Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 183 posts

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

#111

Post by modo_mario »

watwut wrote: post #97
modo_mario wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's only controversial in the culture wars part of the world. I haven't read her version but I believe that's why I heard it criticised? That the culture war speeps into it. In fact she keeps at it here "The race-neutral casting of Nolan’s Odyssey was inevitably deplored in some quarters. But there is nothing progressive about it. Most of the non-white actors – Zendaya, Lupita Nyong’o, Himesh Patel, Corey Antonio H…

The culture war does not speeps into the translation itself. There is literally no culture war in the book itself. Not even a hint of it. What she wrote in the last paragraph in the review is response to the usual suspects working hard to make the casting into culture war. You know, that black actor being in the movie is a great offense to the classic argument. It is ok to respond to it once that argument was made by…

>Is the underlying assumption that only Musk gets to broadcast his opinions?

No the underlying assumption is that there's no one side to such a thing named a culture war regardless of how much of an idiot musk is. Whitaker and the like criticised her for changing from the original according to personal biases and from her responses she quite alignes with those. There's a progressive perspective there that she does not deny and that i found mentioned in any praise of the translation.

One can't be claiming and praising progressive influences and then claim the detractors are imaginging them the next moment.

>What she wrote in the last paragraph in the review is response to the usual suspects working hard to make the casting into culture war.

What she wrote is a response to the actual movie. We can assume it to be her opinions regardless. And yes it does show a perspective that some would count as woke. Things such as saying that filming in the western sahara is a normalisation of violence against the Sahrawi which 99% of viewers will not have heard of. Saying that the perspective of the victims must be shown and incur horror in a movie portrarying war is not something that falls in line with those ancient retellings, it's her own progressive take regarding media in general. The same with clamouring for pushing female characters forward in a deeply patriarchical tale or calling anything other than raceswapping the main character of greek mythos not progressive all point in that direction.

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

#112

Post by throw310822 »

wahern wrote: post #74
throw310822 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Memento, Inception, and Tenet are just action movies? It's interesting you use the word, succession, because all three of those movies explore the thematic, cinematic, and psychological meaning of that word. The abstract ideas he explores may seem pretentious or maybe even boring. To each their own. But he also puts alot of effort into the practical process of movie making. For example, he puts in alot of effort to a…

I'd leave aside Memento as it's a small independent movie, very different from Nolan's movies from Inception on. I'm curious what you mean with "explores the thematic, cinematic and psychological meaning" of "succession".

Personally, I don't find he explores any abstract idea- his movies (Inception and Interstellar specifically) are pretty inconsequential action movies- basically fantasy adventures for an audience aged 12-14, but with the outward appearance of serious movies as the characters are grown ups, and there is no hint that the audience is supposed to be children (compare for example with Jurassic Park, that does include children as main characters). But they are nothing more than fantasy adventures.

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

#113

Post by nchmy »

petesergeant wrote: post #12

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?

When the whole world is fawning over this movie that I was so underwhelmed by, this review provides a well-reasoned, well-written explanation for everything that I found severely lacking in the movie, but was unable to articulate myself, having never read the original.

Not that you need knowledge of the original to plainly see that there was no depth to the movie, in any regard. I felt and thought nothing during it, let alone after. That's the definition of not Artful.

Moreover, it vindicates Homer and makes me want to read the original (which I apparently had bought on audiobook ages ago and never listened to. At 12 hours, I expect to finish in the coming weeks).

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

#114

Post by Gud »

dumberquestions wrote: post #105
oliculipolicula wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> three hour movie > transporting us into the world of different values and beliefs I regret to inform you that Mel Gibson has been a better director https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto Might have been (more) loyal to the original had Nolan dubbed it into Greek or went with Victorian dialogue? Note: Emily Wilson (TFA) wrote the "modern prose" cover that Nolan adapted. Maybe she's feeling responsible.. Apocalypto…

A lot easier actually, writing a plot from scratch is very different from adapting an existing one.

Why would that be easier?

Have a look what happened to GoT when they ran out of original material.

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

#115

Post by stasomatic »

In a movie involving a few archery scenes, a movie with a gargantuan budget - hire an archery instructor. As an advanced amateur archer, the glaring mistakes, from stringing a bow to the draw form and release, it's hard to suspend disbelief and continue watching. Yes, it's a movie based on a myth, but it would have been that much better for me, only if they threw a couple of $Ks to an archery coach.

Same thing with movies with foreign languages. Folks, if you watch "The Hunt for Red October" or anything super recent from Hollywood where there is a Russian or Ukrainian dialogue, they don't speak Russian or Ukrainian. It's just a word salad, mostly.

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

#116

Post by bb86754 »

jf wrote: post #49

When I read a critique that could roughly be summarized as "I could have done better" my response generally falls somewhere between "you should" and "I'd like to see you try". Not everyone understands just how hard it is to create something from nothing, so I can excuse a certain level of ignorance in a critic. But I find it very disappointing when a critic does understand how hard it is in their domain, but isn't ab…

The article seems to me just a regular criticism, not her saying she could do better?

Counterpoint to your view on critics. A discerning audience is equally as important to a thriving culture as artists. If critics just clap their hands whenever someone tries to make something, granting that making a bad work of art is often just as difficult as making a good one, we get junk. I don't see why the perspective of the maker is relevant at all.

“You don't have to lay an egg to know if it tastes good.” - Pauline Kael

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

#118

Post by archagon »

keiferski wrote: post #61
izacus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the person who created one of the translations this movie is based on (arguably THE translation Nolan based it on), so they - literally as it goes - indeed have tried and done better.

Except the translation is not very good and dumbs down a lot of the language to fit the translator’s worldview. I’d say Wilson did “try to do it herself,” and it’s not much better than the film. Hence this critical review is a bit unnecessary, frankly. I say this as a subscriber to the LRB, which has at least one snarky put down review every issue.

Pretty much anyone worth listening to agrees that Wilson’s translation is excellent.

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

#119

Post by archagon »

phoronixrly wrote: post #72
antonvs wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "doing his best to get the general public reading again" This seems very detached from reality. I very much doubt that many people seeing a movie like this will think "oh, I should read The Odyssey", or "I should read more." And most people who try the former are unlikely to get very far.

I did. In fact I am reading it right now before seeing the movie.

Ditto.

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

#120

Post by keiferski »

archagon wrote: post #118
keiferski wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the translation is not very good and dumbs down a lot of the language to fit the translator’s worldview. I’d say Wilson did “try to do it herself,” and it’s not much better than the film. Hence this critical review is a bit unnecessary, frankly. I say this as a subscriber to the LRB, which has at least one snarky put down review every issue.

Pretty much anyone worth listening to agrees that Wilson’s translation is excellent.

Do you have an opinion yourself? Because "anyone worth listening to" is not a comment with content.

Furthermore, it's simply not true. Lattimore is generally considered to be the most authentic translation. There are plenty of criticisms of the Wilson translation that aren't culture war complaints. You seem to have the impression that they are, which is factually wrong.

If you don't care about authenticity, well, the Wilson one doesn't win any aesthetic awards either. It translates polytropos, a notoriously complex and multi-faceted word, as complicated.

There are hundreds of such examples. Lattimore translates one line as "Troy's sacred citadel," whereas Wilson chooses "Holy town of Troy." It's dumbed down and artless.

And we haven't even gotten to the ideological choices of certain word translations, but I won't get to that here.

Post reply on HN