❤ : I have decided to share a bunch of thoughts I had while watching the Odyssey. I have concluded that I cannot name my favourite filmmaker, but if I were to state my least favourite... well, you know where I am going with this.
BORING AND MESSED UP NARRATION TECHNIQUE
I just think there is something so pretentious about adapting not a style but a pattern of storytelling over and over again. Constant flashbacks and flashforwards up to confusion, feeling so avant-garde, but you are still making a movie with Matt Damon and Charlize Theron that will blow the box office. But there's another point: the events in the Odyssey are already not chronological. The adventure of Ulysses starts "in medias res", at Nausicaa's court. What's the point in rearranging it? Coming from classical studies, Chris would have been that classmate who copies your translation because he didn't do his homework but changes a few words, substituting them with fancier terminology. The funniest part is he still gets a good grade, perhaps better than yours.
STOP SAYING HE DIDN'T USE CGI
If I hear another performative male praising Nolan's aversion to CGI, alongside their passionate homoerotic descriptions of the Lestigons, I will actively choose violence. I appreciate it, really, but he made it his entire personality. His fight against artificial intelligence lacks depth, and once again it seems like a way to reinforce his self-image as an artist.
WHY DID HE LOBOTOMIZE PENELOPE
I don't want to be repetitive, since I've already seen this critique all over the internet. I personally agree with everything: Penelope was so lobotomized. The worst possible scenario in the history of women's representation is when she just states some random theoretical facts about gender and society. Not only do Penelope's lines tend to be anachronistic, but they also have nothing to do with the beautiful reflections about the cruelty of war that women in the classical poems pronounce. I also think they make the narration incredibly artificial, as she would never have had such a metaphysical post-awareness about her role.
THE END WAS JUST STRAIGHT UP INVENTED
Omg Ulysses, you are finally back, thank God, because Telemachus is waaay too young to become king, and he lacked the fatherly figure that was supposed to teach him about ruling. Well, time for us to retire to Florida on a love cruise and leave the throne to him.
Come on, are we serious?
Jokes aside, for this made-up finale, some have decided to disturb Dante's sleep. According to a theory that was very common in medieval times, one that Dante shared, Ulysses departs right after his grand return to Ithaca, which depicts his almost corrupted desire for knowledge. Much like Faust, this will be his ruin: he condemns himself and his shipmates to a certain death and the depths of Hell because Christianity is speaking, for attempting to cross Gibraltar, the end of the world at the time. There could have been such a cool symbolism if this was the case, especially because not so many centuries, what is beyond Gibraltar, America, is "discovered" by overcoming that limit. Instead, what we got was a couple of old Americans retiring to the beachside.
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SO MUCH MORE
If Nolan didn't settle for being the most quoted among pretentious, poorly cultivated, performative males, he would have done much more with the movie. Or perhaps he is the type to get a potentially wonderful idea after two to three Spritzes, but then either rush things up or never really get to the point. Among the aspects that I liked are the recitation of Matt Damon and the brilliant idea, even though it stayed a vision, to make it all a comparison to the rise and fall of America, the next big Empire that emerged from war and seems to be crumbling under its own weight now. From early pictures, I figured it would be like that, but that was never the case. Or at least, it was only reserved for some cringe quotes by the protagonist (why would you say, "We are the most evolved of our time"? Were you granted a special vision by Thiresias?)
IT REALLY IS THAT DEEP
Centuries, millenias even, trying to protect the legacy of Homer; countless analysis in-depth, just for a ramdom guy to "read it" and try to adapt it. First of all, you just don't "read" the Odyssey like you read Gulliver's Travels. It is an historical matter; taking random imagery from it, not to mention messing it up with your Kratos video game-like perception of the world, is just poor. But unfortunately, like it was for blockbusters, Nolan's movie was an investment that was bound to be successful. Everything from the planned distribution (I don't care about the different-screen thing; it's just boogie, and I don't think it has any meaning) to the cast was thought through to maximise income. That is at the expense of a piece of literature that remains unfortunately difficult to access. The imagery of Robert Pattinson bullying Tom Holland has a much higher chance of sticking with the general public.
NEXT TIME, ASK A SCHOLAR
Next time you want to adapt something with no knowledge in the field, ask a scholar. I can assure you they don't get paid just to sit in a chair all day collecting dust. A guided interpretation, maybe even one or two introductions to the subject, could have given you the most important aid to elaborate your material well and create a real masterpiece. I don't think Nolan is incapable; I just think that he is superficial. Perhaps, alongside copying and changing your translation, in classical studies he would have been that sort of pretentious guy who never pays attention during history but always has something to say, no matter how true, as long as he thinks he is different.
Comments
Post a Comment