Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey - Review

To start, a reminder to those that need it (probably no one reading this) that the original Odyssey, a compilation of authors’ works put into one single narrative (probably), written down over 2000 years ago (roughly), is almost entirely fiction. It may or may not have been inspired by real events, but much like many works of fiction in the modern day it was written to entertain and teach a lesson. Most importantly, the lesson was about hubris and the harsh realities of life.

To put things into context, the story of the Trojan war has been recounted many times in many different ways and through many perspectives. Even in the ancient world, the two arguably most famous works, the Odyssey and the Iliad, show different aspects of this tale. The Odyssey, of course, is essentially the story of one of the major hero’s journey home after war. Named the Odyssey after its protagonist, Odysseus, it acts as a reminder that even when one side is victorious in war, that is not always the end.

So for this blogpost I’m going to take some of the key points from Christopher Nolan’s movie, points I loved and points I didn’t, and refer back to the original story. Also, which I quite enjoyed, there were some attempts of historical contextualisation to the movie that I found interesting. Despite the fantastical elements, it was clear that the team making this film were trying to make it feel like it was set at the time a “real” Trojan War might have happened, whilst also reimagining it for a modern (English-speaking) audience.

Odysseus

The character of Odysseus is complex and should have a whole post to himself. Others have already made these comments in reviews published soon after the movie’s release, but there was a lot lacking from Matt Damon’s Odysseus. However, I don’t think that makes it a bad characterisation. The mental toll that his time at war would have had and the chaotic return journey was perhaps leaning more into that realism than the joking trickster that the Odyssey portrays. Odysseus is a weary, yet determined man who desperately wanted to get home to the woman he loved and his son. The frustration we see when his crew continuously go against his wishes and delay his journey further, along with the pragmatic approach he has to ensuring they all return home, make so much sense within the context of the story.

He is constantly plagued by Athena, the only goddess personified (by Zendaya) in the movie. Whether this is a figment of his imagination or the goddess really coming to him, it shows his constant frustration with the decision he makes leaving him further and further from home. Athena acts as that judgy distant friend who only turns up once you’ve made the mistake. Not to give advice, just to remind you of your purpose. The gods have been portrayed like this in many other adaptations, only seen by one character, but I think the uncertainty as to her reality actually strengthened Odysseus’ character.

Calypso

Charlize Theron should have been a great casting for Calypso, but I wish she had played a much sexier and seductive version. Instead we get a woman who just gives up the man she loves (although he was of course captured by her) so he could return to his wife and son. This sort of plays a little more into the ideas of fate in Greek mythology, where even the gods know that some mortals are destined for things out of their control.

In the original, the gods have to intervene to pry the enchanted Odysseus away from the magical seductress. Whilst what we have in the movie is a woman who sees the man she has held captive for seven years continuing to show his deepening misery. So, eventually she just gives in and lets him leave. Although she is massively toxic and problematic, and so is Odysseus, I think we deserved a more powerful and assertive Calypso in this adaptation.

It’s all Greek to me…

There is a scene where Odysseus’ crew destroy a settlement on an island to get supplies. This is a sort of forshadowing I think for the tales of the “sea people” that are mentioned throughout the movie (I’ll get to them later). As an interesting addition, they had the sole person left in the settlement speaking in what sounded like modern Greek. Considering Odysseus and his men, although “Greek”, would have actually spoken a slightly different language (whatever the language of Linear B was) I thought it was a nice nod to the cultural origins of this story. Remembering this is a movie made in English with English speaking actors, having Greek as the language spoken by the residents of the first Greek settlement they encounter after leaving Troy was a nice reminder of where this story comes from. Not just Greece, but the survivors of this horrific event.

Polyphemus

Many have already shouted about the glaring omission in this scene. Something passed down for generations and still seen as one of the greatest jokes in history.

So although much of the scene is as recounted in the Odyssey, there is only a brief mention in the movie to Polyphemus, the cyclops, being able to speak. In Nolan’s film he grunts and groans after being stabbed in the eye, with a few of Odysseus’ crew managing to pick out the words and identifying him as the son of Poseidon. This is denied by Odysseus, probably out of embarrassment and guilt. Yet in the original story, the hero and the cyclops actually have a conversation. It is here, when asked for his name, Odysseus answers with “Οὔτις”. Although it sounds like Odysseus, it actually means “no one”. Then, when Odysseus and the crew stab the cyclops in the eye with a hot stick, causing the nearby Cyclopes to shout out asking who is attacking Polyphemus, he replies “no one is attacking me” and they all carry on with their lives as if nothing has happened. This is one of those “seriously, not much has changed in human thinking and wit over thousands of years” moments . It’s the sort of dad joke you might hear at the pub. It’s literally a classic. Yet it was left out for some reason by Nolan. I wonder if, because the cyclops scenes were done with puppets in a dark cave, creating a deeper sense of dread, it might have shattered the illusion to have other Cyclopes wandering around elsewhere. Without them, the joke doesn’t work.

The Laestrygonians

A notable encounter on Odysseus’ journey is with the race of giants known as the Laestrygonians. In Nolan’s movie, they were kind of like cybermen, heavily armoured machines that ploughed through Odysseus’ crew killing them indiscriminately. In the original, these were a society of cannibals who ate most of Odysseus’ men. They also used rocks to sink Odysseus’ ships in the original text, rather than marching into the water and rocking them back and forth, almost becoming warships themselves at that point (I had the Hues Corporation song playing in my head, it seemed that farcical).

Circe

One of the greatest scenes by far is the transformation of the crew into pigs. Visually incredible and it gives you the sense of ancient magical belief through a combination of potions (in the meat soup), incantation and physical manipulation.

What is a little different in the original, Odysseus avoids Circe’s enchantment by taking moly…no, not that kind. It was a herb given to him by Hermes. Whereas in the movie he just seems to be immune to her charms. In order to escape, he threatens to strangle her sister (Pasiphae, mother of the Minotaur?), who is in the form of a crow. She then returns all the men to their human form and they flee…once they’ve put all their clothes back on.

However, in the original story, Odysseus and the crew stay for a year and he seemingly only gets her to change his men back by shagging her (classic). Much like with Calypso, Nolan chose to not portray Odysseus as the adulterous man he truly was in the original text. Instead, he’s a man that is seduced, but with no direct on-screen indication of him doing any wrong (though seven years on an island with Charlize Theron…come on now!).

The sirens

This was fairly well done. The change in sound from the plugged ears of the crew to Odysseus’ screams as he tries to escape from the rope that tied him to the mast showed the different perspectives nicely. Not really being able to see the sirens was also pretty sensible, as that scene is entirely about giving into temptation that you can’t see. Your every desire just out of reach, causing you to risk everything to get to it. Much like his journey home.

Scylla and Karibdis

Scylla was awful…I don’t even know what that was. I literally was like, “what is happening here, I don’t remember a mind-flayer in the Odyssey”.

Karibdis is a whirlpool, hard to mess up.

Weapons and armour

Fenestrated axes! They had fenestrated axes! As they chose to put them in some scenes, why couldn’t they have had Odysseus shoot through them rather than crossed axes.

The rest of the weapons and armour were a bit meh. A mix of Classical Greek, not Bronze Age Greek, and sort of medieval/generic “old” armour and weapons. I know swords and spears don’t change much, but also they do. Stylistically different choices could have been made.

Historical context

As promised I wanted to mainly mention the constant references to the “Sea Peoples” throughout the movie. As far as I’m aware, the sea people are not mentioned in the Odyssey at all, yet they are a widely recognised group/civilisation/event that was present in the Eastern Mediterranean just over 3000 years ago and was believed by some to have led to the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation and the decline of others at the time. The Mycenaeans are of course the “Greeks” in the Odyssey and so this fear of their arrival was a precursor for their eventual (historical) demise. A reminder that, even though they won the Trojan war, that would not mean they last forever.

From other reviews I’ve read there seems to be a suggestion that it was implied that the Greeks returning from Troy were in fact the Sea Peoples. Thinking of the historical evidence that seems to suggested the Sea Peoples were a disparate bunch of people from across the mediterranean, this seems unlikely. Also, the Greeks wouldn’t have led to their own collapse (or would they….?!)

Although I hugely appreciate Christopher Nolan’s attempts to nod towards the historical elements throughout the movie, we need to all remember this is fiction. It has always been fiction. Anytime someone rewrites a classic tale, inevitably it will be different to the original as people put their own spin on it. And that’s ok! I loved Nolan’s version because it was a good movie. Not because he was close to the original. Not because of the casting (although there were some stellar performances). I loved it be because it kept you on the edge of your seat. It made you root for the protagonists to succeed and the antagonists to be punished. It made me want to watch it again…which doesn’t happen often in cinema. At the end of the day, it was (like the original) epic!