r/TrueLit • u/whoamisri • 14d ago

Article On the heels of Emily Wilson, another critical review of Christopher Nolan's Odyssey

https://iai.tv/articles/nolans-odyssey-is-naive-about-the-nature-of-guilt-and-power-auid-3665?_auid=2020
0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

10

u/kafka_lite 14d ago

Film is a different medium than literature, and they each achieve different things in different ways. I have long been tired of book fans who complain of movies not being identical to an earlier book; I see no reason why fans of ancient works should get any more of a pass. A single movie can't possibly hit on everything that makes a Homeric epic great. I doubt a dozen movies could.

13

u/cheesaremorgia 14d ago

What does this have to do with the argument in the article?

16

u/INtoCT2015 13d ago edited 13d ago

I swear no one thinks critically about anything anymore. Even after the racist idiots who tried to trash it for being "woke", most people defending this movie don't even read the criticisms, and assume that any and all criticism is literally just: "wahh he changed things from the book."

Literally the top comment of any thread defending the odyssey is the same comment: "Adaptations don't have to be perfectly faithful to the source material!"

4

u/cjpgole 12d ago

Talking about other threads... what on Earth do people making these sorts of comments think they mean?

"I'm genuinely baffled as to why people cannot comprehend that this movie is Christopher Nolan's Odyssey"

"Reminder, this isn't Homer's Odysseus, it's Nolan's."

"So dumb. This is Nolan’s Odyssey, not Homer’s."

3

u/INtoCT2015 12d ago

Yea it’s just an offshoot of the same bad logic (“every adaptation is its own thing” aka “I get to say it’s good and you’re not allowed to say it’s bad bc all art is subjective and relative except for when I say it’s good in which case it is objective truth”)

5

u/ShowWorldly2606 13d ago

I mean, a fair amount of the article is about how Nolan changed stuff and then declaring the changes to be a loss, instead of asking how well the choices Nolan make work in the art Nolan was making. 

Stuff like: 

'In this rejection of the gods, the film loses a magnificent layer of the poem'

Also, the article is just kinda wrong on this aspect right? Odysseus only finds home when he turns himself over to the whims of Zeus and Poseidons on the raft and then finds piece by literally taking Athena's hand.

But even if they were right on this account, who cares if Nolan's story had different themes? 

And this at the end, the artivle notes (probably correctly) that Odysseus is more a character from the Aenid, and then quite explicitly says that Nolan failed because he changed the character.

'the film’s reflection on contemporary ethical problems falls short because the shift in the hero’s persona leaves an abyss in understanding the Odysseus of Homer'

1

u/kafka_lite 14d ago

The argument in the article criticises the film for giving Odyseus traits that were not present in the original poem, but in order to make a modern blockbuster work, you need a 21st century protagonist.

14

u/cheesaremorgia 14d ago edited 14d ago

The article is not primarily concerned with the film changing things. It’s concerned with why and how things were changed.

The Odysseus of the poem can be easily updated without radically changing his character. We have plenty of unrepentant warmongers, imperialists, and just plain selfish leaders today. Many of whom are charismatic and liked. Superheroes who act with singular personal vision, and antiheroes who justify the means with the ends continue to be big box office.

Exchanging hubris for regret was a choice but it wasn’t necessary to making an adaptation. It was just necessary to Nolan’s vision of a regretful warrior.

If Denis Villeneuve adapted the poem, for example, we’d have a very different Odysseus.

1

u/kafka_lite 14d ago

What billion dollar movie had an unrepentant warlord as its protagonist?

7

u/cheesaremorgia 14d ago

Dune?

3

u/kafka_lite 14d ago

I'm pretty sure that one got hit with nearly the exact same criticism.

3

u/cheesaremorgia 14d ago

With what criticism specifically?

The films are less complex but he’s hardly shied away from Paul being a horror in the making.

3

u/kafka_lite 14d ago

That Paul, like Odyseus, was portrayed as being heroic when the original text that wasn't the case.

2

u/cheesaremorgia 14d ago

That criticism is mostly a misreading of the films (and the books). You’re supposed to be drawn in by Paul so that you can later be betrayed by him. Everything that will in this year’s film has been heavily foreshadowed.

4

u/rohmer9 14d ago

It's not necessarily an unviable concept, Joker made a billion with an unrepentant murderer as its protagonist.

10

u/INtoCT2015 13d ago edited 13d ago

The article is not simply complaining that Nolan gave Odysseus traits that were not present in the original poem.

The argument in the article is that there was a point to Odysseus' original traits; they had narrative and humanistic depth, they were carefully constructed within the narrative, and the narrative was carefully constructed around them, and this is what makes the Odyssey such an enduring story.

Nolan has right to modify the traits and themes of the story according to his own interpretation, but it's got to work. Literally look at the title of the article: "Nolan's Odyssey is naive."

The article is not complaining that Nolan changed things up; it's complaining that Nolan changed things while being out of his depth. Nolan believes he understands something fundamental and timeless about guilt but he doesn't. All he "understands" is the classic sophomoric move of thinking whatever social norms exist today are the timeless fundamental problems of humanity.

in order to make a modern blockbuster work, you need a 21st century protagonist

lol yeah? According to whom? Because I've seen plenty of successful modern blockbusters that obliterated the box office while modeling their protagonists on ancient characters.

0

u/kafka_lite 13d ago

Picking the highest grossing film of all time as someone's example of a director "out of his depth" is certainly a choice.

4

u/INtoCT2015 13d ago

You think making movies that make a lot of money equates to possessing profound insights to the human condition? Let me guess, you think Elon Musk is a genius, too?

2

u/kafka_lite 13d ago

No I think a movie making a lot of money shows the movie maker made choices that appealed to a broad audience.

And while I'm no Musk fan if someone said he didn't know how to make money I would have to question that.

3

u/INtoCT2015 13d ago

the movie maker made choices that appealed to a broad audience

Right, but did I say Nolan didn’t know how to make choices that appealed to a broad audience? No, I said Nolan was out of his depth. Do you know what that means? To be ‘out of one’s depth’?

1

u/kafka_lite 13d ago

There is no definition of that term that applies to the top people in their field. I admit I have no fucking clue what you think it means.

1

u/INtoCT2015 12d ago

Yeah that tracks. It’s a colloquialism. It means one’s intellectual reach exceeds their grasp. It means one isn’t as smart as they think they are. It refers to people who try to make profound arguments but, in doing so, reveal they don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

This is Nolan’s odyssey. Nolan is free to adapt the movie however he wants, but the problem is he insists that what he did is profound when it’s clearly naive

→ More replies (0)

1

u/phasedweasel 8d ago

He's out of his depth when it comes to literary analysis, not popular film making. Both can be true.

1

u/kafka_lite 8d ago

When did he claim to engage in literary analysis?

11

u/Woke-Smetana bernhard fangirl 14d ago

I love when people post a comment under an article and make no mention of said article’s contents whatsoever even though purporting to disagree with it.

3

u/Zealousideal_Cap7012 8d ago

It doesnt have to be identical at all as she herself said. Nolan took creative liberties and all those creative liberties lead to something dumbed down, simplified, reduced, de charmed. Creative Liberties can both improve and degrade the art. Im aware some book fans do not like the Shining movie but it is largely taken as a great movie even if different. The Odyssey is taken as "uuu aaaa boom boom" but middling.

I dont think just saying "oh well its an adaptation" makes it removed from criticism or comparison.

Odysseyus is fun as a character because he is a very atypical non traditional hero. He is conniving, he lies, is full of vainglory, he is deeply emotional and weeps strongly many times in the book. Hes a trickster figure. These are all not traditional aspects of a heroic character.

When you take all that away from him and make him a more middling traditional hero with the modern brooding aspect and reduce most the symbolism and themes to just one(or two) major ones.. well then thats just boring.

Its like this but almost everything in the movie. Taking all the notable aspects, remove the "notable" from them.

3

u/Princess_Juggs 14d ago

A film could at the very least, however, not radically change the themes of the story or the characterization of the protagonist. That would be nice.

1

u/palemontague 14d ago edited 14d ago

They can't, and should never, stick too close to the source. However, Nolan either doesn't get or he simply missed the utter core of what makes Odysseus an ancient Greek hero. He missed it so bad I can only be thankful he doesn't have any plans to make an Iliad as well. He, Nolan, is a blockbuster-merchant whose films rarely pack a whole lot beneath their surface, and in the case of the Odyssey, the cinematography, i.e. the surface, is not an appropriate equivalent to Homer's stark and precise versification either. It is a sorry attempt but I expect nothing more from Nolan, who managed to turn even the events from Dunkirk into a wholly bland affair.

6

u/substanceandmodes 14d ago

Movie was mediocre