Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of The Odyssey is finally out. The 3-hour epic was released on July 17, marking the first movie to be shot entirely on IMAX film. A signature Nolan movie, it featured a stacked cast of actors from his previous projects, including Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, and Robert Pattinson. This film matches his previous technical prowess with gorgeous cinematography, lighting, and sound design.
Despite that, the epic is not a one-to-one recreation of the original poem. Nolan presents a theme of men, ego, and the fall of civilization, things he’s touched on in previous films. In an attempt to center these ideas within The Odyssey, Nolan cuts and alters pivotal moments from Homer’s original work to varying levels of success.
The Gods
The Odyssey notably opens with the Greek gods. While their presence is far less than in the Iliad, the Greek gods play a major role in The Odyssey as they determine whether Odysseus can return to Ithaca after his infractions against Poseidon. However, in Nolan’s adaptation, Athena is the only god who appears on screen, haunting him throughout his journey. This removal of the other Olympians highlights an emphasis on manhood and humanity, erasing the mythical interactions from the poem.
The lack of gods was a change I anticipated going into the movie due to the three-hour time restriction of 70mm IMAX film. Homer’s poem is a sprawling epic with 24 books, so it was unlikely for the movie to capture every detail. Reducing the presence of some of the gods was a great way to simplify certain scenes while highlighting the importance of Odysseus’s dynamic with the goddess of war and wisdom.
I especially enjoyed how the removal of Hermes influences Circe’s story. In the poem, Hermes appears to Odysseus on Circe’s island, providing him with information on how to defeat the witch and save his men from their fate as pigs. In the poem, she is a more traditional witch, but Nolan takes a different approach. She does not transform men into pigs with a wave of her wand or by having them eat her food in the movie. Instead, she molds them into pigs, taking the time to shorten their noses and extend their ears with her hands in a body horror moment. As such, Odysseus didn’t need Hermes’ magical protection to prevent her spells from changing him and was able to defeat Circe in a new way.
Circe is also more of a seductress within the novel, something that Hermes warns Odysseus about. I appreciated that Nolan removed this detail and used this moment to highlight the experiences and fears of women during this time. Circe tells Odysseus that she had to turn his men into pigs because of what they could have done, referencing the raping and pillaging that they had done to other islands. It’s a reminder to the audience that the heroes certainly aren’t perfect and are only heroes through a certain set of eyes. A hero can become a villain through the slightest change of perspective.
The Writing
Nolan also modernized the language in his adaptation, a decision I have mixed opinions on. When I read The Odyssey, I chose the Emily Wilson translation, a version that retains the poem’s line count by simplifying the words used. It’s a great example of the economy of language through very specific decisions that tell the story in the most concise way possible. Nolan took inspiration from this recent iteration of The Odyssey, but I don’t think he was as successful as Wilson in accomplishing his vision.
Antinous’ use of the word “daddy” when speaking to Telemachus set the internet aflame but didn’t bother me that much. However, there were a few scenes with phrases that felt like Nolan was directly talking to his audience in a way I disliked. For example, Menelaus refers to his wife, the famed Helen, as a “face that launched a thousand ships.” An iconic line, but one written by Christopher Marlowe in 1604. The line is too familiar to a modern Western audience and detracts from the story being told.
Eurylochus, one of Odysseus’s men, also refers to himself as a Greek when he arrives on an island to pillage. What we now know as Greece was not as defined an entity in the Bronze Age. Additionally, Homer used the term “Achaeans” to refer to the people who fought against Troy. As Greece was not a word in existence at this time, I find “Achaean” or “Ithacan” better descriptors that Eurylochus could have used.
Slight moments like these made me too aware that a story was being told to me instead of allowing me to be immersed, and I wish Nolan had avoided some of these modernisms. However, other moments of the film had beautiful dialogue. The writing during the reunion of Odysseus and Penelope was beautiful.
The Costumes
Troy is a flawed adaptation, but it succeeds where The Odyssey does not: costumes. The 2004 film manages to balance traditional Mycenaean designs with more popular fashions in a way that is interesting to a modern audience. And I cannot say that any of the costuming in Nolan’s The Odyssey is made more interesting by its anachronisms.
I love seeing purposeful historical discrepancies in film. You see that in Baz Luhrmann’s movies, or Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette. By no stretch of the imagination are they accurate, but they’re still beautiful to look at, and I wish that were the approach that Nolan had taken.
The one character whose costuming stood out to me is Agamemnon. His armor does not resemble ancient Greek fashions, but it is impressive, and it tells a story. Agamemnon dons a bulky black suit. His face is never seen, hidden behind his helmet, and a spine extends from the bottom of the helmet, making him a very striking image as the leader of the Achaeans.
Odysseus and the other generals also deserved to stand out at Troy, as Agamemnon did. A general, a king, should never blend in among his people. The Iliad depicts Odysseus with a boar tusk helmet, a sight I would have loved to have seen committed to film. I wish we could have seen the scale and grandeur of who Odysseus is in terms of his intellect and skill reflected within his costuming.
Overall, I enjoyed The Odyssey far more than I expected. I went in quite wary, scared that Nolan might mess with the story that I so adore. He certainly changed things, but that’s the nature of an adaptation. A one-to-one recreation of a book or a poem on screen will never work. Some things must be replaced or omitted for the sake of time, storytelling, and directorial vision. While I didn’t fully align with his vision. I appreciate the risks that he took.