Nolan's Odyssey - A very technical analysis by a very nitpicky Classics student - Earl Rambles

PREFACE

This is not a be-all-end-all review, this is a more critical analysis of the choices made concerning the writing and plot from the lens of criticising an adaptation. There were bits I liked about this film, but I believe some of the choices made detract from the original themes and characters from the text, to the extents that they are genuinely unfaithful at points. Not saying it makes the film unwatchable or awful, but saying that at times, it doesn’t feel like the Odyssey. But hey. Classics students amiright. I will not cover everything in this, because my memory is not good enough for that, but I’ll include as much as I can. This is very stream of consciousness, so I apologise in advance if this makes no sense. Happy to clarify anything that is incoherent lol. SPOILERS ARE ABOUND. IF YOU WANT AN UNSPOILED EXPERIENCE READ OR WATCH FIRST. Ok enjoy.

ODYSSEUS IS NOT ODYSSEUS

They take out all his tricks!!! No overcoming the Cyclops through trickery, no deceiving Circe! Guy whose main epithets (and intro in opening lines) is as a trickster and he does no tricks!!!
He is essentially written as Achilles, inserted into Odysseus’ plot. Very puritan action hero who beats everyone up and challenges everyone and surges into unsafe situations without scouting. I find him to be a rather Americanised, war-guilty action hero (á la Iraq or Vietnam related films), a modernisation which strays a little too far from Odysseus as a character for my liking.
(NB, read a review stating that Nolan seems to have actually wanted to adapt the Odyssey which. Actually makes a lot of sense. But it wasn’t in my initial analysis so I will link it here)
Guy whose main driving force is wanting to go home literally says the line “maybe I don’t want to go home.” Insane work. He literally spends 7 years MISERABLE on Calypso’s island weeping and begging to go home and instead he just. Forgets. With the lotus (which shouldn’t be on Ogygia). For plot. Sure. (I assume this was an attempt to explain why he was stuck on Ogygia for so long which to be fair is hard to do, so I get that. Even more so when you remove the divine, but we will get to that later :)) )
They also try to make him a perfect action hero and detract from all of his morally grey moments - his second in command Eurylochus randomly makes some of Odysseus’ bad decisions seemingly taking away his agency in making those choices which end up harming his men - at Scylla and with Circe (random mutiny very early on?? Is Odysseus that bad a commander??) Imo too much “action hero”-ing and not enough fighting with creativity and intelligence - he’s not favoured by Athena for nothing!! (or not at all, ig??)
Weirdly seems to be a bad leader??? Like seems to make no decisions, gets mutinied so quickly and for little discernible reason. His men do not trust him or seem to respect him at all. Idk just a bit strange.
His trickery at the end also is very watered down. Lack of divine influence results in it just being Matt Damon in a hood rather than an actual disguise.
I thought the actual suitor slaughter was actually a little underwhelming? Action hero-ification of Odysseus does not extend to his ability to kill the suitors ig? Again, issue of not having gods (Zeus and Athena help in text, as does Telemachus instead of running around being kind of useless and being told to stay out of it). Severe lack of ruthlessness from Odysseus. Missing the driving force of wanting to return home no matter the cost, no matter the sacrifice. I felt leaving some of the suitors who surrendered alive really detracted from the visceral catharsis and kind of undermined Odysseus’ authority? Like yes these men pursued your wife for years and mocked and intimidated your son and ruined your household but at least they said sorry! The purification of kind of morally grey heroes frustrates me.

NO GODS

This is dumb for many reasons. Taking a story driven and incited by actions of gods and removing any real evidence of them doesn’t really work, because it then removes credibility from multiple parts of the story.
Nolan wanting to show forces of nature as gods is fun, but ineffective when you don’t actually explain that to the audience as a direct cause!! A one-off mention to Poseidon is hard for those who are unfamiliar with Greek myths to understand! Even more so when the next storm is actually sent by a different god! (Storm after Helios’ island is sent by Zeus. This is not well communicated)
Most obvious with the Cyclops, lack of direct and overt address to Poseidon from Polyphemus praying for revenge and for Odysseus to never make it home makes the Greeks seem incompetent in their travels!! The whole point is that no matter how good they are and what they do, because of the insult to Poseidon they will never make it home safely!! They are doomed by Odysseus and are forced to foot his punishment!! Removal of gods removes the interplay between fate and free will, and the notions of godly politics influencing how gods and mortals interact
Additionally, removal of gods forces wisdom imparted by gods (normal, believable as all seeing immortals to be able to act as messengers in this way) to be imparted by random characters. why is Circe randomly giving prophetic advice? Basically, it makes a lot of the exposition seem more forced than it should be.
No Hermes :( crime in and of itself.
Also, a lot of the characters whom Athena is disguised as in the text were actually in the film! Everyone Telemachus tells that they have ‘wise eyes. Athena eyes’ is meant to be Athena in the text, but obviously NOT meant to be given they kill Mentor during the assassination. I’m so sad we didn’t get Hermes.
The Athena thing was interesting I actually liked that the image taken was that of a girl from Troy, i think the implication is that Odysseus was just hallucinating her?? and she isn’t actually the goddess. She didn’t feel very impactful as a character, though i suppose she’s technically meant to serve as a representation of Odysseus’ guilty conscience. Which again, don’t hate it, but frustrating to build up this concept of Odysseus as a tormented morally pure hero rather than a deceitful trickster willing to do whatever it takes to get home. Idk.
As a result of lack of divine, try to make excuses for other reasons for Trojan war which, understand why he’s done that, but when the entirety of the war on multiple levels and its perpetuity hinges on the interference and politics of the divines it’s a bit weird. mentions about trade routes and mortal politics to replace the divine, but also inciting incident of the Trojan war is literally bc of gods. Are we ignoring that? Do we care?
Cherry picking of the divine. Not wanting to actually put in the gods but wanting their effects to come into play without effective communication to audience imo. Like we have Helios’ island (which, did they call him Apollo? I can’t remember but I feel like I crashed out at that point for some reason) which is obviously divine, and there is divine retribution for disobeying the gods, but that comes from Zeus due to divine politics, a layer of vetting of divine punishment that is lost due to lack of direct communication to audience about the gods.
ADDITIONALLY, the whole point of an epic is that the poet is a vessel for the divine. Mortals cannot know the story, so they exhort to the Muses and channel their speech in recounting it. Epics are inherently divine! Why are we scared of leaning into this! Had the suggestion that this was an atheist take on the Odyssey coming from the perspective of reading it with the exclusion of the divine and trying to find the source of the actions which are explained by the divine by the Greeks. I agree this is likely the case, but I feel it’s a disservice to the story to exclude such a major part. That’s not just a differing interpretation, it’s an ignorant at best and wilful at worst exclusion of a massive influence on the plot and the themes imo.

Crash course in the Greek hospitality rules!! ‘ξενια’ - “xenia” – the concept that all mortals should offer help to strangers who come to their homes - food, bathing, a bed for the night - as they could be a god in disguise. As a result, the Greek word for “stranger” – ‘ξενος’ – “xenos”, can also be translated as “guest-friend”. A major theme of the Odyssey is that of hospitality and its violations, and the consequences of such things.
this is what they referred to as Zeus’ law. It is not actually called that. And they just name dropped it 200000 times without actually taking the time to investigate what it means in context and explain how its violation is significant. Treat others how you want to be treated is a shallow interpretation, and genuine questioning of what it means to give, receive and violate xenia were omitted from a lot of the journey interactions, where these themes hold significance – violations from the Greeks and altogether rejection with Polyphemus, deceitful violations with Circe, overprovision with Calypso, dangers of provision for the Phaeacians. Felt like a very surface level interaction with an absolutely core theme to me

Break it down sectional style

ok so I understand cutting things for time, I am ok with that. my issues were somewhat with what and how things were cut and the amount of attention and time given to certain parts.
I thought the pacing was really weird during the journey sequence. I don’t know why they rushed scenes like the cyclops and Circe, yet gave so much time to other, less significant moments, or additions that don’t necessarily forward the story or the themes.
Begins with Telemachus on Ithaca - personally thought this bit went on for too long and without the textual inciting incident (Athena speaking to Telemachus in disguise) it dragged a bit, and Telemachus’ decision to actually do something came a little out of nowhere. I’d have liked less of that at the start (or for it to have been more succinct) and more of the actual journey. Liked the suitors tho!!
No Nestor!!! My goat I’m so sorry they skipped you.
THEY SKIPPED HELEN DRUGGING EVERYONE AND I’M MAD ABOUT IT. Liked Helen, liked how vindicative she was, would have liked to see a more complicated, survivalist, playing-each-side vibe to her rather than seeming to just be angry with and hate her husband and her husband hate her. mixed opinions about Menelaus for reasons I can’t really explain. Vibes I guess.
No Phaeacians :(( In-text, Odysseus washes onshore at Scheria and is taken in by the Phaeacians - initial example of good hospitality to contrast the suitors. Their absence messes with the structure of the story quite a lot, and ruins some of the lovely ring composition :( He tells them the story, not calypso, and they then help him get home and are punished by Poseidon for doing so. (Q of conflict between Xenia and the direct will of the gods). Disregarding the divine makes it hard to include them, but I think they are a more meaningful audience than Calypso - mortal audience rep of the actual listeners of the epic.
No Aeolus!! The floating island!! :( again, cut for time and for not having gods but that bit is fun :(
Calypso - why are we there for so long!! Imo too much time spent there. Also why are there lotus flowers there? Interesting approach, tying into what I believe is the mischaracterisation of Odysseus in avoiding returning home (lotus makes you forget friends and family). Liked the costuming for calypso, would have liked a more interesting look for the island (felt kinda grey and barren to me)
Polyphemus gets his own section later.
I liked the Laestrygonians!!! Was lowkey surprised they made it in so props. Maybe too much time spent there though. Big battle scene necessary I suppose.
WHY were Circe and the Laestrygonians on the same island. what. This is insane work. Weird lack of focus and time spent on the actual locations of the journey. No lotus eaters either.
Circe was so cool. The transformation was actually sickening. I would have liked to see more of her and have her be more obviously powerful like in the text. Sad we didn’t get her palaces as she deserved, and would’ve loved more time and intrigue and actual trickery wars between her and Odysseus (the plight of no gods. No Hermes = no moly = no being able to dramatic irony your way through the poisoning. Tragic)
loved the sirens tbh. Very fun.
Helios’ island was good actually. Again lacking in the more overt divine aspects but that’s to be expected now.
I LOVED the underworld, what a fun way to do that. Them crawling up out of the ground was so peak, covered in the black dirt. Amaze amaze amaze. Sad that Odysseus’ mother was excluded, that’s a lovely moment of grief as he realises that his actions and hubris has led to more than the deaths of his crew, but has also led directly to personal loss and the suffering of his loved ones, the first tangible recognition of this.
On that note, Laertes is just. Not in the film at all. Which is a choice I guess. Final moment of homecoming is the reunion between Odysseus and his father, which is just. Absent. Again, really feels like the homecoming theme is sidelined, which, given that’s one of the core themes, maybe an oversight?
Very much enjoyed the sacking of troy, this is actually my favourite interpretation of the Trojan horse I’ve seen as well, LOVED the half-buried in sand vibe and the literal drowning with the tide. Based. Whole invasion sequence was also fun. Liked the detail of the Trojans using the rolling logs to move it too. HOWEVER. For a film whose new and added theme is the horror of war, it felt very unhorrible? The barbarism of the Greeks at times felt watered down, and I felt Nolan shied away from the true crimes that were committed (assaults, taking slaves etc) which I think ties back to this puritan image of a troubled soldier that he wants Odysseus to represent. YES, he’s TROUBLED by WAR but he didn‘t do too many bad things so he’s redeemable!! Odysseus is kind of a bastard in the text and everyone knows it! Lean into that and I assure you you’ll get better internal conflict than “I don’t want to go home” from guy whose entire purpose in this story is seeking home.

There is lots of boat! This is good and bad! I like how the boats look and sail! But maybe too much boat at times. Could have done with like. 25% less boat.

POLYPHEMUS. Oh my god. How do you fumble the best part of the text.

absolute lack of tricks!! This is Odysseus’ time to shine and nothing happened!! Where was my arrogant attempts to debate Polyphemus? Where was my using the wine to knock him out (example of violating Xenia and trying to impart Greek philosophies on foreign peoples) to Where was my “I am Noman”? Where was my hiding under the sheep! Tragic. Core part of Odysseus’ character is just missing. ALSO I WANTED THE BIG SHEEP :(
Making Polyphemus an ineloquent/unintelligent creature rather than a speaking, divine adjacent being undermines that whole fight imo. It’s man vs monster not man vs enemy (if that makes sense??) Odysseus doesn’t have to outsmart an intelligent being, but a more animalistic creature. Taking away that intelligence reduces him to another monster of the week instead of the opponent who understands Odysseus’ intentions and offer of peace and instead makes the explicit choice of violence - shows a different sort of danger. Asking Odysseus’ name in what seems to be an acceptance of hospitality then turning around to state that he will kill him last. Absolute cinema.
Additionally, losing the speech results in no direct prayer to Poseidon (additional issue of lack of direct divinity) – as a result, 1 line of exposition revealing Polyphemus as son of Poseidon and a vague implication that this will be bad. Direct prayer is so key to original as it is the moment that Odysseus’ arrogance, intelligence and hubris dooms himself and his crew to their fates. His need to outsmart and gloat over his opponent causes Polyphemus to call directly for retribution, praying that Odysseus will never make it home, or that if he does he will be late, without honour and following the death of his whole crew. Key moment of damnation becomes vague and unclear, the tragic doomed narrative is lost as we don’t have the divine confirmation that every attempt Odysseus makes to fight fate and save his crew is in vain. Small details have important narrative consequence.
The look of the cyclops was excellent though, I was very freaked out by him. Apparently he was part puppetry too!

Scylla was so cool. Genuine jumpscare moment and I knew it was coming! Not much else on that tbh, quite a short section. My brother did point out that there did seem to be a lot of empty space next to Charybdis tho which like. Bit less believable that they couldn’t just. Sail around her. I’ll give it a pass though. (Also fun fact this is where the phrase ‘between a rock and a hard place’ comes from)

I liked the Sinon addition actually! Fun replacement for Elpenor’s role in the underworld and gives some fun surrounding context to the Trojan horse. Based. Liked the excuse for extra suffering for Antinous too.
I love Tiresias. That’s it that’s the bullet point.

Why was there an assassination attempt at Pylos? IMO wasting time that could be used more productively on textual (or text expansion) parts to have another pointless fight scene. Quite a lot of pointless fight scenes. And quite a lot of being chased by armies back to the ship. It’s almost a running gag at this point. Don’t hate that bit tbh.

I have opinions about Nolan’s writing of female characters. You’ve given calypso more screen time only for her to just. Prompt Odysseus. Why. Use that time to investigate godhood and its (in)compatibility with mortality. Or something more than being a prompter for a man. Idk. I would’ve liked to see more of Circe being powerful and manipulative and vicious towards the men (yes, even more than we got) and less of Circe immediately folding to Odysseus after he asks nicely. TRICKERY AND DECEIT. Make her stronger willed!! Circe was generally decent tho. Women felt generally quite one note. This leads us to:

Penelope misrepresentation :((

I felt very much that the majority of trying to make “strong female characters” resulted in making Penelope be angry and shout and hit us with classic lines like “women can’t take the throne!!” Which, yes, point. However, that’s not really how Penelope approached it?? Penelope and Odysseus work because they are equally as tricksy and intelligent as each other. They brought in the weaving trick (which in the text is already concluded) so I would’ve loved to see that represented rather than expositioned at us! Show me Penelope weaving all day, then tirelessly unweaving it by candlelight all night. Show me her plotting more subtle ways to delay the suitors instead of just shouting empty words! I don’t mind extrapolation to improve a character, but align it with their actual characterisation!
And to boot, we absolutely ignore the best scene for Penelope which proves her intellectual equality to Odysseus - the olive bed scene!!! Post suitor slaughter, Penelope does not trust that this man is Odysseus (the pin does not exist. Done for cinematic ease I presume. Maybe if we didn’t spend so much time on boats we’d have had time for the DEFINING MOMENT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN THE TEXT.) She tells him to move their bed in their room, a final test for Odysseus to prove himself, as their wedding bed was carved by Odysseus, with one post being a live olive tree – room built around the tree. Him pointing this out proves his identity, and shows Penelope’s loyalty, dedication and intellect at the same time, withholding her relief until she is absolutely certain her husband is home.
I appreciate attempts to give Penelope more agency but her entire arc is founded on her inability to take direct action. Subtle actions are her strength, and some elements which give thematic and societal information are also excluded – the veil is one I noticed (in some ways replaced by the screen wall and door, but lacks the societal implications). High born women wore veils when in public and had to be accompanied by chaperones – the interesting part is that Penelope begins to wear a veil in her house when speaking to the suitors, and be accompanied by two of her maids at all times – implication is that the invasion of the suitors has destroyed the notion of home for Penelope, forcing her to take outside precautions in her own household.
Theme of home and homecoming and what it means to come home is absolutely key to this story, so this implication that despite the house still standing, the home has been destroyed by Odysseus’ absence and the imposition of the suitors is less prominent as a result of the omission of these details.
For Odysseus, this is the question of: when am I home? Is it arriving back on Ithaca? Is it finally seeing his son? Is it reclaiming his house? Is it finally reuniting with Penelope? Is it seeing his father again after so long? Home and homecoming is core to Odysseus’ motivations, and the way that homes are built and honoured and violated and destroyed is key to this text.
This theme ties into xenia and customs concerning appropriate behaviour as guests and towards guests when entering homes. I also didn’t love the ending for this reason. What do you mean Odysseus spends that long trying to come home then IMMEDIATELY LEAVES HIS HOME AND HIS SON BEHIND. WHY. This is his son, whom he pretended to be senile in order to try and see grow up and avoid fighting at troy. And you expect me to believe he’s just going to leave him behind?

I know costumes and sets were inaccurate, but that’s not my department so I won’t comment too much. General notes were that at times it was pulled off, at others it felt like bad cosplay and very hollywoodified. Would have loved to see accurate armour and actually create a new aesthetic identity rather than submitting to the stereotyped roman hollywoodified look but oh well. Agamemnon’s Darth Vader horse armour lowkey cooked though.
I LOVED THE MUSIC I LOVED THE SCORE I thought it was absolutely gorgeous. Huge props. Loved the slight marry of musicality with Odysseus and him strumming the bowstring too that was a nice touch.

TO CONCLUDE

Some of this is nitpicky, some of it, I believe, is not and is a genuine criticism coming from the POV of someone very familiar with the text. Yes I understand things had to be changed for film format and time, no I don’t think that is an excuse for some of the choices made – the mischaracterisation of Odysseus especially, and I disagree with Nolan’s approach to the divine as I think the absence of the divine forces cuts and rearrangements that overcomplicate and detract from key plot points and themes. It’s clear that Nolan had themes he wanted to insert in (his classic lonely tormented man, impacts of war on the soldier and the world and its inhabitants), and while that is present in og Odyssey, the text has far more diverse and complex themes which take precedence over those. I find it a little frustrating when the core message of a text is sidelined to the extent that characters, and even the story is changed, under the guise and good PR of a famous (but culturally significant and semantically loaded) source material. This is certainly a story inspired by the Odyssey, but it is not a wholly faithful adaptation and that should be communicated to the audience. It undervalues the core characteristics of its protagonist and supporting characters and fails to explore the rich culture of the divine and mythological surroundings upon which the roots of the source text are built on. It is the interaction and dissonance between the divine and the mortal which makes the text so fascinating, the interplay between fate and free will and the impossibility of success and safety in a world where gods can damn you with one word. Actions have consequences, and the divine are always prepared to serve retribution.

I believe that this being a Hollywood film and needing to be accessible to a wider audience should not result in the omission of and dumbing down of cultural concepts (see Xenia > Zeus’ law), but I would have loved a meaningful investigation into the culture and societal struggles of the time, which by imposing his own themes and ignoring those of the text, Nolan fails to achieve.

AGAIN, this is all my opinion and coming from a highly critical perspective. The film was pretty enjoyable (if REALLY loud. like. ow.) and there were lots of choices I liked!! But I am burdened with glorious purpose (and 2/3 of a classics degree) so I am required to be very analytical. This is a text that means a lot to a lot of people and holds massive cultural significance, so to wholly change parts of the core themes and meanings I feel is unnecessary. There are so many wonderful Greek plays about many of the themes Nolan imposes, so I always wonder in scenarios like this why he didn’t take one more suited. Imposing his own main themes with the result that they actively contradict with core part of the story, I feel, does not result in a good adaptation! (All my opinion I must remind)

AGAIN AGAIN, there was a lot about this that I enjoyed, I am delighted that so many people are taking an interest and I sincerely hope that anyone who has watched it and is interested (and if you’ve made it this far through this stream of consciousness), goes and reads the text for themselves! It’s available online for free here on the Project Gutenberg website. Go wild, form your own opinions, and debate. I hope this is coherent.

AND, keep reading classical literature!! :D

Additional recommendations (AKA Greek plays I like that you should read while Odyssey mania persists):

Oedipus Tyrannus – Sophocles

Antigone - Sophocles

Elektra – Euripides

The Women of Troy – Euripides

Agamemnon – Aeschylus

Aeneid – Virgil (Latin but the founding story of Rome building off of Homer’s Odyssey following the surviving Trojans on their trip to Troy. A merging of the Iliad and Odyssey with Roman setting)