Classicist Emily Wilson, known for her acclaimed 2017 translation of Homer's The Odyssey, has delivered a scathing review of director Christopher Nolan's recent film adaptation. In a lengthy piece published in the London Review of Books, Wilson dissects the movie, arguing that it fails to capture the depth and complexity of the original epic poem.
Wilson's review, titled "An Uncomplicated Man," directly challenges the film's narrative and thematic coherence. She notes that while the movie amplifies the adorableness of Argos the dog, the human characters are not treated with similar attention. "If only the human characters had been treated with such serious attention," she writes.
Moral Contradictions and Character Motivation
A central criticism leveled by Wilson, and echoed by other observers, is the film's inconsistent moral framing. She points to several contradictions, such as the depiction of violence against the Trojans versus the killing of the suitors. The film appears to condemn the Greeks for taking the Trojan Horse, framing it as a violation of xenia (hospitality), but then presents Odysseus's own appropriation of his palace, wife, and resources by the suitors as a greater transgression deserving of death. Similarly, the film seemingly praises Odysseus for defying Poseidon by blinding Polyphemus, yet condemns Eurylochus for a far less egregious act of consuming the Cattle of the Sun.
"Deception is bad when Odysseus tricks Sinon or the suitors trick Telemachus, but good when Telemachus and Odysseus trick the suitors," Wilson observes. The film also struggles with conflicting messages on leadership and sharing, presenting both Odysseus's collaborative efforts with his crew and his autocratic rule as unequivocally good, while dissenting voices or those who overstep their bounds are depicted as evil or foolish.
This lack of clear ethical grounding extends to the film's portrayal of wealth and war. Wilson highlights the contradictory message that fighting to accumulate wealth is bad, but fighting to preserve existing wealth, even if acquired through conflict, is good. Ultimately, she concludes that these fragmented ideas create a chaotic narrative, lacking "a plank of solid, specific human experience to which we might cling."
A Shallow Spectacle
Wilson further argues that Nolan's Odyssey undercuts its own thematic points through loud, insistent pronouncements that lack substantiation within the narrative. The film's focus on Odysseus's "extended, self-inflicted guilt trip" is presented as a weak foundation for exploring complex themes. This perceived superficiality is compounded by the film's presentation of its visual elements. While some practical effects and location shoots are lauded for their quality compared to overly processed modern visuals, the overall aesthetic, including the depiction of food, is criticized.
"Nolan's Odyssey lacks many of the elements that make the poem great," Wilson states. "It has nothing convincing to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between one warrior's glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends and neighbours. It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible."
This final, seemingly mundane critique of the food's appearance encapsulates Wilson's broader disappointment with a film she believes ultimately fails to deliver on the richness and substance of its source material.