Much like their knowledge of the default of a UK driving licence…
4 Likes
That´s because Kubrick cast Nicholson and Nolan couldn´t…
2 Likes
Perhaps to close the argument on THE ODYSSEY with a forgiving line by Emily Wilson:
“Nolan,” Wilson says, “is doing his best to get the general public reading again, and I am grateful.”
She’s not quite as taken by the film as many other reviewers, however…
4 Likes
One day, a more compelling film might be able to be made about the reaction to The Odyssey.
3 Likes
All I can say is that having now seen it twice with an array of friends and one husband–everyone liked it. The movie is an audience pleaser. Nolan took an ancient text, and transformed it into a popular film.
I think that the more one reflects on it as a version of The Odyssey, the more one can find fault. But even my second viewing on Saturday (in 70mm this time) did not dimmish my admiration for what he did well (in fact, it increased a bit). But my reservations are still there, and they were not alleviated at all.
My current theory is that viewers’ vague memories of a text they read years/decades ago (if they read it at all) were stirred and sated, with Nolan’s directorial talent bringing people over the finish line.
2 Likes
What else can be achieved with a movie if not making audiences like/love it and yet think about it afterwards?
Looking forward to see it (hopefully) in IMAX.
2 Likes
I mean, I’m currently reading her translation of The Iliad*, something I never would have done before seeing The Odyssey…so I guess she shouldn’t consider it that shameful.
*It’s awesome, btw. I can’t believe I never read these.
3 Likes
This review is getting viral according to THR, and having read it now, I must say it really is vicious, devestatingly so.
And while it is her prerogative to feel that way, publishing this kind of vitriol makes me think that she knew what she were doing, and in most cases like these there is a hidden component. Did she offer her services and got rejected? Or is she just trying to milk the huge success for her own gain? Hey, lady, I actually ordered your translation, due to @dustin recommending it.
3 Likes
I look at it this way: the news that Nolan was doing a film about the Odyssey probably led more people to read it than normally would…probably a LOT more. And the more this debate rages on, the more press the book gets. Some will read it because they like the movie and want more, some because they have a problem with the movie or its perceived politics and want to look for ways to slam it, but hey they’re all reading. If the film had been fully faithful to the book, that would be an excuse to never read it; watching is easier than reading. So all’s well that ends well. There’s a movie, there’s a book, they’re sort of similar but different, too. Best of both worlds.
Then again, I’m content to wait for it to show up on a streaming service, so I’m obviously not what you’d call “polarized” in one direction or the other.
6 Likes
Wilson’s review is not vitriolic. Wesley Morris on his “Cannonball” podcast and in his visit to Pablo Torre’s “Pablo Torre Finds Out” (Torre likes the film) makes similar points about Nolan’s weaknesses as a filmmaker, and receives fine pushback from his interlocutors.
1 Like
It’s not as if Nolan’s version could have been completely faithful to “the book” as it were anyway. How many versions of “The Odyssey” have there been? It was passed down orally for a long time before it was written down. After it was written down, it was translated into a multitude of languages over the course of the 3,000 years it’s been a story.
So, I guess the question stands as to which version of “The Odyssey” was Nolan supposed to be faithful to? Given it’s a story that has changed over the years, what makes Nolan’s changes to it less valid than whatever changes were made to it when it was being passed down orally? Or the changes that were made when it was translated into a vast number of different languages? Or the changes that happened with previous film versions? Would bringing Brad Pitt back to play Achilles have made a difference?
3 Likes
In the end, it’s all about getting clicks and attention, and contrarians always get more of it when they zoom in on a huge and unexpected all over the world success.
And sure, Nolan got his fanboys but also his detractors.
I am in neither camp, but I am always on the side of the creative who actually undertook an exhausting and risky endeavour - and then succeeded in bringing in critics and audiences alike.
Unfortunately, the next step always is the backlash.
Again, Wilson did not need to publish her very harsh comments, and she could have simply stated that the movie is not her interpretation of the source. To say she would be ashamed of having anything to do with it shows a lack of style and decorum.
4 Likes
I guess I just don’t understand who her target audience is with those remarks. There’s a troubling elitism to it, the inclusion of the word “ashamed” giving the whole thing a real bitter taste. She is, of course, and not unlike the rest of us, free to give an honest opinion of the movie online. But who needs to know the depth of her contempt in this case? The film doesn’t present her work as amoral, cruel, tasteless or truly shameful in any way. If anything, the movie is by every measure an extremely well made adaption that has made this story more accessible to a wide audience (of which I consider myself to be very much a part of). It should be an exciting cultural moment, given where we’re at, that Homer is as big a topic in the public sphere as it perhaps has ever been. Seriously, when has there ever been so much interest and discussion surrounding the work of Homer in recent history? But I guess she just really didn’t like it and she felt the need to exercise her freedom to tell everyone just how unpleasant she found the experience, with no clear agenda in mind beyond expression for its own sake. Not invalid, just an odd decision that to my eyes could have been handled with a bit more tact. We really didn’t need a discouraging word from someone of her stature right now when people are taking an interest in this stuff for the first time. It’s a chill that didn’t need to be let in.
3 Likes
Article seems based on the anorexic premise that people go to see something marketed as the hugest IMAX spectacle for its writing. It’s got to be written, the people up there need to say things now and again, but I’m not sure that’s the main draw of something like this, nor therefore does it need someone so erudite and from a major University to point out to us plebs how academically unriched we are by all the BOOM. Rampant snobbery, and I say that as rampant snob. But not in the original Greek. Still, it’s probably more fun to pontificate in an eccentric manner than to trudge through marking a dispiriting batch of undergraduate AI-generated essays that demonstrate how little one has inspired the academic curiosity of one’s learners and how low the respect for one’s subject. Displacement activity of a bored elitist. In a wholly unrelated vein, did I mention that Deathmatch will return?
7 Likes
It can‘t return soon enough.
4 Likes
I am not sure that The London Review of Books is all about getting clicks a la Buzzfeed, and Emily Wilson’s reading is less contrarian or an expression of backlash, than an example of close reading.
Her comments were not harsh, they were an accurate close reading, and if close readings are harsh, then we had better let D.A. Miller, Dorothy Parker, Gore Vidal, and others know that when they apply/applied scrutiny and intelligence to a text, they are/were being harsh and elitist (Vidal would probably have said “Thank you.”).
Wilson is reasonable when she writes: “It’s a family-friendly audiovisual spectacle, like an elaborate Fourth of July fireworks display – and with about the same level of narrative and emotional depth.” Certainly, my (chosen) family enjoyed it at the two screenings I attended with them, and they (and I) concur with Wilson that the film is not boring. But as for depth–it is not there, and as I have posted before, film is a difficult medium to achieve depth in, unless one follows the path of Cassavetes, Bergman, Fassbinder, and some others, which is not Nolan’s aesthetic practice.
Agreed. But since the film does have a script as a formal element of its production, critiquing said script is a valid activity, and Wilson’s assessment is accurate: “But writing dialogue is not one of Nolan’s talents. The language is relentlessly expository, humourless and flat.” Nolan’s scripts have always been heavy on exposition, and, for me, that approach actually works better here, since THE ODYSSEY is a story being told (a point also emphasized in the podcasts I linked to above).
I am more concerned about the first responses to SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY:
“‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day‘ may be the most Marvel Marvel movie I’ve ever marveled.”
Such wordplay. Oscar Wilde would be pea green with envy.
Or my personal favorite:
“My flabber has been ghasted.” (It’s spelled “flabbergast,” but no matter.)
I think there is a great danger in rebranding expertise and erudition as elitism, so as to cast them aside, thus clearing the way for a wallow in populism. That is how we got fake news, alternative facts, vaccine skepticism, and Trumpism and its discontents.
One last question: how much more money are we going to spend to bring this man home?
4 Likes
That’s only $593 million spent on bringing Matt Damon home. That’s probably the equivalent of a government-contracted stapler and half a box of staples to go with it.
We need at least two more of these films to reach a billion dollars spent on bringing Matt Damon home. He’s now been brought home from WWII, Mars, the farthest reaches of known space, and across the Mediterranean Sea and even into the underworld itself. Where else could Hollywood possibly leave him that could top these?
Maybe Nolan can buck the trend and film The Iliad next and have it be about Damon being sent somewhere for a change.
5 Likes
Antarctica. Shackleton.
6 Likes
I was referring to her opinion on Nolan, and I strongly disagree.
2 Likes
Again, I disagree, but the worst offender in her opinion piece was the „I would be ashamed“-part.
Disagreeing with choices made, sure. But being ashamed if associated with this film is hyperbole I don’t think Homer would enjoy.
3 Likes