Nolan's Odyssey – A technical analysis by a nitpicky Classics student

Nolan's Odyssey – A technical analysis by a nitpicky Classics student(earlrambles.pagecord.com)

25 points by lylo 17 hours ago | 7 comments

adrian_b 16 hours ago |

While there have been already published various criticisms about this movie, for me the one that starts TFA is the one most likely to make me believe that I would not like this adaptation:

> ODYSSEUS IS NOT ODYSSEUS

> They take out all his tricks!!! No overcoming the Cyclops through trickery, no deceiving Circe! Guy whose main epithets (and intro in opening lines) is as a trickster and he does no tricks!!!

> He is essentially written as Achilles, inserted into Odysseus’ plot. Very puritan action hero who beats everyone up and challenges everyone and surges into unsafe situations without scouting. I find him to be a rather Americanised, war-guilty action hero (á la Iraq or Vietnam related films).

Not that I do not like stereotypical action heroes, but from Odysseus I would indeed expect more cleverness than physical prowess. Unfortunately, I cannot remember when I have last seen in a movie an action hero that could be characterized as intelligent, instead of just as extremely lucky.

Also the remainder of the analysis from TFA is quite good and I agree with its author that Nolan has omitted many of the best parts of the original Odyssey, in the effort to force upon it a quite different story, so it would have been better if he would have chosen from the beginning some other classical work to adapt, among those closer to the story he actually wanted to tell in his movie.

Kreutzer 10 hours ago | |

I haven't seen the film yet but surely the trojan horse, Odysseus' clever ruse, does appear.

rc5150 8 hours ago | | |

Yes but instead of it being treated as a clever ruse its the central artifact of his regret and shame. My understanding is that Odysseus is characterized as being tricky and deceitful without shame or regret.

ButlerianJihad 15 hours ago | |

Yeah, I was deeply interested in how the Circe subplot would work out, though I am ignorant of its original narrative.

The Cyclops encounter was indeed deeply disappointing, because I recall vividly through retellings, how he deceived and defeated the Cyclops, and this brute-force bludgeoning was a rather appalling update.

Nevertheless, overall I greatly enjoyed the film: it was very loud, quite violent, full of action, and lots of intrigue, double-crossings, and suspenseful twists and turns. Anyone who's attacking the "DEI casting" is full of bollocks. Absolutely fantastic cast of characters.

jpfromlondon 15 hours ago |

Some of these things are unforgivable (not repeated here in order to avoid spoiling for others), much worse than Jackson's omission of Tom Bombadil.

How depressing.

grey-area 14 hours ago |

I do agree with the overall tone - removing the greek gods from this story is just inexplicable, and transforming Odysseus polymetis into a leaden American action hero seems a perverse kind of reverse alchemy which only Hollywood would indulge.

> why is Circe randomly giving prophetic advice?

Nitpick: she does in the book give Odysseus a detailed prophecy and instructions to go consult the dead when he leaves her island.

For anyone interested in the original story, the book is available in a few good modern translations and very readable (e.g. Emily Wilson): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_(Emily_Wilson_translat...

Also I really like Circe as a sympathetic adaption of part of this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circe_(novel)

Going to see this anyway, but disappointed to hear it attempts to flatten the story in this way.

spicymaki 11 hours ago |

Good analysis, goes through the pros and cons of the adaptation. IMHO Nolan made some strong choices and the result is a great film, don’t miss it! What a time to be alive!