The Odyssey

[Kelliezgirl]

That's quite the slippery slope.

I do agree that Anthy, who is probably the nicest person in the AH, leans towards woke - along with many other AHers. But does that make them too biased to judge wokiness?
Maybe. Yet wouldn't the same apply to you and Kellie in the opposite sense? Just saying that the logic goes both ways.

This has always been a challenging topic for the AH, and I stand by what I said about how difficult it is to talk about these things here in a way that doesn't lead to namecalling, exactly due to the heavy bias that exists.

To be honest with you, I see maybe a few AHers in total who seem to be able to approach this subject in an objective way and who can discuss these things without falling into fire. It is what it is, and there is no changing that reality.

But my point stands that one should always be careful when talking about anyone's right to speak meaningfully about some topic.

It's interesting that you talk about denying the right to speak meaningfully about a topic, but Anthy did just that.
When you conclude your opinion about a topic by saying "and anyone who disagrees is a bad person" which is what Anthy did, you are effectively stifling debate by deligitimizing the opinion of others.
It is nothing more than a variant of calling anyone who disagrees with you racist, phobic or some other meaningless insult.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It's interesting that you talk about denying the right to speak meaningfully about a topic, but Anthy did just that.
When you conclude your opinion about a topic by saying "and anyone who disagrees is a bad person" which is what Anthy did, you are effectively stifling debate by deligitimizing the opinion of others.
It is nothing more than a variant of calling anyone who disagrees with you racist, phobic or some other meaningless insult.

I agree that the last part of Anthy's post was unnecessarily provocative and biased. To be honest, I didn't even read it thoroughly at first. But while you or TheLobster, or any of us had the right to call him out on that, my point stands.

There is a lot of difference between calling out someone for what they posted and saying that they shouldn't post their opinion at all, because they are biased. It goes both ways, and it's not a good argument in any discussion. That's all that I meant to say, and I see it as a good rule in general.

 

[Writer61]

But my point stands that one should always be careful when talking about anyone's right to speak meaningfully about some topic.

I agree with you (and Voltaire) on this, however, I reserve the right to criticise obnoxious statements

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I agree that the last part of Anthy's post was unnecessarily provocative and biased. To be honest, I didn't even read it thoroughly at first. But while you or TheLobster, or any of us had the right to call him out on that, my point stands.

There is a lot of difference between calling out someone for what they posted and saying that they shouldn't post their opinion at all, because they are biased. It goes both ways, and it's not a good argument in any discussion. That's all that I meant to say, and I see it as a good rule in general.

But that isn't what the Lobster said. He pointed out that Anthy probably wasn't the best judge of something. That's a legitimate criticism. It isn't saying he can't weigh in, but it raises the point of how much weight that opinion should carry in that circumstance.

 

[Writer61]

But that isn't what the Lobster said. He pointed out that Anthy probably wasn't the best judge of something. That's a legitimate criticism. It isn't saying he can't weigh in, but it raises the point of how much weight that opinion should carry in that circumstance.

This is a forum for debate, not a chamber for judgement.

Even on a jury, unbiased in theory, everybody's opinion carries equal weight.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is a forum for debate, not a chamber for judgement.

Even on a jury, unbiased in theory, everybody's opinion carries equal weight.

Having served on a jury, I can assure you everyone's opinion does not carry equal weight.

But, a more accurate analogy might be that we as jurors have every right, and indeed a responsibility to consider the biases of anyone presenting evidence to the court.

 

[Writer61]

Having served on a jury, I can assure you everyone's opinion does not carry equal weight

Except it does. Individuals may not be able to convey their view or withstand pressure, but their vote is not diminished.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Except it does. Individuals may not be able to convey their view or withstand pressure, but their vote is not diminished.

The weight of their vote and the weight of their opinion are two rather different things.

 

[Writer61]

The weight of their vote and the weight of their opinion are two rather different things.

Indeed. But my point explicitly referred to the weight of each vote.

 

[TheLobster]

But that isn't what the Lobster said. He pointed out that Anthy probably wasn't the best judge of something. That's a legitimate criticism. It isn't saying he can't weigh in, but it raises the point of how much weight that opinion should carry in that circumstance.

Yup, that was pretty much my intention. It may not have been obvious, considering I addressed my post directly at Anthy, but the main audience I had in mind was actually other people who may have been wondering how to interpret that part of his review (the rest of which seems quite astute and observant to me, btw).

 

[SimonDoom]

Emily Wilson, on whose translation of The Odyssey Nolan ostensibly relied, has written a critical review of the film: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man.

 

[TheOneUpright]

Wasn't woke in the slightest bit, I have 0 clue why anybody would have issues with any of the casting or message of the story if they'd actually watched it.

Let's see. Starting the very first scene with a transgender actor as a Greek warrior is quite the statement. It also turns out Odysseus’s crew included Pakis, Koreans, and Black men - basically a UN delegation. All purely coincidental, of course.

While the ancient Greeks were fascinated by dark-skinned people and collectively called them Aethiopians, there is not a single statue of a Greek god or demigod from that era with sub-Saharan African features. There is zero reason to assume the Greeks envisioned their gods as Black.

Homer explicitly describes Helen as "white-armed" (leukolenos), so casting Helen (a demigod) or Athena as Black is bound to raise eyebrows.

I have no issue with modern adaptations, like what the Coen brothers did with O Brother, Where Art Thou? But if you’re using the actual period setting, at least try to stay faithful to it.

The Odyssey is, above all, a story of nostos - homecoming, returning to one’s roots, land, restoring the oikos (the ancestral household). It underscores loyalty to clan and country, the sanctity of the family unit. Unlike the Iliad’s focus on military glory, the Odyssey is saturated with sacred rituals and sacrifices. Homer didn't just include these because it was customary at the time, he wanted to stress the importance of tradition and ancient values - the glue of civilization itself.

Naturally, little of this appears in Nolan's film, which turned it into a generic survival spectacle.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Sorry, Anthy, but the idea that you, of all people here, would possess a sufficiently disinterested perspective to judge the 'wokiness' of Nolan's Odyssey honestly got me rolling

And I mean it with no ill will; you've never been anything but genuine, kind, and respectful, no matter the topic of discussion. It's just that it's perfectly evident your qualifications to discern what does and does not fall within the sweeping mainstream zeitgeist are, let's say, a little bit compromised

I thoroughly dislike nonsense that serves no point but to wave a flag that goes "look at me, I'm supporting X cause, I'm such a good ally!" Doesn't matter if it's left-leaning or right-leaning, if the point of a decision in a story/movie/show/whatever is to virtue signal, rather than actually make poignant commentary, show the humanity of a character, or serve the story, then it's dumb. People circle jerking each other about how amazing/horrible something is because they want to show they're on some team or another without putting any critical thought into why they love/hate it, they were just told they should or they want to make sure everybody on their team knows what a great person they are, is dumb.

But you are right that I'm not really tuned into mainstream really anything, I'm very much culturally unplugged from a lot of stupid shit that isn't worth my time.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Let's see. Starting the very first scene with a transgender actor as a Greek warrior is quite the statement. It also turns out Odysseus’s crew included Pakis, Koreans, and Black men - basically a UN delegation. All purely coincidental, of course.

While the ancient Greeks were fascinated by dark-skinned people and collectively called them Aethiopians, there is not a single statue of a Greek god or demigod from that era with sub-Saharan African features. There is zero reason to assume the Greeks envisioned their gods as Black.

Homer explicitly describes Helen as "white-armed" (leukolenos), so casting Helen (a demigod) or Athena as Black is bound to raise eyebrows.

Which just goes back to the debate about how much artistic license someone is "allowed" when they create anything. One isn't obligated to stick the rigid guidelines of the source material, and I would argue that it's better to have variation because it makes things more interesting.

Is having a transgender actor a statement? Or is it just Nolan thought Page would be good for the part and cast him? I don't think it's a statement, nothing is made of Page's transgender status, they simply show up in the movie as a man, and that's it. If they'd made a fuss about it, that would be another story (and I would've definitely rolled my eyes at trying to inject commentary on transgender people in a story that had nothing to do with it as a total non-sequitor), but they didn't, simply matter-of-fact "here is the character." If more trans characters had shown up, maybe I'd be inclined to agree this is a valid criticism, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a world and environment where there are a ton of people of varying characteristics, and should we force everybody to only play parts that are explicitly what that person is? Sean Connery shouldn't be James Bond, he's Scottish, not British. Only actual children should voice act for child parts, not women who can do the voices well. If we pigeonhole everyone into rigid structures, we lose the most fundamental aspects of creativity: its flexibility, its ability to contort and reimagine that which once was and transform it into something else. Rather that iterate the same pattern, we take it and mold it into something new and interesting. That's what makes the best adaptations, not rigid adherence to the source material, but building upon it and reshaping it its own work of art.

If we try to force people to make movies the way they "ought" to be made, we stagnate, we lose the ability to be transgressive, to push the boundaries, because everything is safe and rigid and everything becomes stiff and uninteresting because it's just rehashing the exact same thing with little change, and what's even the point of that? To me, the point of an adaptation isn't to stay within the narrow confines of what it ought to be, but to expand beyond that, to tell the story, sure, but to perhaps reimagine it and find new angles and avenues to explore, or to provoke questions about the original, or any other number of things that make it more than a stale, rigid retelling.

I have no issue with modern adaptations, like what the Coen brothers did with O Brother, Where Art Thou? But if you’re using the actual period setting, at least try to stay faithful to it.

Ancient times weren't nearly as white as most people believe. A lot of the ancient cultures were actually quite culturally diverse and had people from all walks of life and origins. They didn't have the same status as "true Greeks" but they did exist and serve in the military of some powers. So really, any films that portray ancient Rome or Egypt as primarily white are historically inaccurate, and thus not faithful to the actual period setting. Quite a lot of mid-1900s historical movies featured almost exclusively white casts in places where there would have been a lot of multiculturalism.

I have no issue with modern adaptations, like what the Coen brothers did with O Brother, Where Art Thou? But if you’re using the actual period setting, at least try to stay faithful to it.

The Odyssey is, above all, a story of nostos - homecoming, returning to one’s roots, land, restoring the oikos (the ancestral household). It underscores loyalty to clan and country, the sanctity of the family unit. Unlike the Iliad’s focus on military glory, the Odyssey is saturated with sacred rituals and sacrifices. Homer didn't just include these because it was customary at the time, he wanted to stress the importance of tradition and ancient values - the glue of civilization itself.

Naturally, little of this appears in Nolan's film, which turned it into a generic survival spectacle.

I actually think Nolan did a decent job focusing on tradition and values (granted with a Judeo-Christian twist that wasn't really accurate to the source material, which I wasn't a big fan of because it portrayed the gods very differently than they actually were: capricious little shits; but his movie, he can reimagine it how he wants). There were a lot of rituals and traditions: animal sacrifice, appeasing the gods, the ache to go home fighting against the shame of his self-perceived dishonor, family, rights of kingship. But I do agree that it was kinda flattened to go with a more Michael Bay-esque summer blockbuster, which was one of my main issues with the movie, that it felt too surface level and didn't really dive too deep into any of the most interesting things.

Also, I was so annoyed they didn't do the best part of The Odyssey, which is when Odysseus tells Polyphemus that his name is "Nobody," so that when they poke out his eye and the others ask Polyphemus who hurt him, he screams "Nobody hurt me!" But then as they sail away, Odysseus has an act of hubris and reveals his true name to taunt the Cyclops, who then prays to Poseidon to enact revenge upon Odysseus, which is where all his problems truly begin. Skipping that felt like a huge mistake to me.

 

[alohadave]

For a fairly thorough discussion of a fraught period (and mention of this mysterious group) the book 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed by Eric H. Cline does a worthy treatment.

Paul M M Cooper has a great podcast about the Bronze Age Collapse (and the whole series is excellent).

 

[anthrodisiac]

It's interesting that you talk about denying the right to speak meaningfully about a topic, but Anthy did just that.
When you conclude your opinion about a topic by saying "and anyone who disagrees is a bad person" which is what Anthy did, you are effectively stifling debate by deligitimizing the opinion of others.
It is nothing more than a variant of calling anyone who disagrees with you racist, phobic or some other meaningless insult.

While I didn't intend to stifle debate with my comment, I can understand how it would be interpreted that way. My main complaint is with people who were criticizing the movie's choices without seeing it, because they just believed whatever outrage influencer said about it and took up their pitchforks and torches.

To be clear, I really dislike this behavior regardless of which side it's on. People on the left decrying something as racist or homophobic without actually understanding the material is silly. People on the right decrying something as woke without actually understanding the material is silly. Anybody taking up the worst interpretation of what something is based on one person's tweet or TikTok, and never actually checking to see if it's true, that's a big issue with our society today. We immediately assume the worst intent, and in our haste, pillory something without taking the time to see if it's true.

If somebody watches the movie and comes to the conclusion that it's woke on their own, that's a valid opinion and worth discussion. But whining and moaning about a movie based on the tiniest details that weren't beating the viewer over the head with their virtue signaling is really just people wanting to be angry, not offering valid criticism.

 

[Writer61]

Art inspires art. As I have already said, a completely faithful reproduction is merely a copy.

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.

 

[anthrodisiac]

But that isn't what the Lobster said. He pointed out that Anthy probably wasn't the best judge of something. That's a legitimate criticism. It isn't saying he can't weigh in, but it raises the point of how much weight that opinion should carry in that circumstance.

This is a good point. Everybody ought to weigh opinions based on where they're coming from, and, crucially, their intent. The second is harder to parse given the difficulty interpreting meaning beyond the words on the screen, but I'm of the opinion that it's always good to be mindful of the source of an opinion, and to use your own criteria for determining how valid, useful, and correct that opinion may be. Whatever those criteria are vary from person to person. This is a good approach, but one that can also be used to dismiss anybody who disagrees with you (which, as I mentioned, is a not-unreasonable interpretation of my post) and thus never update their belief systems or look critically at what they think.

Self-reflection and being willing to update one's worldviews in light of new facts, changing circumstances, or shift in values is incredibly important in my view. I'd still be incredibly conservative if I never did that, instead of being slightly left of center if I wasn't willing to evaluate what I thought and how it agreed/disagreed with my values. My values didn't change, but my understanding of things did, and so I updated my views to align with what I valued and held dear.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, doesn't mean anybody has to heed it, and that's a perfectly valid response to something, especially one that comes across as demeaning or dismissive as mine did.*

*Mostly because it was dismissive of uninformed outrage.

 

[PennyThompson]

Emily Wilson, on whose translation of The Odyssey Nolan ostensibly relied, has written a critical review of the film: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man.

That was utterly delightful, thank you

I thought her criticisms were excellent and obviously deeply informed, and also hilarious. Think I disagree with her on this point though:

In Nolan’s Odyssey, slaughtering people with the help of trickery, technology and weapons is presented as bad when the Greeks are killing the Trojans, who have violated xenia, but good when Odysseus is killing the suitors, who have violated xenia. Taking something ostensibly abandoned by Odysseus and his comrades is natural and forgivable when the Trojans lay claim to the horse, but unnatural and unforgivable when the suitors lay claim to Odysseus’ palace, food, wine and wife. Strangers in Ithaca are to be treated with gracious kindness, as possible gods in disguise; but strangers in foreign lands are usually monstrous, to be blinded, robbed and slaughtered. Defying the gods is noble and brave when Odysseus blinds Polyphemus, son of Poseidon; it’s stupid and greedy when Eurylochus eats the Cattle of the Sun. Deception is bad when Odysseus tricks Sinon or the suitors trick Telemachus, but good when Telemachus and Odysseus trick the suitors. Sharing is good, and Odysseus is seen taking his place at an oar alongside his men; but one-man rule is also unambiguously good, and those who challenge monarchy or autocracy, or try to eat more than their allotted portion, are either evil (the suitors) or foolish (Eurylochus). Either way, they have to die. It is bad to fight and kill to accumulate wealth, as Agamemnon does; it is good to fight and kill to preserve the wealth that you have already acquired (even if by war). Any one of these moral contradictions could make for an interesting and generative theme in a movie, but Nolan lets the fragments of an incomplete set of big ideas spin around in the epic whirlpool, with no plank of solid, specific human experience to which we might cling.

I didn't see this as contradictory or an error of storytelling, because my reading of Nolan's Odysseus was never as a laudeable character. To me the contradictions were clearly the character's hypocrisy and entitlement.

I keep thinking of Hugh Jackman's character in Nolan's The Prestige, also an ambitious protagonist who can't see the damage he's doing to the people caught up in his quest, including in a very literal sense, himself.

 

[SimonDoom]

That was utterly delightful, thank you

I thought her criticisms were excellent and obviously deeply informed, and also hilarious. Think I disagree with her on this point though:



I didn't see this as contradictory or an error of storytelling, because my reading of Nolan's Odysseus was never as a laudeable character. To me the contradictions were clearly the character's hypocrisy and and entitlement.

I keep thinking of Hugh Jackman's character in Nolan's The Prestige, also an ambitious protagonist who can't see the damage he's doing to the people caught up in his quest, including in a very literal sense, himself.

It's frustrating. I'm twiddling my thumbs waiting to see the movie, which my kids are taking me to in 2 weeks, so I'm going to have to defer having an opinion. Which, if you know anything about me, is agony.

 

[PennyThompson]

It's frustrating. I'm twiddling my thumbs waiting to see the movie, which my kids are taking me to in 2 weeks, so I'm going to have to defer having an opinion. Which, if you know anything about me, is agony.

You could always do a late night show by yourself, and then see it again in two weeks

"I can't wait, there's an argument in a forum and I'm feeling left out!"

 

[TheLobster]

You could always do a late night show by yourself, and then see it again in two weeks

"I can't wait, there's an argument in a forum and I'm feeling left out!"

Nah, it's not like you need to see the movie to participate

 

[SimonDoom]

Nah, it's not like you need to see the movie to participate

Lack of knowledge has never been much of an impediment to contributing to the AH.

When I have no idea what I'm talking about, I feel like Tom Cruise's character in Top Gun: Maverick, when he's told he hasn't been cleared to do the test run, and he says, "I'm going anyway."

 

[anthrodisiac]

Lack of knowledge has never been even the slightest impediment to contributing to the AH.

Fixed it.

 

[SimonDoom]

You could always do a late night show by yourself, and then see it again in two weeks

"I can't wait, there's an argument in a forum and I'm feeling left out!"

Maybe I'll do a podcast. It's not like one needs any competence to do it.