Live data from Hacker News

An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

lrb.co.uk

31–40 of 183 posts

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#31
post #27

I am not an expert in this space, so hopefully an actual expert will come by and clarify, but I am pretty sure that "The current consensus [...] is that there was no such thing as ‘the sea peoples’" is just flat out untrue. (IIUC, what is the current consensus is that they did not "cause" the late bronze age collapse). That colors how I read the rest of the review. Edit: Personally, I enjoyed that particular addition…

Willson is actual expert. I also think that it is ok to be unrealistic in myth movie.

I thought she would be, but apparently classicist and historian have less overlap than I'd have assumed. I don't know how else to explain this one, I was shocked when I read that line.

r/askhistorians, which as far as I know is reliable, does not seem to dispute that they at least existed. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mwbdpd/why_...

Edit: Charitably, it could be awkward phrasing - not that the sea peoples didn't exist, but that the whole hypothesis around them is believed to be off.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#32
"But the representation of Odysseus as a reluctant warlord makes a nonsense of the movie’s imagined world. We are not shown that war or killing are bad, only that good men sometimes feel bad about it – a very different point. Any serious depiction of violence, ancient or modern, must show the perspectives of the victims as well as the perpetrators, and the Homeric poems easily clear the bar – but Nolan doesn’t. The Trojans are dehumanised by their masks; we know none of them by name or face. The hands of Odysseus and Telemachus are bloodied only by the most righteous, computer-game modes of killing, and we feel no pity or horror at the deaths of their victims, whether Trojans, giants, suitors or slaves. During the sack of Troy – which he supposedly organised – Odysseus gazes around in bewilderment and horror, as if he has never seen a massacre before."

----------

Odysseus, in the poem, is a bit of a monster by modern standards. He's intemperate, devious, unfaithful, greedy, and excessively violent in all the very human ways that modern Hollywood heroes aren't. Homeric Greeks were basically pirates, and not the Hollywood kind either! One of the epithets commonly applied to Odysseus in the poems is "sacker of cities", and that's in a very literal sense.

Were Odysseus played as written, modern audiences would have a very hard time empathizing with him. That's the real challenge to successfully adapting the Odyssey. When reading the original, you have abundant time to get into the mental space of the bronze age Achaeans. In a three hour movie that's a lot harder to do.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#33

I'm not a scholar of Greek history but as layman, I thought it was good and good enough to recommend. Visually it is quite beautiful and despite what the review states it does have an ethical thread at its core it follows. There are some choices I just don't understand; the armor, mostly the Trojans and Agamemnon's, looks like something that would be on a low budget scifi tv show and jamming a bunch of well known cel…

Personally I thought that the odd looking fantasy-armor was an interesting way to highlight that what we are seeing is a story, not history. As highlighted by the storyteller in Odysseus' palace. But I think it also ties in thematically with the heroes-and-monsters aspect.

The first we see of Agamemnon is his crazy armor with the golden spine running down the back of the helmet, and it immediately establishes that some people in this story are much larger than life, so much so that they seem sort of monstrous and offputting. Agamemnon looks like Darth Vader, striding forward in that black and gold armor. And in a way, Agamemnon has made himself a monster to achieve his personal ambition, sacrificing his daughter at the outset. When he's later killed in bed by his embittered wife, it's in maybe the one scene of the movie where we see him without his armor - having returned home and stripped it off. Perhaps he thinks he can be a person again. But he is no longer the man he was, and his home too has become hostile to him. In making himself a legend, he has shut himself out from the life he had.

More broadly, he (and the kings who went with him) has perhaps even destroyed that way of life entirely by violating larger social contracts, such as taking Troy by a deceptive offering to a shared god. Which is the core shame that's hounding Odysseus through his trials (along with some survivor's guilt).

Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. It felt both familiar and fresh at the same time, and made a lot of initially odd seeming choices that I wound up finding interesting and thematic.

Big recommendation.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#34
post #29

Well the author, an expert in Homer, doesn't hold punches that's for sure. It also shows a literature critic doesn’t really translate into a film critic because this piece is borderline pedantic about the adaptation script and not the movie as a whole.

She’s not a lit critic, rather a classicist and the author of the most popular recent translations of Homer.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#35

I haven't seen it yet, but how do people feel it compares to Lord of the Rings as an adaptation?

I don't think it does? Nor is it trying to. LotR was something that happens once every 50 years - a movie series that's as good as the source material and holds quality over 3 movies (wonder why they didn't do the Hobbit as well). The Oddyssey is a summer blockbuster. A good one, I definitely recommend it, but far from memorable.

> wonder why they didn't do the Hobbit as well

Because it should've been done as just one movie. Someone got greedy and decided to split it up into three movies, and it was such a drag watching all of them - and I say this as a huge LotR fan who enjoyed all the extended LotR cuts.

The other big issue was the frame rate of the movie, 48FPS was a risky move and didn't really translate well to the big screen, it felt like everything was sped up and was hyper realistic.

The CGI was also bad and hasn't aged well, like if you watch LotR now it still looks pretty good, whereas the the monsters in the Hobbit look like some 3D printed figurines covered in oil, or have an uncanny valley effect.

In fact there was so much wrong with the movie that it's easier to just list the good things (which, for me, was the music).

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#37
post #34
post #29

Well the author, an expert in Homer, doesn't hold punches that's for sure. It also shows a literature critic doesn’t really translate into a film critic because this piece is borderline pedantic about the adaptation script and not the movie as a whole.

She’s not a lit critic, rather a classicist and the author of the most popular recent translations of Homer.

Also one of the most controversial translations, if memory serves.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#38

I read about 2/3rds of this before giving up. People who are upvoting it: what are you getting from this review that I'm missing, exactly?

She is a scholar of the subject and wrote a well regarded translation of the Odyssey. She is a subject matter expert. And Nolan mentioned her in reference to his movie. I read the whole review and now I’ll read her book.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#39
[after a pretty scathing review which I mostly agree with]

> Despite all this, the release of The Odyssey is still an event to celebrate. In what we are told is the streaming era, this epic is bringing audiences back to cinemas. In what we are told is a time of declining literacy and the ‘death of the humanities’, translations of The Odyssey, including mine, are flying off the shelves. Some of those who buy the book or show up in cinemas to watch Tom Holland may go on to study ancient Greek. Perhaps the film will persuade a few college administrators not to cut their literature, language and history departments. Nolan, who studied English at University College London – where students still study The Odyssey as a first year ‘foundational text’ – is doing his best to get the general public reading again, and I am grateful.

Re: An Uncomplicated Man – A review of The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan

#40

> "The Odyssey features his usual combination of grandiosity and superficiality". A pretty succinct summation of Nolan as a filmmaker.

I would say that Nolan is no more grandiose and superficial than Kubrick. Their films aren't about characters and plot, they're about images and sound.

Not at all. Most Kubrick's movies are illustrations of specific, well defined theses (for example about human ambition and violence) and the plots are tightly fit to that purpose. Nolan makes adventure movies where the plot is a succession of action scenes- any other sequence or choice of situations would work the same.
Post reply on HN