reading. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Voboy]

As others have said, this is one of about 8 billion possible reactions to the film - but it's a good one, I think, and worth reading. Thanks for sharing.

It's worth pointing out, since some will use that article as a guideline, that its author is incorrect on at least one point.

He claims that, "disappointingly," Nolan leaves out the meta-content of bards performing the story within the story, and laments that Homer's inclusion of an anguished Penelope commanding the bard to stop isn't present in Nolan's film.

Well, it is present. This professor might have been getting extra popcorn while it occurred on the screen. The bard recurs, however, extremely dramatically (and quite rhythmically) later in the film. I was astonished that any viewer could miss that scene and then write a paragraph claiming it's not there.

There might be other flaws in the article, but I stopped reading at that point.

 

[SimonDoom]

All the commentary has me interested in seeing it. I'm curious what my reaction will be. I tend to be critical of movies but I've generally Nolan's films.


The movie's box office so far has been exceptional. It's well ahead of Oppenheimer's pace.

 

[crookedletter]

I get the sense from that article that its writer had made up his mind before he watched the movie. It strikes me as more academic snobbery than thoughtful review. A classicist uncomfortable with the very idea of a beloved work being adapted for consumption by the unwashed masses.

While the epic’s multiplicity runs deep, Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey is an action film, replete with unabashed violence. It is essentially designed to entertain a modern audience familiar with movies such as Lord of the Rings. There are some passing moral reflections about the decline of ‘civilisation’ and about the guilty conscience of a ruthless military leader, but these are brief moments, unconvincingly tacked on to the storyline.

I'm not sure what movie he was watching. There are action scenes, to be sure, but I feel like far more energy is spent agonizing over the consequences of the violence than on the "unabashed" violence itself.

There are some valid points in the article, like the previously-discussed lack of camaraderie in the soldiers. And the general lack of the gods' immediate presence and influence.

But a lot of it, too, is the all-too-common refrain of This is my favorite thing and you left things out. It is an adaptation, after all.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I get the sense from that article that its writer had made up his mind before he watched the movie. It strikes me as more academic snobbery than thoughtful review. A classicist uncomfortable with the very idea of a beloved work being adapted for consumption by the unwashed masses.

Possibly, but you know what it most reminded me of? A particular type of traditional fan in various fandoms (comic book, animation, SF/F novel, etc.) reacting to a movie that didn't live up to what was in their head. Some people really cannot deal with the simple fact that one medium is not like the next, and that they're called adaptations for a reason; the source material needs to be adapted in order to work, even in the case where something might seem like a one-to-one transition is necessary.

I'm thinking of something like comic books to movies/TV, in particular, where something like superhero costumes that work on the page look tacky and dumb on screen, but it applies even more to things lie pacing and dialogue when going from novels (or epic poems) to film. Or, indeed, when adapting an ancient work to modern sensibilities, especially in a primarily visual medium; as an example, to the modern eye the idea of Odysseus ignoring his dog as it lay dying in the street is almost unconscionable, not a show of sacrifice on his part in order to maintain the ruse but heartless indifference, at least without context that the text can provide while the film could only have done, at best, with difficulty.

That, in itself, leads to another problem with adaptations. The people who are really invested in the source material are REALLY invested in it, and they forget that not everyone else is. Worse, some seem to feel as if you need to read the source material before you look at any adaptation, and that's just nuts. I think the author of this review falls prey to both of these issues.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

It's worth pointing out, since some will use that article as a guideline, that its author is incorrect on at least one point.

He claims that, "disappointingly," Nolan leaves out the meta-content of bards performing the story within the story, and laments that Homer's inclusion of an anguished Penelope commanding the bard to stop isn't present in Nolan's film.

Well, it is present. This professor might have been getting extra popcorn while it occurred on the screen. The bard recurs, however, extremely dramatically (and quite rhythmically) later in the film. I was astonished that any viewer could miss that scene and then write a paragraph claiming it's not there.

There might be other flaws in the article, but I stopped reading at that point.

There are two things going on here, roughly speaking: there's judging a film according to what it was trying to do, and then there's discussing what it could or should have been according to one's own preferences.

As long as people aren't positioning their preferences as definitive opinions that must not be denied then it's all fair game, I think, and makes for interesting discussions. (As an aside, I haven't seen many people really address the issue of whether Nolan achieved what he was trying to achieve).

I'd say the prof was quite fair in accepting Nolan was making a summer blockbuster with all the pressures that entails.

Anyway, hearing from a person who has spent their lives studying Homer and the world of ancient Greece is definitely interesting and worthwhile - and if this prof made a mistake in their reading of the film then, fine, that's a mistake, but it doesn't particularly negate the other information and expertise that they're sharing.

Personally, I enjoyed reading how the film relates to the source material and the historical world. And it opened up the discussion a bit more, at least for me, rather than trying to close it down.

 

[TheLobster]

Friendly reminder that "It's an adaptation, of course things must chance to fit the new medium!" is Fully General Counterargument™ which can be applied to any criticism of any adaptation of anything from any one medium to any other medium.

And that means it has no information content in and of itself, and is therefore worthless.

 

[Voboy]

(As an aside, I haven't seen many people really address the issue of whether Nolan achieved what he was trying to achieve).

The "what was Nolan trying to achieve?" question is going to have different answers based on your hopes and expectations. Consensus on an answer is something people are likely to struggle with.

And as long as they're struggling with it, a lot of people can't move on from it. For the reasons I already spelled out in my review, I think Nolan achieved a lot of the same things he's continually tried to achieve in most of his other films.

But many, including some here, don't agree with my idea that that's what he was looking to do. And that's just fine. I don't have to be right. If you enjoyed the movie, more power to ya.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

...why do you feel the need to be right?

Surely a film is a piece of art, which some people will enjoy and others will shun. Surely there is a part of it that is ambiguous, so surely it can have several levels of meaning, like any piece of art. Surely the creator's intent matters, at least a little, but so do the interpretations of SEVERAL consumers. Surely a professor of classics, a professor of film, and a professor of music are going to have different ways of looking at this, meaning your appeal to the authority of one of them isn't all that meaningful.

These posts are confirming me in my initial conclusion: go see it, or don't. Enjoy it, or don't. There's no need for anyone to have THE definitive interpretation of this.

Seriously?!

This thread is about the Odyssey; it was created so we could discuss it. Nobody gives a damn whether you, I, Simon, Penny, or whoever else, LIKED it. What matters is why we liked it, what our impressions are, what we found in the movie and what we didn't. And discussion is just that: comparing our impressions and opinions and maybe finding some common ground, maybe opening our eyes to a different perspective, one we didn't see at first.

So in that sense, I offered a review, you did as well, and then Penny did, and we discussed, and some of us did find common ground and some new perspectives. I know more about the movie than I did before this thread. So now, when I included an opinion from someone with certain qualifications, because in this sense, they do matter, it's suddenly a problem? A sign that I have to win?

You yourself said you were excited to compare it to the impression of the Odyssey you had when you first read it. That article is just about that, comparing Homer and Nolan in every sense, the message, the emotion, the depth. It's perfectly valid. I never said it's definitive, nor that it's automatically true; I just said it aligns with the opinion I already posted. I expected someone would challenge it, but not in such a childish way.

So now, since you obviously dislike the contents of the article, you feel like moving the goalposts and saying that we all have our own opinion, it's all art, the sky is blue, the flowers are pretty, why should we discuss anything? That is pure childlike defensiveness, same as with some others who now scramble to invalidate that article with absolute BS.

If you see this discussion as a fight where someone has to win, that's your problem, not mine. I wanted to discuss, truly, without the obvious bias that many seem to have.

And I want to thank @GuiltyCowboy for being the only one who is trying to see other points of view and actually discuss. The rest seem to see this as a sort of political arena where their side needs to win no matter what, even if it means throwing in obvious fallacies.

 

[crookedletter]

Friendly reminder that "It's an adaptation, of course things must chance to fit the new medium!" is Fully General Counterargument™ which can be applied to any criticism of any adaptation of anything from any one medium to any other medium.

And that means it has no information content in and of itself, and is therefore worthless.

I'm not sure anyone's using the adaptation argument as a magic wand to wipe away any and all criticism. But it's itself a useful reminder when the main thrust of a critique is That's not exactly how it was in the book. The adaptation reminder is, more or less, "well, duh."

 

[SimonDoom]

Seriously?!

This thread is about the Odyssey; it was created so we could discuss it. Nobody gives a damn whether you, I, Simon, Penny, or whoever else, LIKED it. What matters is why we liked it, what our impressions are, what we found in the movie and what we didn't. And discussion is just that: comparing our impressions and opinions and maybe finding some common ground, maybe opening our eyes to a different perspective, one we didn't see at first.

So in that sense, I offered a review, you did as well, and then Penny did, and we discussed, and some of us did find common ground and some new perspectives. I know more about the movie than I did before this thread. So now, when I included an opinion from someone with certain qualifications, because in this sense, they do matter, it's suddenly a problem? A sign that I have to win?

You yourself said you were excited to compare it to the impression of the Odyssey you had when you first read it. That article is just about that, comparing Homer and Nolan in every sense, the message, the emotion, the depth. It's perfectly valid. I never said it's definitive, nor that it's automatically true; I just said it aligns with the opinion I already posted. I expected someone would challenge it, but not in such a childish way.

So now, since you obviously dislike the contents of the article, you feel like moving the goalposts and saying that we all have our own opinion, it's all art, the sky is blue, the flowers are pretty, why should we discuss anything? That is pure childlike defensiveness, same as with some others who now scramble to invalidate that article with absolute BS.

If you see this discussion as a fight where someone has to win, that's your problem, not mine. I wanted to discuss, truly, without the obvious bias that many seem to have.

And I want to thank @GuiltyCowboy for being the only one who is trying to see other points of view and actually discuss. The rest seem to see this as a sort of political arena where their side needs to win no matter what, even if it means throwing in obvious fallacies.

I hope we can keep this thread civil. It would be nice to avoid having it spiral out of control, especially before I've even had a chance to see the movie!

I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion, or Penny's, or anyone else's. The movie is bound to provoke strong reactions. That's a good thing. We've already had a lively, interesting discussion.

 

[Writer61]

As an aside, I haven't seen many people really address the issue of whether Nolan achieved what he was trying to achieve

Given that he wrote, directed, and likely played a big role in editing it, he probably did.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I hope we can keep this thread civil. It would be nice to avoid having it spiral out of control, especially before I've even had a chance to see the movie!

I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion, or Penny's, or anyone else's. The movie is bound to provoke strong reactions. That's a good thing. We've already had a lively, interesting discussion.

Not sure what you meant there. I was civil. I replied personally, sharply, but without insults, because I was targeted personally in Voboy's post. As far as I am concerned, he can use the same tone, he did it many times before anyway. We aren't snowflakes, at least the two of us aren't. I don't mind sharp language as long as it doesn't devolve into direct insults and namecalling.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Friendly reminder that "It's an adaptation, of course things must chance to fit the new medium!" is Fully General Counterargument™ which can be applied to any criticism of any adaptation of anything from any one medium to any other medium.

And that means it has no information content in and of itself, and is therefore worthless.

Closely related to the "they wouldn't have been happy with anything" argument.

 

[Voboy]

Not sure what you meant there. I was civil. I replied personally, sharply, but without insults, because I was targeted personally in Voboy's post. As far as I am concerned, he can use the same tone, he did it many times before anyway. We aren't snowflakes, at least the two of us aren't. I don't mind sharp language as long as it doesn't devolve into direct insults and namecalling.

I certainly didn't mean any offense, nor did I take any.

But you have a point of view, and it's a passionate one, and you posted what I see as a flawed article in support of that point of view. I'm not sure that you were trying to "convince" anyone in that post, but I certainly read it that way.

 

[SimonDoom]

I certainly didn't mean any offense, nor did I take any.

But you have a point of view, and it's a passionate one, and you posted what I see as a flawed article in support of that point of view. I'm not sure that you were trying to "convince" anyone in that post, but I certainly read it that way.

Thanks for saying this. It's easy for criticism to be misinterpreted as personal. I didn't see your comments that way, and I didn't see Awkwardlyset's that way, either.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Given that he wrote, directed, and likely played a big role in editing it, he probably did.

Are you asserting that all attempts to do something succeed?

 

[yowser]

A first attempt at testing the hypothesis that any AH thread can be summed up by a limerick:

A grandiferous movie named The Odyssey
Caused many to say “It, yeah, I just gotta see.”
But opinions were so cosmically divided,
An item most pundits colossally derided,
All rendered it a most hot commodity.

 

[Writer61]

Are you asserting that all attempts to do something succeed?

No. Note my use of the word ‘probably’.