The Odyssey Controversy

[Willie Oleson]

It has not reached the backlash level of Snow White yet, but it's definitely the most talked about film today.
From "most genuine masterpiece in the history of mankind" to "culture-destroying trash", and not much in between.
I'm not the target audience for this kind of fantasy epic, and I'm not familiar with the story therefore I couldn't say what's wrong or right about this latest interpretation.
But there appears to be a determination to get the best film ever made, and if it isn't perfectly agreeable then all hell breaks loose.

But it's all pointless because nobody's ever going to beat The Godfather or The Exorcist. Or Speed, the most exciting blockbuster ever made.
There was no need for controversies, just one great film after another. I'm also not a Spielberg fan but he always delivered what he promised and people loved his films.

But this modern kind of grandiosity, trying to buy a legacy (and beat the 20th century) with billions of dollars - nope, that's not going to work.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Yeah, these kinds of controversies now seem to have transitioned into controversy-for-controversy sake, presumably to sell additional tickets on the backs of the outrage (as opposed the heartfelt Helen of Trans-boy hysteria stuff we witnessed up until recently).

Lupita plays a dual role, so I hope that makes sense in the script. Elizabeth Taylor's casting in 1963's CLOPATRA caused controversy too, and some people still don't know The Queen of the Nile wasn't Egyptian (so that's a little different).

I, too, have heard gushing reviews and ghastly ones. I guess I'd have to go see it, or stream it somewhere. But epics nowadays feel so off-putting.

 

[Angela Channing]

I've not seen it yet, I'm going to wait until it comes to streaming.

I think it's daft that some people are quite happy to accept mythical and fantasy animals such as the one-eyed Cyclops, the half-bird/half-woman Sirens, the multi-headed Scylla, and the witch Circe who can transform people into pigs but they can't accept a person of colour or a trans person playing a character in the film.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I sort of agree that it doesn't seem to matter in the grand scheme of things, and Matt Damon with his "American Football" face doesn't look Greek at all.
But if you already know what it is supposed to look like in the way the characters are described, then why go out of your way to make it look completely different (or at least questionable)?
Why is convoluted casting better than logical casting?
You could also give the Cyclop two eyes because it's all fantasy so it doesn't matter anyway.

At the same time I find it very unpleasant that certain actors receive so much negative attention because of these controversies. And you can't blame them for accepting the roles in these mega-Hollywood blockbusters. The casting process is not their responsibility.
And if you don't like it then simply don't watch it, don't pay for a seat in the cinema. At the end of the day, they will only listen to money.

 

[Emelee]

Are people still obsessing with these objections? Then how about objecting every time a pale white dude plays Jesus, who in reality was a Middle Eastern Jew?

I do not care one bit if no one in The Odyssey looks Greek. I don't care that they speak modern English. But if I were to object to one of those things, it would be the language. Because I don't know exactly how Homer pictured the characters, but I know for sure he didn't picture them speaking English.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Then how about objecting every time a pale white dude plays Jesus, who in reality was a Middle Eastern Jew?

A middle eastern Arab -- which the Vatican knew and kept hidden for two thousand years.

 

[Willie Oleson]

But if I were to object to one of those things, it would be the language

I think even the Greeks wouldn't understand ancient Greek language therefore I don't mind the English language for broad appeal (and it's going to be dubbed in French in France anyway, possibly also Monaco).
It appears that this film uses the word "dad" instead of "father" and I agree that it sounds a bit lazy.
But then I'm reminded of Mickey Rourke in A Prayer For The Dying in which he calls Father Michael (Bob Hoskins) "Far'r" - and he says it a lot and it's super-cringe.
So, pseudo-authenticity isn't always a great thing.

 

[Rove]

I'm not the target audience for this kind of fantasy epic

I use to be but I'm just tired of the heavy laden CGI. The extended...extended...extended movie trailer was enough for me to say, nah. A work colleague is going to see it tonight with his dad however dad is concerned about the length and at 173 minutes I understand why. Another work-mate was going to see it on the Imax screen while visiting Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) but discovered all sessions are sold out till September.

Odd how many have issue with some of the casting choices yet I personally don't see Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway and Tom Holland in this kind of genre.

I'll offer judgement when it pops up on streaming or is discounted to rent at $4.99.

 

[Crimson]

Although I have a lifetime interest in Greek myths -- thanks, CLASH OF THE TITANS -- this movie has zero appeal to me. I find all of Nolan's films, except maybe THE PRESTIGE, to be long, dour and visually drab. Someone on Twitter said his entire aesthetic is mid-Century business class airport lounge and I can't unsee it; all Brutalism in shades of grey.

The "color blind" casting is so old fashioned, a relic from 20 years ago when this was seen as progressive. Most of this casting is going to look as ridiculous as Tony Curtis in SPARTACUS or Edward G Robinson in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

or Edward G Robinson in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Oh, you didn't like him in that??

 

[lbf522]

Unfortunately some people will always complain about a movie or series based no nonsense.

 

[Rove]

*UPDATE...

Workmate said it was good, not great. His recommendation to me was wait until its release on streaming or rent it. He knows me too well.

 

[Willie Oleson]

To visit a Catholic region in Ireland and address a pastor as "Far'r" is on my to-do list. If I make it a ferry trip I'll have enough time to watch all of The Odyssey and thus kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Now the writer whose translation of the original work inspired Christopher Nolan has given her two penn'orth.

The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.

It's a family-friendly audiovisual spectacle, like an elaborate Fourth of July fireworks display - and with about the same level of narrative and emotional depth.

There are more female characters than in most Nolan movies, thanks to the source material. But none of them has much to say, in contrast to the characterisations in the poem.

Given her interest in the source material, she's probably more qualified than most critics. But I suppose there's no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[Angela Channing]

Now the writer whose translation of the original work inspired Christopher Nolan has given her two penn'orth:







Given her interest in the source material, she's probably more qualified than most critics. But I suppose there's no such thing as bad publicity.

I found Emily Wilson's comments bizarre, to be honest. They seem to reflect the mindset of someone who doesn't know the difference between reviewing a literary text and adapting a massive piece of source material to turn it into a commercially successful film for a modern audience.

The Odyssey is a film entertainment, not a filmed edition of Homer's poem. Christopher Nolan isn't required to produce a six-hour, line-by-line recreation of the original text simply to satisfy literary purists. Film and literature are two completely different forms of storytelling and a good adaptation should be judged on how well it works as a piece of cinema and not on how closely it reproduces every detail of the source material.

Had Nolan followed Wilson's apparent approach, I suspect audiences would have had to sit through a considerably longer film, packed with material that might be fascinating on the page but would probably make the cinematic experience a major bore. There is a reason screenwriters and directors adapt source material rather than simply reproduce it.

Historian Tom Holland, who actually knows a thing or two about Homer and Greek mythology, has seen the film twice and described it as "by some way the best cinematic adaptation of a Greek myth I have ever seen". He added that it "honours Homer while simultaneously making something new of him". That sounds to me like a far more sensible way of looking at the adaptation.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2074383569120546863

I've not seen the film myself yet, so I have no idea whether it is brilliant, terrible or somewhere in between, but I do know that I don't expect the film adaptation to be like a scholarly translation of the original poem. A screenwriter and director should have the freedom to reshape, condense and reinterpret the source material to make it work for a modern audience. That's not betraying the original, it is what adaptation is.

Perhaps Emily Wilson should have remembered that before criticising the film for not being the film she would have made. There's a difference between being faithful to Homer and being slavishly faithful to every line of Homer. The former can produce great cinema. The latter could just produce a very long and very boring film. Maybe that's why she writes for the London Review of Books, which probably has a circulation of about 12 and Christopher Nolan writes a screenplay for a international blockbuster that is seen by millions.

 

[Willie Oleson]

"the food looks horrible".....hmm, that's food for thought. Is it horrible as in "unpleasant to watch" or as in "looks inauthentic"?

I'm very squeamish about food in pictures and film, like if someone here posts a big close-up picture of a hamburger or a pizza then I find that revolting.
A few days ago I watched Oliver Reed and Candice Bergen slobbery munching on peaches in The Hunting Party and I had to watch it because the scene was telling something about Candice Bergen's character's state of mind. But it was difficult.
I don't even like eating, it's a necessary evil. And sometimes a bad habit.

The Odyssey is a film entertainment, not a filmed edition of Homer's poem. Christopher Nolan isn't required to produce a six-hour, line-by-line recreation of the original text simply to satisfy literary purists.

Yeah, all of a sudden everybody's very familiar with the poem and also very concerned about its literary purity. "See how intellectual I am?"
I had never heard of this Homer guy - it makes me think of Homer Simpson - and what does he know about ancient Greek anyway? Plot twist: Homer is a bizarre translation of the name Homerus and that name sounds much more familiar to me.

I think most people who pay to watch these films just want the big spectacle, and to me the trailer looks like a sequel to Clash Of The Titans (2010) starring the hilariously miscast Liam Neeson (but Ralph Fiennes looks very good as Hades).
But these spectacular theme park-ride films are not the greatest films ever made. It's not on the same level as, say, Brazil or There Will Be Blood.
There's really nothing here to get worked up about. It's a bearded Matt Damon in Boats & Monsters.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I found Emily Wilson's comments bizarre, to be honest. They seem to reflect the mindset of someone who doesn't know the difference between reviewing a literary text and adapting a massive piece of source material to turn it into a commercially successful film for a modern audience.

To add balance to the parts of the article I quoted, Wilson did at least acknowledge:

The release of The Odyssey is still an event to celebrate.

This epic is bringing audiences back to cinemas... translations of Odyssey, including mine, are flying off the shelves... [and] perhaps the film will persuade a few college administrators not to cut their literature, language and history departments.

Nolan... is doing his best to get the general public reading again, and I am grateful.

I'd probably equate her experience to me watching the MCU when I was familiar with many of the stories from their original medium. It's a big adjustment and if one isn't careful it leads to pedantic nitpicking (look at some of the critical reactions to reboots and remakes of favourite films and series from those who are passionate about the originals). Luckily I did enjoy the MCU and hopefully viewed it with some balance. It does sometimes sadden me that these adaptions with all their liberties have overshadowed the original material, but then it's presumably led some to explore that material for the first time and kept it alive.

I had never heard of this Homer guy - it makes me think of Homer Simpson

When I first watched The Simpsons, I assumed Homer's name was deliberately ironic, since he's at the opposite end of the intellectual scale to the poet. Turned out he was actually named after Matt Groening's own father (who in turn was named after the poet).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I don't even like eating, it's a necessary evil. And sometimes a bad habit.

Profundity.

 

[Toni]

I finally was convinced/blackmailed/bribed into go see the movie. 10 minutes into it, I said to my friend: "Oh my God, I´ve already seen here 5 actors I totally despise!"

It´s a version for ticktockers (you say it like that, don´t you?), for McDonalds fans, not for anyone who has read books all his life. Like a pantomime version with stupid dialogues. Go check "The Return" and compare (if you dare). The FX are laughable, but luckily we also have Jon Bernthal, John Leguizamo and Samantha Morton, here proving how good she could have been in the really great "American Horror Story" seasons.