Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer’s problems go on in “The Odyssey”
This is my first article here -and in any social platform, for that matter- so if I should thank anybody for that, it might as well be the man himself, Christopher Nolan, who for decades has been an inspiration in my love for movies & philosophy.
Today, we will talk about his latest film, “The Odyssey”, analysing it by itself while comparing it to the original source & some of his & other’s past movies.
I warn everybody, that this article is NOT SPOILER FREE, therefore if you do not want to know all the details about Nolan’s adaptation of Homer’s 3000 years old novel, keep clear of this text -for the moment-.
Let’s start with an interpretation of the general messages this film conveys on its 172 minutes of running time.
The anti-war propaganda is the first thing that comes to mind; as he already did with his previous film, “Oppenheimer”, where total devastation is caused by a great feat and genius on the military field. Yet again, the main character has a deep remorse over their invention and the destruction it has brought with it, alas “Troy’s Horse” and the “Nuclear Bomb”.
As an anti-war movie, we also see the barbarious nature of war and its breaking of the social peace and law from within. Greed leads to egoism, egoism leads to fear of losing what you’ve got, that fear transforms into anger, which then turns into hate, that leads to suffering; a Star Wars lesson, here working as the root of the destabilization of Ithaca, Ancient Greek’s culture and The Golden Bronze Age.
The death of a world, its gods and its laws to be reviewed, reinterpreted & renewed. Gods defied by Odysseus, who broke the weak trust of war rivals when making a fake peace treaty through the ill-intentioned gift of a wood horse.
What we could call a war crime nowadays, while it was revered by Homer’s book and his contemporaries — which makes sense because as we already know, the winners are the ones who get to tell the story-.
This crime is the catallist to Odysseus’ and Ancient Greece demise. The law of xenia is no longer respected either: hospitality, kindness and generosity to strangers, not mattering his social background (because they could be a god in disguise) is no longer followed. A social critic -more important than ever-, to our present political and social climate.
This was the fear that Penelope shared throughout the film regarding the legends about “the people from the sea”, lawless humans who ravaged cities once they arrived to land. People who didn’t follow “the law of Zeus” -xenia law-. A society that turned out to be who his husband and his army actually were. As they brought destruction wherever they went. A revelation made by Ullises later on the film.
Another theme, often explored in Nolan’s filmography is the loss of time, the suffering it produces, to have lost the opportunity of a better life. Here it is evident, as so much time has passed for Odysseus to return home and be with his wife and son. Adding a final redeeming touch, where Penelope and Odysseus leave Ithaca, because it has turned into a world they no longer can nor want to deal with. Getting at last the happy ending they longed for during the whole film. A finale, mirroring that of “The Dark Knight Rises”.
Now, let’s get onto the more technical, visual, narrative and performing aspects of the film.
Regarding the pace and the shots chosen to depict many of the scenes, I will say that the first minutes of the story feel rushed. Specially the “hunt scene” where Odysseus gets injured by a wild hog on his leg, which will be the way by which one of his older maids will recognise him by the end of the story, but it goes by so fast, that it is not easy to catch up on it later on (unless you’ve read the book before, as I had).
Get beta.victor@hotmail.com’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Apart from that, the first act is slow in general, building up the world and the tension for what is to come on a magnificent and frantic third act. Nonetheless, its reflexive initial pace doesn’t bring any nuance or development to the characters, as they seem to not change, and on the contrary, reinforce their archetypical nature.
I have no complains at all about the cast but I do about the writing of the characters, as they all look too plain and linear throughout the whole 3 hours. The primary example would be Odysseus’ depression, which is the moving -or should I say, unmoving- force that drives the film.
What’s more, I didn’t feel at all Odysseus’ genius and heroicity I read about in the book. There were only some instances were you could see his intellect -and his ego-, like in the Cyclop’s scene. But we were neither graced with his story-telling abilities which were shown in other challenges that Odysseus’ had to go through to get back to Ithaca on the original source, nor other of his tricks.
On the other hand, I’d give the most credit to Circe’s character and performance. So, for me, the MVP award would have to go to Samantha Norton.
The rest of the cast, I believe it to be well chosen, as I believe them to have the qualities to play the characters from the book, as much as the ones from the movie. But, even though I believe they did a great work with what they had, I believe they weren’t greatly written nor directed.
Most of all, Matt Damon’s Ulysses and Tom Holland’s Telemachus felt like a mix of their previous work, therefore not bringing anything new to their craft, which made it difficult to relate.
Concerning the depiction of the gods, I didn’t mind its representation through normal acts of nature. It actually gave them a naturality that translates as magic being in an our everyday world too, not only on books and fantastic stories, but in the routine of life, where there are gods and magic that are human and natural at the same time.
I also loved the metaphor of Athena and the girl killed in Troy by Odysseus’ men. It is a great idea, which is well depicted visually, but narratively lacks some depth and construction. Once the moment comes, it doesn’t feel at all plot-changing, as we are used with Nolan’s films.
As to the characterization of the monsters, they were not as realistic as I thought they would, in particular the Laestrygons or Scylla. But I did like the characterizations of the Cyclop and Circe’s part of the story, as well as the transformation of Ulysses’ crew into pigs, which added a new layer in Nolan’s filmography, the gore/horror genre, in great fashion.
About the Sirens, I’ve got mixed feeling. I guess they made me feel the same as those who hear them and don’t hear them feel: an insatiable desire for something, in this case, to know how do they look like.
On another note: symbols, like Penelope’s (Odysseus’ loyalty) and Sinon’s (Antinoos’ shame) were masterfully used.
I also appreaciated some nods to other movies, such as the likening of Aggamenon’s armor and presence on screen to that of Darth Vader or the scene where Odysseus’ “lets go”, which played similarly to Paul Atreides’ scene in Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune” when he lets go to enter in a state of flow that enables him to take control back again of the “helicopter”. I also found parallels between Telemachus’ need of superstition and faith on the gods and those of Dune’s Stilgar; where we exchange the repetitive tone of “Muad’dib” for that of “You have wise eyes, Athena’s eyes”. Details I loved to find.
Well, to end this piece, I must start by praising the movie, altought I may have been rough with some of my views on it, that’s the way I felt my first time of seeing it, nevertheless I know I’ve left huge parts out of it.
Either way, I will watch it again, because, as it happened to me with “Oppenheimer”, I left the theater without knowing what was my take on it. So I guess, that once again, Nolan got what he aimed for, which is to leave the audience on the dark & get them to think (maybe too much).
