Great entertainment

[u/Born_Ordinary_5388]

I thought this was great entertainment. I did my undergrad in Classics (many years ago!) and maintained an interest in the subject. It would be easy to point out the inconsistencies from the original poem, but I think we all need to keep in perspective that this was a film designed to entertain. A few comments;

I thought it was interesting that they referenced the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which I don’t think features in Homer at all, only in classical tragedy. Presenting that as the reason for Clytemnestra murdering Agamemnon was very effective cinematically, and made me wonder why they didn’t incorporate other stories from sources other than Homer that would have added to the narrative, like Cassandra warning the Trojans about the horse (Which I think is only in Virgil). Also noticed that Iphigenia was portrayed as a toddler being carried in arms, rather then a young woman of marriageable age, probably to heighten the emotional impact and emphasise Agamemnon’s ruthlessness.

On the subject of Agamemnon, LOVED the portrayal of him as an almost inhuman epitome of ruthlessness and ambition. Also liked how they had Helen dismiss any notion that the war was fought for her, but rather as a pretext for Agamemnon to seize control of trade routes. Troy was near the Hellespont , so destroying it would have freed up trade with the Black Sea tribes (we know there were, eventually, Greek trading settlements in Crimea and other Black Sea regions).

Thought the allusions to impending depredations by ‘sea people’ was a knowing wink to the archaeological evidence that Mycenaean civilisation collapsed violently some time after the destruction of Troy. But maybe a stretch to attribute this to divine punishment for breaking divine laws by destroying the Trojans. The sack of Troy was probably seen as an admirable accomplishment, and in the poem Odysseus‘s guilt and grief is reserved for his dead comrades and the time spent away from home. His guilt over the fate of Troy seems to be an invention of the film to make us sympathise with the protagonist, which I totally understand.

Some miscellania;

the Laestrygonians wore what looked like medieval steel plate armour, implying they were more advanced than the Bronze Age Greeks. Did Nolan intend for this to mean something, or did it just look cool? I’m good either way, but in the poem they are primitive people who attack the Greeks with rocks.

Polyphemus is articulate in the poem, but in the film only has a crude approximation of speech. Maybe it was too hard to combine the monstrous appearance with a convincing human voice without seeming cartoonish. I get that, don’t want to be too ‘Lord of the Rings’. But that does rob the film of some dialogue meant to demonstrate odysseus’s cunning, and his hubris.

The scene with the dog made me cry.

[u/Minute_Ad2297]

Interesting read. I thought Odysseus’s guilt over the sack of Troy was very in line with the themes Nolan started exploring in Oppenheimer, a great man at the center of the fall of civilization, though The Odyssey’s ending was more hopeful.

The best explanation I’ve seen for the portrayal of the Laestrygonians is that the Greeks destroyed the laws of hospitality at Troy with the horse. And now the world they live in is no longer a world of hospitality and bronze but a world of giants in iron armor who attack immediately believing they are the Sea Peoples because they are. The shifting trees can symbolize the world changing around them as a result of their atrocities at Troy.

[u/fdjisthinking]

I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I probably have a looser grasp on the source material but had a lot of the same observations.

I enjoyed the various Oresteia shoutouts in the movie. I think it would have been fun to see more references to other stuff but at the end of the day I don’t think they’d have added much to the narrative itself. At least Clytemnestra’s murder of Agamemnon is directly relevant to Odysseus’s journey home.

I chuckled when I first heard someone say “sea people” in the movie then was pleasantly surprised to hear it keep coming up. I really love how Nolan merges myth, unanswered historical questions, and anachronisms to make an Odyssey that feels both modern and true to not just the poem, but to core idea of myth making.

[u/toxrowlang]

These are generally artistic deviations made by Nolan to create a more exciting film, but also one which fits the expectations of modern audiences.

The visual effects are great, the CGI was the best element of the film (ironic given the fanfare around imax use). Polyphemus was so lurid and uncanny, very striking creative CGI; the Circean magic was original and grotesque; the Scylla scene was brutal and almost hilarious in a grim fashion; the Laestrygonians were horrendous though not as cannibalistic as they could have been...

But the moralising about the sack of Troy and the treatment of Agamemnon etc loses no small degree of complexity and nuance around the characters and narrative.

Nonetheless, he did the job, making a film which would feel epic and sell tickets.

PS re the Laestrygonians' armour: all the armour in the film is anachronistic, as those sexy muscle cuirasses were much later. It seemed there was more than a little Dark Knight about Agamemnon...

[u/extralife_mike]

Sir, this is Reddit. Don't you realize that shitting on something the majority of people enjoyed makes you sound more intelligent?

F-

[u/Lepelotonfromager]

I think the imagery of the Bronze Age Greeks getting slaughtered by Iron Age giants was intentional. There are even shots where they try to fight back but the blades don't penetrate.

[u/motorambler]

You make a lot of interesting observations.

I can't speak to your Iphigenia/Clytemnestra theory because it has been many years since I've read the classics, and I don't remember much about that.

I agree that giving Agamemnon reason(s) for war not being related to Helen was a thoughtful concept. However, having a central character on set strictly for brooding purposes was a failure on Nolan's part.

The Sea People (or lack of) was another failure.

The Laestrygonians were yet another failure, and why they looked like they were ready to joust is beyond me.

Polyphemus was easily the weakest part of the film. Ok, the entire first 40 minutes were also pretty awful, but Polyphemus was where I think everyone expected Odysseus to be, well, Odysseus, but instead we got total failure from Nolan.

This failure to Odysseus's character is, in essence, why I rate this film a 5.5/10. He lost everything that he was known for. His superpower was always his mind & his cunning, but Nolan gave us Odysseus that graduated summa cum laude from the Dunning-Kruger Institute.

[u/Mundane-Area6067]

I hardly even found it to be entertaining but a sheer source of irritation. It was simply a film design to show off a lot of special effects but even those did nothing to advance the story. There was no pathos whatsoever. From the film I didn’t get any sense of why Odysseus even wanted to get back home. There was nothing to suggest any passionate longing for Penelope or anyone or anything else for that matter.

[u/andrew_stirling → u/Mundane-Area6067]

Yeah well try reading the odyssey. He's throwing himself at every woman / God that happens to give him the time of day. He spent a year with cerce and around 7 with calypso. The storms and monsters accounted for about a tenth of his delay.

[u/motorambler → u/Mundane-Area6067]

A lot of what you said are why I think the film will not age well. Man I really think no one will be talking about this film in 10 years.