Nolan’s Odyssey: Homer, But Not Where the Heart Is

Christopher Nolan’s cinematic adaptation of the Odyssey has taken the Media by storm. The promotion for the film has given ample reason to anticipate a faithful and thoughtful adaption: the constant reference to Emily Wilson’s translation, the use of Travis Scott as a nod to the rhapsodic origins, and the use of ancient instruments in the score. The trailer did bring historical accuracy into question, with many comparing Agamemnon’s armour to ‘Batman.’ Despite this, I kept my faith in Nolan.

The film is both dark and aesthetically pleasing, truly placing you into another world, and the nod to the ‘wine-dark sea’ (a notorious Homeric epithet) with the bloodied tide was a nice touch at the start - blood was polluting in the ancient world. There was also much controversy over the star-studded cast, with many expressing a preference for unknown or Greek actors. Whilst I, too, would have perhaps preferred this, I think the actors did as well as the script allowed - Robert Pattinson as Antinous was a particularly excellent casting, and apparently the only castmember who requested to read the script before accepting the role. Samantha Morton’s Circe was an unexpected but interesting portrayal - a stand out performance of the film. Like clay, Odysseus’ men were moulded into their animal transfigurations, reflective of how easily influenced they can be. The intention worked well here, as the moulding technique grounded the scene in reality rather than mystifying it with a predictable magic wand, and Circe muttering ‘go back into your disguise’ rather than some mystic incantation acted as a profound statement on the flaws of the men and their adherence to xenia. The Circe episode is one of the few scenes where Nolan’s inspiration from Wilson is perhaps detectable - not in terms of textual accuracy, but in terms of a pseudo feminist approach. This grounding in reality is prevalent throughout the film, particularly the way in which the gods are presented. While Odysseus had the ability to see the gods, Poseidon is not so much a humanoid presence the way Athena is, therefore it was an excellent creative choice to say the gods conveyed through the elements, for this is how the Greeks would have seen them in reality. However, the portrayal of Athena was somewhat questionable (where was her aegis?). But, referring back to creative choices, the sirens scene was very well executed. Not only was it faithful, but it was a wise decision to not let the audience hear the music, for human capabilities would not be able to create something so haunting.

This is, unfortunately, where my praise for this film terminates. As a classicist, I have torn the Odyssey apart, line by line, and so it is difficult to review this film as an independent piece of art rather than an adaptation.

I do not agree with the discourse online that the film had to be historically accurate, for we truly do not know exactly when the story originated as it was shared via rhapsody. Nolan’s decision not to use traditional bronze-age armour is understandable, as ultimately the film has to be marketable and profitable, and (frustratingly, even though the story is Greek) audiences are already familiar with Roman-style armour. Agamemnon’s armour did exude his threatening nature, regardless of its modernity. However, what I do expect is consistency. Odysseus, his men, and the suitors are dressed like Roman soldiers, Laestryonians in medieval armour, Agamemnon’s men (particularly with the desert backdrop) could have been from the Dune movies, and Agamemnon, as previously mentioned, has been compared to Batman. As ‘cool’ as each design may have looked, this inconsistency really prevented me from absorbing myself into the film, enhancing my awareness that these were simply actors playing dress-up. Agamemnon’s armour was particularly frustrating - why was it so clean? There was not so much as a scratch, as though it was newly forged occasionwear rather than protection for battle. Let us not forget that Agamemnon is a cruel, merciless, and formidable soldier who staged a wedding to coax over his daughter and slaughter her. This is not a man afraid to tarnish his armour, by any means. Then, not to mention the Viking ships, the shrill, false American accents spouting modern language (I found the use of ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ to be particularly jarring), and Charlize Theron’s Calypso in her Boohoo fishnet number.

Moving onto the writing, I must express my disappointment. Firstly, it is evident that Nolan, despite his accolades, was intimidated by the notion of adapting the great Odyssey - there were points where his trust in the audience was minimal. This was mostly evident in the discussion of xenia, which is constantly - constantly - referred to as Zeus’ Law. For an audience unfamiliar with the Odyssey, it is obviously important to mention this concept, however, in the original text xenia is not discussed so literally, it is an unspoken and mutually beneficial moral code of conduct, effectively demonstrated with trust in the audience. There is even a point where Odysseus refers to the time period as the Bronze Age, which quite simply would not have occurred. Then, as much media discourse has concurred with, Christopher Nolan is a weak writer when it comes to female characters. To many classicists, including Dame Mary Beard herself, the Odyssey is an intrinsically female poem. Circe and Calpyso consume eight of the ten years between the end of the Trojan War and his return to Ithaca, yet their roles felt rushed. Calypso appears throughout due to the films nonlinear structure, and while the original story is, itself, nonlinear, Calypso's role in the movie feels a little pointless. We do not see him arrive there, nor do we see the development of their relationship, nor his yearning. There is no reason for emotional investment, she is there to explain his homecoming and to include the lotus without making room for an entire lotus-eaters episode. As for Circe, the sexual relationship with Odysseus was eradicated from the film. I understand that this detracts from his relationship with Penelope, and that the power struggle between them could, at times, be viewed as problematic by a modern audience. However, I think that Odysseus’ betrayal of Penelope and later regret and yearning adds to the emotional investment I was able to have in the book (and Penelope, might I add, was suspiciously close with Amphimonous). There is certainly, I believe, a way to include the relationship between the two without totally derailing our like for Odysseus as a character and without encouraging negative perceptions and stereotypes of women. The most memorable parts of the book (aside from the cyclops episode) are the encounters and relationships Odysseus has with with women. Anticleia’s erasure was more heartbreaking than her emotional role in the original story. While father-son relationships is a key theme, Anticleia’s longing-induced suicide emphasises how loved and needed Odysseus is - I think it is important that this is passionately expresed beyond Penelope. It is the most prevalent reunion in the Underworld, in my opinion, and it feels as though what is an enduringly loved and emotional tale has been reduced to a war film. I was also surprised by the total erasure of Phaecia and it’s royal family, a key example of Odysseus resisting temptation. The change to the ending was also a surprise. It was … nice? Perhaps a tad cliché, they quite literally sailed off into the sunset together - the end. For the Odysseus I know, this was a rogue choice. I do not believe after so many years of travel, discovery, and yearning for home, he would decided to immediately depart again into the unknown. It made him come across as more focussed on property than as someone with genuine patriotism. He retrieved his woman, killed the suitors who disrespected his property, gave his sone the crown, and left. The couple’s reunion in the book is far more romantic: Odysseus passes Penelope’s ‘bed-test,’ allowing her to recognise him (only he would know that he carved their bed from a rooted olive tree), and Athena extends the duration of night, allowing them to catch up after so many years. Furthermore, after Odysseus massacres the suitors, he has all of the maids hanged for their sexual relationships with the suitors. From an academic perspective, this is a significant scene, raising many questions around female sexuality and mistreatment, but it is also for this reason that I understand why it was cut.

It was inevitable that some episodes would have to be cut, however I am surprised by Nolan’s choices. The Laestrygonians were not a stand out episode of the story for me, and it is surprising that Nolan not only opted for them over another episode or further developing the ones already involved, but he changed their entire nature. Whilst watching, I was confused as to which scene I was watching, convinced I had forgotten an episode as the Laestrygonians were a cannibal race - Nolan’s were not cannibals, it was just a battle sequence. Flashbacks to the Trojan War came in abundance - context is absolutely necessary, but there was so much that it felt as though half the film was PTSD-induced flashbacks to a war that was not even in the Odyssey. If less time was spent on this, then Nolan would have been able to further develop the parts that felt rushed . As previously mentioned, it is the resistance of temptation (in part) that makes Odysseus such a ‘complicated man’ - something which Emily Wilson rightly observes to be absent in her vitriolic review of the film. Aside from the temptation, his hubris is also a huge pitfall for him, evidenced in the infamous ‘Nobody’ joke and his refusal to tell his men what was in the bag of winds - both of which were also cut from the movie (shocker). While the Aeolia episode was cut in its entirety, the Polyphemus scene was not (thankfully), and having watched it, I understand the need for the cut. Nolan reportedly tried to make the joke work but, unfortunately, could not. The way it was done, ultimately, there was no need for the joke per say, but this did remove a whole other side to Odysseus’ personality as a consequence.

Overall, Nolan’s Odyssey was brilliant film, evidenced by its critical acclaim. It is a great war film, but it is not a great Odyssey. I found Matt Damon’s Odysseus to be rather one-dimensional and the female characters disregarded, thus destroying the most significant facets of the poem. I am pleased that the classics have been put on peoples radar by Hollywood, but do hope that those who have watched it do not feel as though they are now familiar with the story. Lupita Nyongo, in a promotional interview, said she would ask Homer why he gave women such lacking screen time… but he did. In fact, as the true identity of Homer remains unknown, scholars have even questioned whether ‘he’ was a woman due to the amount of attention paid to women and domestic duties such as weaving (this was highly unusual for the time). I suppose we must question how far ancient epics have the space to be adapted in today’s world. What do we gain or lose from changing the story? Is it not more thought provoking if we allow ourselves to be made uncomfortable by it?