'It was outstanding,' wrote one of my classicist friends in a WhatsApp group after seeing Christopher Nolan's film of The Odyssey a couple of weeks ago. 'The best kind of adaptation, which makes unexpected choices that allow you to see the ancient text in a new way. Nolan understands the Odyssey better and deeper than any of the Muskrat critics.'
I'm inclined to agree, though in terms of considering it as an adaptation as distinct from purely as a film in its own right, I should admit that while I studied the poem in college, and went on to teach it for five years at university and three years at secondary level, and have since dipped in to it plenty of times, it's probably been twenty years or so since I've read the whole thing in depth. Watching the film the first time -- I've seen it twice, one on IMAX and once in 70mm -- was, perhaps appropriately, both a new and a memory-evoking experience. My take on it has generally been that it's a faithful but dynamic adaptation, one that avoids the traps of slavish fidelity and pedantic antiquarianism while highlighting some themes and ideas within the story that are of special relevance today, such that it shows to powerful effect why we should still care today about stories told and poems recited in a rocky corner of Europe almost three thousand years ago.
Not that it's perfect: the dialogue at times is dreadfully clunky. It's not all clunky, by any means -- Emily Wilson's comment that she would have been 'ashamed to have written any part of this script' is bizarre, not to mention unfair given her supposed gratitude for the film's existence -- but there are definitely a few stinkers. Pretty much every time characters mention how their 'civilization' is under threat or their 'age of bronze' is ending I found myself wincing. Lines like these didn't ring true, in a way that references to the impending collapse of their world might have done. But beyond that? Honestly, I've no complaints.
Yes, there are a couple of choices I wouldn't have made -- it would never have occurred to me to lose the whole Phaeacians' sequence, with Nausicaa and Arete and Alcinous, and Odysseus showing off his surpassing excellence as an athlete and a storyteller, but think losing that meant the wanderings could be retold organically and cinematically, rather than as a giant info-dump, and could be presented in an immediate way, rather than as the hero's long-processed story about things that had happened years earlier. I missed too the visit to Nestor's palace at Pylos, though perhaps on screen having two sequences where Telemachus has inconclusive meetings with his father's old comrades might have felt somewhat repetitive.
So yes, I wouldn't have made those changes, but maybe that's why I'm not one of the most accomplished and successful filmmakers in the world.
It's the nature of adaptations to adapt, after all, and surely this must be all the more the case when a story transcends its geographical origins and becomes the property of all mankind, as is the case with the greatest stories. Even in Antiquity Greek poets realised this, as did the Romans who learned from them. The peerless Aeschylus described his plays, for instance, as slices cut from Homer's banquet, and it's interesting that the film opts to realise something akin to his version of the murder of Agamemnon rather than Homer's version, just as in the character of Sinon it draws from Virgil's account of the Fall of Troy. It's perhaps a relief, though, that it doesn't opt for Euripides' take on Helen: there's no suggestion here that Helen sat out the war in Egypt, while a phantom version of her distracted everyone in Troy. Interestingly, the final sequence in the film draws as much from medieval Dante as from Homer, with Odysseus and Penelope sailing off to the unknown West to make sacrifice; the Odyssey does feature an injunction that after restoring peace in Ithaca Odysseus must travel and make sacrifice, but Homer has him travelling inland, whereas it is Dante, who places Odysseus -- or Ulysses -- in almost the deepest circle of Hell, who has him sailing west beyond the Pillars of Hercules to his eventual death in the uncharted Ocean.
Visually, the scene resembles nothing quite so much as closing 'Grey Havens' sequence in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which seems somewhat ironic given how Peter Jackson's 2003 adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's masterwork had itself cut the 'Scouring of the Shire' sequence that would have preceded that section, said sequence itself telling the story -- perhaps via 'The Return of Ulysses', the closing chapter of 'The Wind in the Willows' -- of an adventure returning to his home and clearing out the louts who had taken it over. But that, after all, is the nature of stories that are retold: they change with the telling, fuelled by the inspirations of their tellers and the needs of their audiences.
Does the film get the hero right? I think so. Certainly he's intelligent, brave, patient, and skilful in various ways, with his courage and fortitude being obvious. Look, he's not the swashbuckling Errol Flynn type character he can sometimes be in the poem, but much of the swagger of Homer's Odysseus is in the stories he tells and the ways he tells them - the film opts to show the stories as recollections of directly experienced events, rather than as rather boastful narratives, so I think reducing that dimension of Odysseus is pretty reasonable. I say reducing rather than losing, because I don't agree at all with the takes that say the film doesn't show him as cunning, clever, wily, or even dangerously arrogant. It does show him, after all, having devised the scheme with the Trojan Horse, figuring out with enough rope his soldiers would be able to tie enough straw to themselves to blend in among the Cyclops's sheep and escape him, foolishly insulting the Cyclops with a final arrow shot, and coming up with the idea of deafening his men to the Sirens while exposing himself to their song. And of course the final plan to take on the suitors is his.
So yes, the classic attributes of Odysseus are there, albeit in some cases less prominently than in the poem. There's a sense in which Nolan in his adaptation has adjusted the sliders on his graphic equaliser to tone down Odysseus' cunning and swagger and raise up his trauma and sorrow, with the latter being things Nolan evidently thinks matter today. The trauma and sorrow are definitely there in the poem, we should remember, with Odysseus sitting and weeping on the shore of Calypso's island or weeping again as he hears the bard Demodocus tells the story of the Trojan Horse, and Nolan leans in to this, presenting Odysseus as being, in a sense, a kind of traumatised veteran, guilt-ridden by the horrors he has unleased. On this aspect of the character, I wonder if Nolan's drawing in some sense from Jonathan Shay's 1994 study Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character and its 2002 sequel Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming. Certainly he seems to be highlighting the fact that war is a horrendous thing, and that even wars launched for supposedly just reasons almost inevitably entail the unleashing of horrors; we do not see the rapes committed by Greek soldiers in Troy, but we hear the screams of women and girls.
What about the other characters? Here people will differ, of course, but I thought Robert Pattinson's Antinous superb, Anne Hathaway's Helen excellent, and John and Leguizamo's Eumaeus first-rate, while I felt Tom Holland, Zendaya, Elliott Page, Himesh Patel, and Samantha Morton all did fine jobs as Telemachus, Athena, Sinon, Eurylochus, and Circe. The only significant figures that didn't quite work for me -- almost, but not quite, were Calypso, in whom I think Charlize Theron is underutilised, and Menelaus, where it's hard at times to see behind other thuggish characters John Bernthal has played. And yet, maybe that's a good thing: Telemachus may be visiting him as a wise peer of his father, and as a sensible guide, but the thuggishness the actor carries helps sell the idea that he's responsible for the scars that mar his wife's face.
On which, advance discussion of the film focused, of course, on the decision to cast Lupita Nyong'o as Helen, with it being, apparently, unthinkable that Helen might be played by a black actress. I'm not entirely sure why anybody should have been especially distressed by this, not least because I'm not sure what the genetic composition of a demi-god who was sired by a god in the form of a swan and was hatched from an egg would be. Yes, Homer describes her as 'white-armed' but that's just a conventional term to indicate an aristocratic character without the sun-burning effects of manual labour. Perhaps more importantly, it seems churlish to complain in a world where we're used to that other great beauty of Greek legend, Andromeda, having been played by white actresses in both the 1981 and 2010 versions of Clash of the Titans, and having over the centuries been conventionally depicted by white painters as white. Andromeda, after all, was an Ethiopian princess, with 'Aethiopian' having been the standard Greek term for black Africans. Indeed, these Aethiopians were seen by the Greeks as especially close to the gods: in the first book of the Iliad we're told of the gods banqueting with them, a thing they don't seem to have done with anybody of a fairer-skinned persuasion, with the goddess Iris towards the end of the Iliad feasting with them again, while in the Odyssey we hear in the first few lines and again in the fifth book of Poseidon feasting with them. What's more, when speaking with the dead in the Odyssey, Odysseus says that the beauty of Achilles' son Neoptolemos was surpassed only by that of 'godlike Memnon' the Aethiopian king who fought alongside the Trojans. It's almost as though if a filmmaker wanted to present a character from Greek legend as being almost uncannily beautiful there's a decent case for picking a suitably attractive black actor, and that to find this inconceivable one would have to be straightforwardly racist or not especially clued in on the conventions of ancient legend and literature.
A major challenge with this sort of adaptation, of course, is how 'authentic' it should be. Some weeks ago I had a bizarre episode on The-Thing-That-Used-To-Be-Twitter where I'd tweeted about an annoying seminar I once attended and over three million sets of eyes, many doubtless bionic, spotted this, with the owner of one set accusing me of carrying water for what he was convinced would be 'the least accurate Hollywood movie ever'. 'I dunno,' I said, 'in a world where U-571, Braveheart, Gladiator, Michael Collins, and Prince of Thieves already exist, I'd be loath to call any film I've not yet seen -- much less one significantly set in imaginary magical lands -- "the least accurate Hollywood movie ever".'
And that was without mentioning 300, of which my favourite lecturer, the wonderful late Victor Connerty, memorably spat 'It. Was. Garbage.'
Other than Helen being black, what were the objections typically raised ahead of the film's release?
One was that the weather in the film, as shown in trailers and promotional picture, looked anything other than idyllic. Greece, so the cries went, is a sunny, bright, colourful land, and Nolan is misrepresenting it by showing it as dreary, almost like England. Now, I tend to think that people who said this sort of thing had never visited Greece, or had hardly done so. I've been just a handful of times, though that's included spring and autumn visits, as well as two summers working on archaeological digs in the Peloponnese, and that's been enough for me to see lush fields under grey skies, lethally impenetrable fogs on mountain roads, bitter cold, deluges like I have never experienced in Britain or Ireland. Greek weather, in short, can be awful. And that's not to get into how there were ancients who thought Odysseus' wanderings had taken him far beyond the Mediterranean, how Homer has Odysseus reaching Ithaca shrouded in a magical mist, and how it's a bit silly to assume that a few stills and trailers are representative of the film as a whole.
Another was that it was scandalous that Odysseus' ship is played in the film by a reconstructed Viking ship, tweaked in a few ways to look plausibly ancient Greek. I'm not sure if the people saying this wanted a CGI Greek ship, or several CGI Greek ships, or some reconstructed Greek ships built along what Mycenean or Classical lines. Whatever they wanted, though, I find it rather odd that people can accept French actors playing Italians and American actors playing Greeks and Brazilians playing Persians and balk at the idea of one inanimate object playing another one. Come to Ireland and hire a car so I can show you Berlin's Checkpoint Charlie, the Normandy Beaches, Edinburgh Castle, George Washington's childhood home, and the London prison where Paddington Bear made marmalade and where Michael Caine and Noel Coward planned The Italian Job. George Washington apparently grew up just a couple of miles away, it seems. Frankly, Given Nolan wanted to film in rough waters, and to look convincing doing so, I'm not sure that it was a bad call to deck sturdy replica Viking ships up to look like ancient Greek ones.
Related to this criticism is the complaint that the costumes in the film aren't accurately Mycenean, the late Mycenean period being when the story is supposedly set, or at least late Archaic, that being when the story seems to have been written down. I think this is an interesting criticism, not least as I don't really think it's correct to say that the Odyssey was set in the Mycenean age. Yes, the later Greeks thought the Trojan War happened just after 1200 BC, but they would no more have said 'Mycenean Age' or 'Bronze Age' than they would have said 'Before Christ'. The Trojan War was pretty much the final chapter for them not of the Mycenean Age but of the Heroic Age, a magical never-never time from a long time before. As it happens, there's very little of the historical Mycenean period to be spotted in Homer -- the most obvious Mycenean detail in the Iliad is a reference to a boars' tusk helmet that's featured in a part of the book most scholars think was written later than the rest of the text, and the world of the Odyssey in particular seems to be a fantastic version of the world of late Archaic Greece.
Perhaps, then, since it's a fantasy, the filmmakers could have gone with a more creative or inventive look for the characters' costumes, fusing together to a dazzling extent boars' tusk helmets and Argive panoplies and Dendra panoplies made of bands of bronze with helmets and cuirasses the likes of which the world has never seen, with gleaming gold decoration and even the brightest of enamel colours. Surely, after all, this would have been better than the dowdy brown bronze and leather of the Greek soldiers, outfits the likes of which we've seen in innumerable films?
Well, maybe. But I like how bland and functional Odysseus' outfit and those worn by his men look. They're not distracting. They're about as familiar as can be. They look normal -- insofar as anything in this film looks normal. And that very normality, that very functionality, allows the strange white armour of the Trojans to look slightly alien, slightly unsettling, slightly 'other', and it enables Agamemnon's ridiculous, ostentatious costume to stand out as all the more preposterous. Look at him in his navy-enamelled and gold-embossed outfit, not a scratch on it anywhere, and him looming over his men. In his fascinating 1987 book The Mask of Command, the late John Keegan talked of 'heroic leaders' like Alexander, 'anti-heroic leaders' like Wellington, 'unheroic leaders' like Ulysses S. Grant, and 'false heroic leaders' like Hitler: dressed in his preposterous generalissimo outfit, decked out like the warrior he is not, Nolan's Agamemnon is the model of the fraudulent and narcissistic false heroic leader that Achilles describes in the first book of the Iliad as having the face of a dog and the heart of a deer. Agamemnon looms over the other Greeks in his ostentatious armour, whether looking down of Odysseus as the Ithacan king pays him homage, or standing Vader-like and imperious in the gates of Troy as his troops charge past him to murder, rape, and loot. He, himself, does nothing -- he shows no skill in combat at all, and as far as we can tell kills no Trojans, with the only person to fall by his hand being his own young daughter. It's fitting, then, that when he finally appears without armour he is immediately shown as being slain by his wife.
The sheer familiarity of the Greek outfits helps mark out too just how weird are their storm-tossed and confused encounters at sea, at least as recollected by Odysseus. Circe has the men remove their armour, of course, ahead of one of the most eerie and viscerally disturbing sequences in the film, while the alien character of the Laestrygonians' armour helps underline just how weird, how incomprehensible and terrifying that episode would have been for Odysseus and his men. The Laestyrygonians, as they appear in the poem, are man-eating giants, but unlike the Cyclopes, to which they are related, they are civilized: they live in cities and have a king, unlike Polymphemos and his fellow anarchic pastoralists. Nolan's portrayal of them in fantastic armour that echoes Greek armour while being clearly alien marks out just how bizarre they are. And crucially, the film never explains them: this is simply a horrific and inexplicable episode that emerges from the lotus-drugged depths of Odysseus' memory, and no attempt at decoding the murderous episode is ever put forward.
This sense of confusion and shock is key to the Cyclops episode too, of course, this being one of the real stand-out sequences of the film. Yes, gone is the wordplay and the Errol Flynn style swashbuckling that marks how Odysseus relates this adventure to the Phaeacians in Homer's poem, but instead we have a deeply unsettling, terrifying scene, a scene where the events are shown rather than told, and where the sheer aghast terror of Odysseus and his men in the face of this savage giant is palpable. Sure, it's easy to miss the 'Nobody' pun that's so familiar to people who have known this story since childhood, but aside from that being a tonal choice as much as anything, it's a gag that only works if Polyphemos is presented as just one of many Cyclopes, and I'm not sure the incomprehensible terror of that scene as painted by Nolan would have withstood the impact of the blinded monster chatting with a group of his cheese-making peers. And the impact of that story is retained, since in the poem it's as he's escaping that Odysseus reveals his real name and so brings down the wrath of Poseidon, while in Nolan's version the escape ends with a needless, foolish, cocky, infuriating final arrow shot, after which the crew point out to Odysseys that that insult would have repercussions, since the men had heard the Cyclops calling upon the god Poseidon as his father; in both poem and film Odysseus would have to pay for that impiety.
Questions of piety, it should be stressed, are at the heart of the film, not in the same way they would be in Virgil's Aeneid, of course, but they're there nonetheless, specifically with reference to the code of hospitality known as xenia, that religiously-bound code that is almost omnipresent in Greek literature, so much so that questions about hospitality in the Odyssey were long a staple of Leaving Certificate and first-year university exam papers. As presented by Nolan it appears to resemble nothing so much as Christ's account of the Day of Judgment in Matthew's Gospel:
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Those who would claim -- as did Robert Kaplan twenty or so years back when he wrote in Warrior Politics that 'leadership demands a pagan ethos' -- would do well to consider how some things we think of intrinsically Christian had pagan ancestry, or least expressed ideas that our Greek and Roman and German and Celtic forebears had thought of even before the Son of God taught them in a definitive way. The Greeks, after all, at least held to ideals of ritualised friendship with people from abroad, these relationships being bound by the code of xenia, blessed as they were by Zeus Xenios, Zeus of Hospitality or of Strangers. This code is referred to time and again in both the Iliad and Odyssey, and to unpick it it's not a terrible idea to read how the Roman poet Ovid considered the idea; as a friend has pointed out more than once, it can be hard to read Homer save through the lens of Ovid.
In the Metamorphosis Ovid relates a tale, probably based on an at least slightly older Greek original, of how Zeus and Hermes had wandered the earth in disguise and were denied hospitality by all and sundry, only being treated with respect by the elderly peasant couple Baucis and Philemon. Everyone else was punished for their lack of hospitality by being drowned in a great flood, while Baucis and Philemon lived out their years happily as stewards of the temple into which their home was transformed, eventually themselves being transformed into an intertwining pair of oak and linden trees. Why not, then, have the Greeks of the film believing that strangers should be cared for as we never know when gods walk among us?
Xenia, or 'Zeus's law' as Nolan puts it, is at central to the film and breaches of it are seen and mentioned time and again: Paris had stolen Helen away from Menelaos while his guest; Odysseus had landed at the town of the Cicones and ransacked the town rather than asking for hospitality; the Cyclops had attacked and eaten people who had waited in his cave in the hope of welcoming him home; the Laestrygonians had launched themselves at the Greeks who said they came in peace, slaughtering almost all of them; Circe turned her guests into swine; and most obviously Antinous and the other suitors had squatted for years at the palace of Ithaca, abusing the hospitality of Penelope and Telemachus while treating like dirt those beggars who sought simple hospitality in line with the code. And, of course, the Trojan Horse itself is presented as the supreme breach of the code, a supposed peace offering that was left for the Trojans as a kind of departing guest-gift, in reality being a vehicle for treachery, slaughter, rape, pillage, and arson.
Despite Odysseus's eventual lament, this did not in isolation break Zeus's law. On the contrary, the fact of the war itself showed that the code had been abused in the past. But perhaps, as he realises, this was the point at which the international code of the day, the norms of the day, the civilization of that legendary day were set alight. Never, after all, had anybody ever held up as a good thing Paris's abduction -- or seduction -- of Helen from Menelaos, with Hector in the Iliad being especially critical of this, but the Trojan Horse, that murderous weapon disguised as a peace offering, is presented in the Odyssey as a clever ruse of which the Greeks could and did boast.
It had, after all, shortened the war, and saved Greek lives in the process. In such circumstances, who would even mention whether this trickery, this poison-coated white flag of pseudo-surrender, might have been profoundly dishonourable? And weren't, in Homer's account, the gods in on this?
They were, in Homer's account anyway, Athena having helped Epeios to fashion the horse Odysseus had thought of. Not in Nolan's version, though. He is telling a story that he thinks we need to hear, a story of how if we cast aside our codes and manners, doing whatever it takes to get whatever we want, we set the world on fire. There's more to the film that that, of course, but that's certainly at the heart of it, a warning against being the sort of people who just want to watch the world burn, or who make weapons that enable that to happen.
And so the film ends, with the hero sailing to the ends of the world, while lamenting the end of the world and hoping for a better one to rise from its ruins.
Honestly, I think this was a masterpiece.
