I’m about to get on my high horse (haha Trojan horse) and complain about how everyone here is reacting to The Odyssey. I don’t think the movie was perfect but I do think it was a great version.
I am of the firm belief that if an adaptation wants to explore different textual themes more than others then it should be allowed to do it as long as it’s done well. That’s why it’s Nolan’s The Odyssey and not Homer’s. The Odyssey is one of, if not the, most famous works in human history. Everyone knows the story and its main themes, so exploring those in different ways, to me, is more interesting than just rehashing the exact text word for word.
So many of the things people are complaining about are either 1) things I also missed but saw thematically explored in different ways 2) things that really don’t have as substantial of a significance in the text the way people are acting (the bag of wind,,,brother,,,it’s a further demonstration of their unwillingness to listen to the gods and their consistent self destruction in the process. Something that is heavily explored in the movie in ways that work better cinematically. And also is shown in the text in different ways) or 3) things that already are different depending on the version of the story you’re reading.
And that’s really the crux of this. Because this is a story that was told orally for years before and after it was written down. Homer did it first but there are still different written versions of the story that change things exactly like Nolan did. Some versions Odysseus doesn’t want to go to war and only goes because they threaten to kill his son. Some versions he goes very willingly and is on board from the start. Some versions he stays with Circe in a romantic relationship for a while before leaving. Some versions he leaves. Some versions Clytemnestra is lied to and that’s why she kills Agamemnon. Some versions she does it willingly.
These different versions have always existed, many times in tandem or after Homer’s version was written down. Are these versions wrong or lesser because they aren’t the “real, true” story? No. Just like all of Greek mythology, there are many different versions of the same stories that vary based on region, storytellers, and thematic motivations. No version is better than another and the people complaining that Nolan’s is wrong/bad because it doesn’t have every single thing from Homer’s version are ignoring the fact that, technically, Nolan adapting it in this way is more true to oral tradition than making a beat for beat copy.
It feels so ridiculous to me that people are complaining about changes to a story that has changed within its own translation. Emily Wilson’s translation (the version Nolan’s is mostly based on) uses modern language because to her, using older 18th-19th century language to translate the text is unnecessary and doesn’t make it any more true to the original story. We use it because many translations were done at that time AND because it has an older, more significant feeling to us to read that language. But the text is so old that it’s no more accurate to the story than using 1920s language. It also keeps a story meant for everyone behind a barrier. So she uses modern language and makes the story accessible while still staying extremely faithful and accurate to each line.
Does that make her translation lesser? Are yall going to start coming for that one episode of Arthur that adapted the odyssey now? That one episode of wishbone? Is that not pure and good enough for you because it doesn’t identically match Homer’s text? You guys have got to learn to engage with different themes in adaptations of media and examine the messages of those instead of remaining media purists.
