He's a technical director, and by that I mean he's not mastered emotion, depth, or even just the mundanity of life in a frame. All the facets of human complexity take a backseat to the visual. Everything has to LOOK gorgeous, but it doesn't mean anything. He insists on writing too, and it's not a strength of his. That can only be ego. Very few can do both successfully. He's made a popcorn movie, and he's very good at making them. But there is nothing emotionally complex about what he does, and if you're looking for that, other projects will serve you better.
I think I agree with all of this! Also why I loved Boogie Nights so much - wild that PTA both wrote and directed something so emotionally affecting, and such a young age. And it looks phenomenal!
really enjoyed the review and agree with lots of the points here, especially thinking more about the unfortunate pacing and dialogue.
The ending actually made me laugh. It seemed like a silly way to avoid the hard questions of how to go on after all the bloodshed and social breakdown (and isn't that the entire theme Nolan is trying to get at?). After questioning the violence of the war and return we're somehow asked to be entirely okay with killing everyone in the palace, and Odysseus conveniently never has to live with its thorny consequences because he just. Leaves.
I think the disappointing choices makes sense when Nolan's Odyssey is read as a genre shift to standard American war film -- guilt and PTSD, but nothing too disturbing or challenging, the happy heterosexual family and their very cute dog. I think Oppenheimer was good, partly because it is credibly a story about American violence and guilt, and not also trying to play to the genre of a feel-good action film at the same time. The messaging feels bland and badly integrated into the Odyssey, and generates some troubling political metaphors (the suitors cannot help but be read as an immigration metaphor from the start) that you're right about being potentially unintended, but are too important to overlook.
I agree that Oppenheimer tackled it more interestingly though I do know a lot of people disliked the last third foe that very reason! I thought it was absolutely necessary
I'm glad you mentioned the cut back to the dog, I hate these "reminder cuts" that always feel so patronising. I didn't hate the film, but didn't love it. Due to the constant quick cuts I often felt like I was watching a trailer, probably for a better film.
You can feel the studio hands all over them, can't you? Feels mad to be watching a film that is made to be watched in an IMAX cinema with such bizarre insertions made at the insistence of a studio exec whose brain is wired to cater for people watching on a second screen at home
Exactly, and it's the type of cut that really ruins any hope of nuance or depth on a rewatch, for those who like it enough to watch it again. Let that shit breathe for god's sake, let people discover things that they might even (*gasp*) miss on first watch.
great review!! i think when the millenia-old poem has a more nuanced portrayal of women than the movie that came out a couple weeks ago, something's gone awry. based on what you've said, i think you'll enjoy reading it!
Great review, thorough and considered! Eesh the dialogue! I rewatched Hamnet yesterday too and was wincing at the dialogue as well.. I couldn’t get through it tbh. I shall go and watch The Mastermind instead! I did respond to the idea of the Trojan horse as a cipher for the internet or AI, the kind of removal of basic human kindness and interaction, a break in the social agreements we have made with each other. I thought that was interesting. But yes totally agree that the ‘social bonds’ theme was wildly inconsistent and contradicted throughout.. and no time for action to breathe at all. I had my earplugs in for most of the film, I don’t think I could have stayed without them! 🫣
I will not focus on the editing (I have never been particularly sensitive to that aspect of filmmaking, and I personally had no issue with it—though I could certainly be convinced and will pay closer attention to it on a rewatch), nor on the dialogue (there I agree with you wholeheartedly).
I will push back a bit on the film's messaging, however. I have read the source material and, as you also acknowledge in your piece, I think there is a difference in how the film is appreciated by those who have read the poem (and can simultaneously appreciate both the inspiration and the adaptation choices) and those watching it as a standalone work.
Nolan undoubtedly imposes some contemporary ideas onto the story. In the original material, there seems to be little moral compunction about the act of war itself. Had Nolan been willing to fully transpose a modern sensibility and ethical framework onto the narrative, I would agree with you that he did not go far enough, that he should have condemned war in general rather than merely elevating the "polite forms of it," as you call them.
I do not think that is what he is trying to do, however. Rather, he combines the events of the original narrative with modern hypotheses about the end of the Bronze Age (as is evident, for example, in his integration of the Sea Peoples). That framework allows him to introduce modern moral sensibilities by encouraging the characters to reflect on the consequences of their past careless actions, without going so far as to condemn war in all its forms. Such a position would have felt, I think, considerably more anachronistic and would have been a much clearer case of imposing modern ethical values onto the period. [Edit : Also, the Trojan Horse was an act for which responsibility rested squarely on Odysseus's shoulders, whereas his participation in the war itself was clearly portrayed as something over which he had no real choice.]
I would also argue that this film goes further than Oppenheimer in confronting the consequences of its protagonist's actions. It could probably have gone further still, but we do witness the carnage directly. By contrast, in Oppenheimer, the film remains confined to the protagonist's perspective and his guilt, we never once glimpse the victims themselves. Likewise, I do not think the film excuses Odysseus because he feels guilty. It would have done so had he simply reclaimed his throne and resumed his former life. Instead, his exile suggests that he must attempt to atone for his actions, even if such atonement is ultimately impossible.
As for Emily Wilson's review of the film, while I defer to her authority on the source material itself, I found her reading of the film to be a bad-faith interpretation that focuses almost exclusively on departures from the original poem and even misrepresents Nolan's choices.
I appreciate this take and its nuances though I don't think it changes my reading of the film; I think it's very unlikely that he wasn't trying to make a point about the current moment, though appreciate your theorising and the extra context RE the Bronze Age (which chimes with the ludicrously clunky 'end of our Age of Bronze' line).
I still think Oppenheimer goes further, though; the (much despised) last half shows Oppenheimer repenting by trying to constrain what he unleashed while being completely destroyed for daring to do so, whereas this Odysseus returns immediately to his old ways (the superhero-tainted climax, in which we are position to continue to root for him) before deciding on his own fate.
I maintain that the film does not seek to justify war, nor to depict a tortured yet "great" man, but rather a man (and a society) who looks back at what he (it) has done and can no longer see it as worthwhile or morally defensible. I also think that - historically speaking - reaching a societal consensus on morality (to the extent that this is possible) starts with condemning individual actions that we find reprehensible, and then expands outwards to eventually arrive at more universal axioms. So I see this depiction as the beginning of that reflection.
I will not add anything on Oppenheimer, seeing as it has been a long time since I saw the film and - having admittedly not liked it - I do not think I can add anything of value (although the points of not showing the victims still stands). I will say, though, that the Odyssey frames the suitors as having transgressed the same law that Odysseus himself took advantage of in Troy. Therefore, I do not see that as incongruous with the rest of the film's messaging.
I'd be interested in your thoughs once you read the original.
Might I also recommend "An Odyssey: A Father, a Son and an Epic" by Daniel Mendelsohn (no matter if you choose his latest translation of the Odyssey or not). The way he weaves analysis of the original poem into the story is excellent - and is also much more "alive" than other purely academic introductions (although those have their merits as well).
I am wondering, which one was the bad actor you mention? I have found online that the consensus is that Tom Holland was miscast - but for me his storyline was actually the only engaging part of the movie, I genuinely enjoyed seeing him on screen.
I thought he was fine, though not given a ton to do. I thought Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, was unbearable - best in the loom scenes, excruciatingly bad in the scenes being clipped and shared everywhere
Haven’t seen the film – had no particular desire to – but greatly enjoyed this review, as it said a lot about modern film making in general. I’ve found myself saying several times recently “they’re just not making big films for grown-ups any more“. I wonder what The Godfather would look like if it was made now, and by Christopher Nolan.
Virtually all of the feedback I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances has been positive , but why does it seem that people are told that they’re going to enjoy the latest epic, and why, and that seems to inform their opinion much more than anything they’ve actually seen. I watch a lot of movies still, but these days I’m much more watching films from the 60s and 70s that I missed back in the day or that I haven’t seen for a long time. There’s typically a slower pace and more reflective tone - even in what are notionally action films or epics – that is absolutely joyous. Characters live and breathe. Stories settle and resonate. All of this seems to have gone.
I totally agree - though would love to flag up La Chimera and The Mastermind as movies which stand against this tide! (The latter I've written about here though that piece is full of spoilers.)
Apparently you can't shoot more than two and a half to three minutes at a time on IMAX cameras - which doesn't explain every bad editing choice, but is definitely part of the reason why the film never settles on anything, even in some of the really well-designed (and no doubt very expensive) epic scenes which would have had more impact with time to breathe.
I suspect the technology also partly explains the issue around focus in dialogue scenes. He snookered himself by using cameras that were never meant to be used for close-ups for every single shot of the film.
What baffles me the most is the insistence some people have on painting Odysseus as a morally right hero which he's obviously not. I haven't watched the movie and after your review I've no idea if I ever will. Based on the poem text he's cunning and ruthless, yes, he suffers a lot during the course of the poem and it can be discussed without making him a hero but not a good person. He has no qualms killing sleeping soldiers or using subterfuge and stealth to achieve his aim. I don't remember the text mentioning raping and pillaging but I am 90% sure Odysseus took part in this too. He also doesn't give a damn about honest warfare or honour.
I remember the scene where her after being reunited with Telemachus and kicking out squatters goes on to murder all of the servants for not defending his wife I guess? Also if I remember correctly he married Penelope when she was *very* young and he was already an adult. I am also 90% sure the chief reason he was so mad at squatters was not breaking hospitality but them being willing to harm *his* wife and *male* child. He doesn't seem to have qualms with the tactic as a whole based on the text.
Also him being tormented by things he's done during wartime is the least possible consequence for his actions.
I think this is what drives the thematic incongruence of the whole thing. Trying to make him into a relatable 'hero' character for now (which he remains, in the positioning and plot of the film, despite lamenting his actions), and having him give this impassioned speech about how their assault on Troy was an assault on all civilisation, but clinging to the main events of the story, which include the ending as you've outlined it here (the servants who are loyal to him are spared). It would have been a much more interesting film if he was the character he seems to be in the poem!
Best review I’ve read, and I’m up to my neck in the source material. Your instincts on the way the speed flattened any possible meaning from the key episodes is spot on. There is no way in to this film. It reminded me of Troy, whose main purpose seemed to be to avoid any thought of Achilles’ homosexuality. Here, it’s Odysseus’ infidelity. Or Penelope’s. For a contrast, yes, read the poem - I recommend the Lattimore translation - and then see what Mike Leigh does with the material in Naked.
Terrific review, we too couldn’t hear what was being said at star , so much that I went and quizzed at the foyer about it. I thought a bit of a reboot of Jason and the Argonauts from the sixties, an innovative special effects masterpiece for its time ( stop motion filming) really interesting thing for us was its Culbin Bay location where the attack of the giant stormtroopers took place. FYI if you go to the village of Findhorn and pay the guy £20 , he will take you over the Bay, in a wee yellow plastic dingy to the beautiful sands that go on forever and known for its many seals basking on the beach and very few others.
He's a technical director, and by that I mean he's not mastered emotion, depth, or even just the mundanity of life in a frame. All the facets of human complexity take a backseat to the visual. Everything has to LOOK gorgeous, but it doesn't mean anything. He insists on writing too, and it's not a strength of his. That can only be ego. Very few can do both successfully. He's made a popcorn movie, and he's very good at making them. But there is nothing emotionally complex about what he does, and if you're looking for that, other projects will serve you better.
I think I agree with all of this! Also why I loved Boogie Nights so much - wild that PTA both wrote and directed something so emotionally affecting, and such a young age. And it looks phenomenal!
💯 agree about Boogie Nights. And so well cast, too. Also, great article! Thank you!
Wonderful review, thankyou.
really enjoyed the review and agree with lots of the points here, especially thinking more about the unfortunate pacing and dialogue.
The ending actually made me laugh. It seemed like a silly way to avoid the hard questions of how to go on after all the bloodshed and social breakdown (and isn't that the entire theme Nolan is trying to get at?). After questioning the violence of the war and return we're somehow asked to be entirely okay with killing everyone in the palace, and Odysseus conveniently never has to live with its thorny consequences because he just. Leaves.
I think the disappointing choices makes sense when Nolan's Odyssey is read as a genre shift to standard American war film -- guilt and PTSD, but nothing too disturbing or challenging, the happy heterosexual family and their very cute dog. I think Oppenheimer was good, partly because it is credibly a story about American violence and guilt, and not also trying to play to the genre of a feel-good action film at the same time. The messaging feels bland and badly integrated into the Odyssey, and generates some troubling political metaphors (the suitors cannot help but be read as an immigration metaphor from the start) that you're right about being potentially unintended, but are too important to overlook.
I agree that Oppenheimer tackled it more interestingly though I do know a lot of people disliked the last third foe that very reason! I thought it was absolutely necessary
I'm glad you mentioned the cut back to the dog, I hate these "reminder cuts" that always feel so patronising. I didn't hate the film, but didn't love it. Due to the constant quick cuts I often felt like I was watching a trailer, probably for a better film.
You can feel the studio hands all over them, can't you? Feels mad to be watching a film that is made to be watched in an IMAX cinema with such bizarre insertions made at the insistence of a studio exec whose brain is wired to cater for people watching on a second screen at home
Exactly, and it's the type of cut that really ruins any hope of nuance or depth on a rewatch, for those who like it enough to watch it again. Let that shit breathe for god's sake, let people discover things that they might even (*gasp*) miss on first watch.
100%. Though my favourite point about the puppy flashback, made by two different friends to me, is that it's a completely different breed of dog
😂 Ffs, NOLAN.
great review!! i think when the millenia-old poem has a more nuanced portrayal of women than the movie that came out a couple weeks ago, something's gone awry. based on what you've said, i think you'll enjoy reading it!
I started doing the same timing of cuts at some point in the theater, baffling how careless a film it is.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't more discussion of the editing!
Great review, thorough and considered! Eesh the dialogue! I rewatched Hamnet yesterday too and was wincing at the dialogue as well.. I couldn’t get through it tbh. I shall go and watch The Mastermind instead! I did respond to the idea of the Trojan horse as a cipher for the internet or AI, the kind of removal of basic human kindness and interaction, a break in the social agreements we have made with each other. I thought that was interesting. But yes totally agree that the ‘social bonds’ theme was wildly inconsistent and contradicted throughout.. and no time for action to breathe at all. I had my earplugs in for most of the film, I don’t think I could have stayed without them! 🫣
I think that's what's frustrating - there are hints of ideas that could be good if teased out and made central!
I will not focus on the editing (I have never been particularly sensitive to that aspect of filmmaking, and I personally had no issue with it—though I could certainly be convinced and will pay closer attention to it on a rewatch), nor on the dialogue (there I agree with you wholeheartedly).
I will push back a bit on the film's messaging, however. I have read the source material and, as you also acknowledge in your piece, I think there is a difference in how the film is appreciated by those who have read the poem (and can simultaneously appreciate both the inspiration and the adaptation choices) and those watching it as a standalone work.
Nolan undoubtedly imposes some contemporary ideas onto the story. In the original material, there seems to be little moral compunction about the act of war itself. Had Nolan been willing to fully transpose a modern sensibility and ethical framework onto the narrative, I would agree with you that he did not go far enough, that he should have condemned war in general rather than merely elevating the "polite forms of it," as you call them.
I do not think that is what he is trying to do, however. Rather, he combines the events of the original narrative with modern hypotheses about the end of the Bronze Age (as is evident, for example, in his integration of the Sea Peoples). That framework allows him to introduce modern moral sensibilities by encouraging the characters to reflect on the consequences of their past careless actions, without going so far as to condemn war in all its forms. Such a position would have felt, I think, considerably more anachronistic and would have been a much clearer case of imposing modern ethical values onto the period. [Edit : Also, the Trojan Horse was an act for which responsibility rested squarely on Odysseus's shoulders, whereas his participation in the war itself was clearly portrayed as something over which he had no real choice.]
I would also argue that this film goes further than Oppenheimer in confronting the consequences of its protagonist's actions. It could probably have gone further still, but we do witness the carnage directly. By contrast, in Oppenheimer, the film remains confined to the protagonist's perspective and his guilt, we never once glimpse the victims themselves. Likewise, I do not think the film excuses Odysseus because he feels guilty. It would have done so had he simply reclaimed his throne and resumed his former life. Instead, his exile suggests that he must attempt to atone for his actions, even if such atonement is ultimately impossible.
As for Emily Wilson's review of the film, while I defer to her authority on the source material itself, I found her reading of the film to be a bad-faith interpretation that focuses almost exclusively on departures from the original poem and even misrepresents Nolan's choices.
I appreciate this take and its nuances though I don't think it changes my reading of the film; I think it's very unlikely that he wasn't trying to make a point about the current moment, though appreciate your theorising and the extra context RE the Bronze Age (which chimes with the ludicrously clunky 'end of our Age of Bronze' line).
I still think Oppenheimer goes further, though; the (much despised) last half shows Oppenheimer repenting by trying to constrain what he unleashed while being completely destroyed for daring to do so, whereas this Odysseus returns immediately to his old ways (the superhero-tainted climax, in which we are position to continue to root for him) before deciding on his own fate.
I maintain that the film does not seek to justify war, nor to depict a tortured yet "great" man, but rather a man (and a society) who looks back at what he (it) has done and can no longer see it as worthwhile or morally defensible. I also think that - historically speaking - reaching a societal consensus on morality (to the extent that this is possible) starts with condemning individual actions that we find reprehensible, and then expands outwards to eventually arrive at more universal axioms. So I see this depiction as the beginning of that reflection.
I will not add anything on Oppenheimer, seeing as it has been a long time since I saw the film and - having admittedly not liked it - I do not think I can add anything of value (although the points of not showing the victims still stands). I will say, though, that the Odyssey frames the suitors as having transgressed the same law that Odysseus himself took advantage of in Troy. Therefore, I do not see that as incongruous with the rest of the film's messaging.
I'd be interested in your thoughs once you read the original.
I have a big trip coming up in September so it seems thematically appropriate to take the Odyssey with me!
Might I also recommend "An Odyssey: A Father, a Son and an Epic" by Daniel Mendelsohn (no matter if you choose his latest translation of the Odyssey or not). The way he weaves analysis of the original poem into the story is excellent - and is also much more "alive" than other purely academic introductions (although those have their merits as well).
You absolutely can, thank you!
I am wondering, which one was the bad actor you mention? I have found online that the consensus is that Tom Holland was miscast - but for me his storyline was actually the only engaging part of the movie, I genuinely enjoyed seeing him on screen.
I thought he was fine, though not given a ton to do. I thought Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, was unbearable - best in the loom scenes, excruciatingly bad in the scenes being clipped and shared everywhere
Haven’t seen the film – had no particular desire to – but greatly enjoyed this review, as it said a lot about modern film making in general. I’ve found myself saying several times recently “they’re just not making big films for grown-ups any more“. I wonder what The Godfather would look like if it was made now, and by Christopher Nolan.
Virtually all of the feedback I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances has been positive , but why does it seem that people are told that they’re going to enjoy the latest epic, and why, and that seems to inform their opinion much more than anything they’ve actually seen. I watch a lot of movies still, but these days I’m much more watching films from the 60s and 70s that I missed back in the day or that I haven’t seen for a long time. There’s typically a slower pace and more reflective tone - even in what are notionally action films or epics – that is absolutely joyous. Characters live and breathe. Stories settle and resonate. All of this seems to have gone.
I totally agree - though would love to flag up La Chimera and The Mastermind as movies which stand against this tide! (The latter I've written about here though that piece is full of spoilers.)
Apparently you can't shoot more than two and a half to three minutes at a time on IMAX cameras - which doesn't explain every bad editing choice, but is definitely part of the reason why the film never settles on anything, even in some of the really well-designed (and no doubt very expensive) epic scenes which would have had more impact with time to breathe.
I suspect the technology also partly explains the issue around focus in dialogue scenes. He snookered himself by using cameras that were never meant to be used for close-ups for every single shot of the film.
He also uses a very dull mid-distance framing for most speaker scenes which doesn't help with the depth of field issue here
What baffles me the most is the insistence some people have on painting Odysseus as a morally right hero which he's obviously not. I haven't watched the movie and after your review I've no idea if I ever will. Based on the poem text he's cunning and ruthless, yes, he suffers a lot during the course of the poem and it can be discussed without making him a hero but not a good person. He has no qualms killing sleeping soldiers or using subterfuge and stealth to achieve his aim. I don't remember the text mentioning raping and pillaging but I am 90% sure Odysseus took part in this too. He also doesn't give a damn about honest warfare or honour.
I remember the scene where her after being reunited with Telemachus and kicking out squatters goes on to murder all of the servants for not defending his wife I guess? Also if I remember correctly he married Penelope when she was *very* young and he was already an adult. I am also 90% sure the chief reason he was so mad at squatters was not breaking hospitality but them being willing to harm *his* wife and *male* child. He doesn't seem to have qualms with the tactic as a whole based on the text.
Also him being tormented by things he's done during wartime is the least possible consequence for his actions.
I think this is what drives the thematic incongruence of the whole thing. Trying to make him into a relatable 'hero' character for now (which he remains, in the positioning and plot of the film, despite lamenting his actions), and having him give this impassioned speech about how their assault on Troy was an assault on all civilisation, but clinging to the main events of the story, which include the ending as you've outlined it here (the servants who are loyal to him are spared). It would have been a much more interesting film if he was the character he seems to be in the poem!
I agree!
(I do need to reread the Odyssey as I don't remember much)
Best review I’ve read, and I’m up to my neck in the source material. Your instincts on the way the speed flattened any possible meaning from the key episodes is spot on. There is no way in to this film. It reminded me of Troy, whose main purpose seemed to be to avoid any thought of Achilles’ homosexuality. Here, it’s Odysseus’ infidelity. Or Penelope’s. For a contrast, yes, read the poem - I recommend the Lattimore translation - and then see what Mike Leigh does with the material in Naked.
These are great recommendations, thank you!
Terrific review, we too couldn’t hear what was being said at star , so much that I went and quizzed at the foyer about it. I thought a bit of a reboot of Jason and the Argonauts from the sixties, an innovative special effects masterpiece for its time ( stop motion filming) really interesting thing for us was its Culbin Bay location where the attack of the giant stormtroopers took place. FYI if you go to the village of Findhorn and pay the guy £20 , he will take you over the Bay, in a wee yellow plastic dingy to the beautiful sands that go on forever and known for its many seals basking on the beach and very few others.
I haven't seen Jason and the Argonauts though it has come up a lot in discussions of this film! That's an amazing tip about Culbin Bay, thank you
I was reminded of Tarantino’s objection to Rambo, if you’re familiar with that.
I wasn't, and didn't even realise Rambo was an adaptation of a book! But for all his faults Tarantino sounds like he's correct in his assessment .