The Odyssey

[Vyn]

One of the best epic tales I have ever read is an English translation of the ancient Greek text of Homer's Odyssey. Written around the 7th century BC, the 24 books of the Odyssey present the tale of Odysseus and his 20 year journey from fighting in the Trojan War back to his home in Ithaca, where is the king.

No doubt, if you have not read it at some point, you've heard of it. It has been very popular, from the time it was first written all the way up until today.

There is a movie slated to be released in theaters on July 17th...less than one week from now. You may have heard of it, maybe even waiting expectantly to go watch it.

I'm going to sit this one out, despite my enjoyment and appreciation of the book. Off the top of my head, translating something as massive as the Odyssey into a couple of hours on the silver screen makes me nervous. After seeing what Peter Jackson did to the Lord of the Rings, I know it can be done well enough to make a lot of money. The Odyssey is, however, one movie, not three, and even spread out across three movies Jackson fundamentally altered the story that Tolkein wrote in order to make it suitable for movie goers. I think it turned out great, just not great if fidelity to the source was any kind of goal.

But that concern is trivial compared to what I've been reading and the little bit I've seen online from the movie itself. To start,Tom Holland was cast as Telemachus, Odysseus and Penelope's son. He is a key character in the story, and one of the clips I saw had him exclaiming, "My dad's coming home!"

Uh, what should have been a powerfully evocative statement concerning the underlying premise of the entire story, comes across like a fart in a whirlwind. I dug around some and learned that the entire cast - all of them regardless of the characters they are portraying, speak in plain American English. <sigh> I'm already developing a dislike for the movie by this point. It was that clip that started me down this rabbit hole.

In short, Christopher Nolan directed and wrote the screenplay for this movie. He's a smart dude. A competent director. But I'm not sure his clinical, sterile approach is going to work well with a story that is so character-driven the protagnost's name became a synonym for what he endured - an Odyssey. And then I discover that Mr. Nolan based his screenplay off of a 2017 English translation of Homer's classic. Ok, so what? Well, turns out this new translation was done by a woman named Emily Wilson, and she tackled the enormous task for one reason: to reimagine Homer's Odyssey through a female-coded, gender-crtitical, postmodernist lens, and thereby stretching the very limits of the original text to bend it around modern sensibilities.

If I thought I had concerns about how well such a massive epic could be done in a few hours on screen, or concern about the bland, uninspiring American English delivery...the thought of sitting in a theater to watch socialogical propaganda turns my stomach. Learning that tidbit did help explain why Lupita Nyongo was cast as Helen of Troy and the completely flat-affected, one-note actress Zendaya was cast as Athena, Goddess of Wisdom.

There are a number of A-list actors in this film, but I'm afraid that Nolan's delusional thinking regarding appealing to a modern audience by having them all interact in American English is going to make them all simply fade into the background and add nothing to the excitement that would otherwise be in the movie.

My dad's coming home, indeed. Fuck this movie and fuck Chris Nolan for letting himself get carried away by factors that should have had no bearing upon a story of this magnitude.

[Charger]

I had my reservations about that movie but learning about the whole abnoxious bullshit woke approach means I will NOT be watching that movie at any point.

I have always found Nolan to be a pompous director...and most of his movies to be overrated. But this is a whole new level of bullshit...this kind of reminds me of that Netflix joke woke series about the black (!!!!) Cleopatra which historians saw as an insult to history.

Nolan is now officially on my ban list.

[Vyn]

And ya know, if those people want to make a movie based on the Odyssey, with a peacock instead of a horse given as a gift to the enemy, and the face that launched a thousand ships played by an AI version of Buddy Ebson, rock on with it. But don't market it as if it is "the Odyssey". Because it's not. It's just someone's weak attempt at rationalizing their misguided thinking regarding humanity. They jsut happen to have the money and connections to get their message out in a spectacular manner.

It sure as hell does not mean it's credible.

[Typhon]

Thanks for the warning Vyn, but I had already decided to ignore this film when I saw, as Charger put it, the woke bullshit.  However, you have given me an idea.  From now on I shall be calling this film "The Not Odyssey".

Side note:  I still have both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my bookcase from high school days.   

[Vyn]

I still have both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my bookcase from high school days.   

 

[Zzzptm]

What, they're doing a remake of the old Kirk Douglas flick? 

Although, that one retelling of Ulysses with George Clooney in it, that was pretty good.

The first one takes the tale of the Odyssey and has to figure what are the best parts for an action-packed movie, then gets that stuff in there. Kirk Douglas kicking ass at the end was fun to watch as a kid. Now I see it and there's more in Douglas' performance, especially at the end where he realizes he's about to be lost again in his mind, even though he's come home.

The second one is a modern-day retelling and it, too, gets the most recognizable parts and packs them into the movie. The result? Something entertaining to watch as one enjoys popped corn.

This current one, nope. At least it's not done in AI, so there's that. And the casting choices? Ahh, they once had John Wayne as Genghis Khan and young men had to portray women on the Elizabethen stage, so I don't care who is put into what role, as long as they can show up to act. The translation used does put shade on Odysseus, so maybe Nolan liked that because he can do a Batman movie set in ancient Greece? But my objection to it is the matter of length. We live in a day and age where we can take things and stretch them out and the tales told can be marvelous through that method. So why not do the same thing, here? Bigger budget, sure, but you get to make the episodes *happen*.

For the part about using American accents, hey, look at the Kirk Douglas picture - it's all in American English! And we loved it back then because it was a tale well-told and the pacing was great.

If the movie's going to be limited to one portion of the tale, make it be the return of Odysseus - which was done already a few years ago in a very well-received film. That's the heart of the tale. Heck, blending it with something like The Return of Martin Guerre where we ask the question, is this really the man himself or clever suitor, that would have been a twist I could see making filmic sense.

But I'm not a fan of what the Batman films have become and I sure as heck don't want to see one set in ancient Greece.

[Typhon]

And the casting choices? Ahh, they once had John Wayne as Genghis Khan and young men had to portray women on the Elizabethen stage, so I don't care who is put into what role, as long as they can show up to act.

John Wayne was cast as Genghis Khan because he can act.  Young men had to portray women on the Elizabethen stage because females were not allowed to perform.  The big difference here is that the cast for this film was not chosen because they can act.  They were chosen to push an ideology down everyone's throats.

[Vyn]

Just as an FYI - John Wayne lobbied hard to get that role. The guy who was actually cast for it either bailed out or got booted, I can't remember. But Mr. Wayne did not simply traipse onto the set and tell them he was going to play the mighty Khan. He had to convince the production team to let him do it. Even at that stage of his career, when he was wildly popular.

[Zzzptm]

My point on casting being directors have reasons, good, bad, valid, because of constraints, out of pride, whatever - and it doesn't bother me who's in a role as long as the acting works. Anthony Quinn wasn't an Arab, but he was sought after by Moustafa Akkad for two key roles - one in a biopic about Muhammad - because of his role in Lawrence of Arabia.

As for ideological choices, there was a whole time period in the USA when actors and other artists weren't used because of leftist connections. The pendulum swings back and forth, and I don't see it as being a fair thing at all. Mel Gibson can rave all he wants off-screen, but I still love his performances in Gallipoli, The Road Warrior, and Braveheart. Klaus Kinski has some MAJOR demons in his closet, but he is still vastly compelling in his roles, particularly with Werner Herzog directing.

There have been casting choices forced on directors to make movies into vehicles for popular people who couldn't act out of a paper bag and there have been directors who jumped at the chance to make some dough while putting out a crap star vehicle.

I've seen Soviet-made films with Stalin's thumb pressing heavily on the scales of history, and the acting in them is still good. Ideological heavy-handedness doesn't guarantee a bad movie. An inaccurate one? Oh hell yes. This one had Hitler screaming his head off in every scene and all kinds of stuff that never, ever happened but was part of official Soviet mythology, but it still worked out as a movie. The guy they got to play Stalin was perfect - he was one of Stalin's body doubles who looked nearly identical to Stalin and could fool even close associates if they weren't squinting down to check details. And, given how some of Stalin's close associates wanted to murder him, such deception was necessary. For one of these guys to do it on-screen was an interesting bit of history in and of itself.

But, yeah, if they can act, fine. Whatever with the ideology, I can watch around that. And if it's like Battlefield Earth and in EVERY. DAMNED. SCENE. then it'll be "so bad it's good".

[Charger]

Well you can't really compare the movie industry in the 50s or 60s to modern days though...as back then there simply weren't enough actors (espcially ethnic ones) to fill roles so ofcourse white people were used cause that was all there was available at the time...so it wasn't about ideology or wanting to push an agenda it was just what it was. Vast majority of actors in those days were white, plain and simple.

But it's vastly different now and now stuffing some agenda's down the viewers throats has become a real thing and it's rather disgusting. If you just chose someone for a role because of some sort of agenda instead of their acting skills, it's robbing a GOOD actor a part...especially if it would be more historically accurate.

When ever there is woke shit at play, I will stand way clear of that.

Speaking of Mel Gibson, he has NEVER EVER pushed any kind of agenda with any of his movies...all of his historical epics (even the one about Jesus) have been as historically accurate (down to the language even!!) as possible. And for that I give him an A+....

[Zzzptm]

There were actually plenty of actors of different backgrounds and cultures, but they were mostly kept to bit parts or parallel cinema systems for films targeting minorities. The actors were there, they just didn't get built into box office draws. In the 50s, white actors got blocked from productions if they were on the Hollywood blacklists. People behind the scenes on the blacklists had options to use other names, but actors either had to be in non-studio productions in the USA or go to overseas industries.

I just saw a news item that Mel Gibson started a controversy by casting a pro-choice actress as the Virgin Mary for The Resurrection of Christ, and I think that does set a good example that casting should be about the role itself and not some additional message one wants to convey over and above what's in the film.

[Charger]

Well frankly I don't really care about actors' political views...unless they try to shove it down my throat with a ten foot pole (i.e Robert DeNiro style)...

But had Gibson hired a black asian woman to play Virgin Mary...then I would have a problem.

[Typhon]

^^^^^^
Agreed, and even if the actor could play the part well, if it was an historical fact that they were the wrong race, then that alone would create such a distraction for me that it would reduce the degree to which I am able to enjoy the film.

[Zzzptm]

So you'd be upset if Helen was portrayed without feathers?