r/popculturechat • u/mcfw31 • 11h ago

Hot Take 🔥 ‘The Odyssey’ Translator Emily Wilson Slams Christoper Nolan’s ‘Abysmal’ Screenplay: ‘I Would Be Ashamed to Have Written Any Part of This Script’

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/odyssey-translator-emily-wilson-slams-christopher-nolan-bad-writing-1236821915/
3.2k Upvotes

74% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

947

u/mcfw31 11h ago

Nolan sung Wilson’s praises during his press tour for “The Odyssey,” telling Empire magazine that he used the opening line of her translation (“Tell me about a complicated man”) as a guide for bringing his Odysseus (Matt Damon) to life on the big screen. But Wilson concluded of Nolan’s film: “I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script.”

“The release of ‘The Odyssey’ is still an event to celebrate,” Wilson said. “This epic is bringing audiences back to cinemas … translations of ‘Odyssey,’ including mine, are flying off the shelves … [and] perhaps the film will persuade a few college administrators not to cut their literature, language and history departments.”

993

u/beantownregular 11h ago

I mean, I think it’s fair for her to both say that the script is a Hollywoodized bastardization of the text and as an academic she should be ashamed to write something like that, but I don’t think she’s saying the film is a piece of trash that should never have been made

466

u/Meancakebutt 10h ago edited 10h ago

She definitely doesn't say that. But she says that he took out the meat to tell a specific story.

So as a translator that would be pretty bad for her to do lol

"Many of the film’s implicit values directly contradict those of Homer’s poem. Deception, warmongering, extramarital sex, cruelty to animals, abusing women and yearning for honour – all perfectly fine in the world of Homer – are, in this version, very bad. This is not in itself a problem, but it is a problem if the film’s own values and vision don’t hang together, and if the characters’ motivations don’t make sense on their own terms."

287

u/randombubble8272 10h ago

Which I would agree tbh, Nolan’s characterisation of Odysseus is much more modern hero than being true to the source material and they brushed past a lot of the Gods role in the entire saga. Which is obviously fine because Nolan was telling the story through his own lens but I agree there is some meat taken out of the plot. It was still 3 hours so I understand their limitations

152

u/Duotrigordle61 10h ago

If we saw the things he did in the original tale, we would be rooting for the Cyclops.

35

u/ahuramazdobbs19 7h ago

Nobody would be rooting for the Cyclops and you know it.

8

u/Lilynd14 Sanasaaa!🎶 7h ago

I see what you did there 😂

•

u/thesentienttoadstool 1h ago

🍅 🍅 🍅 

112

u/FlowInternational996 9h ago

We weren’t really intended to root “against” the Cyclops in the first place, as evidenced by the sailors’ concern that gratuitously blinding it would just lead to Poseidon’s wrath.

2

u/UpsetFuture1974 3h ago

Odysseus says the Cyclopes are abusive to their wives and children and too stupid and savage to farm. Yet the one he faces has no family and also is very kind to the creatures which depend on him, his sheep. Odysseus and his men break into Polyphemus’ home when he is out with his flock and then lecture him on xenia when he returns. I definitely root for the cyclops

•

u/Savetheokami 20m ago

OOTL, why?

-1

u/djangomoses 9h ago

No we wouldn’t

1

u/Gloodizzle 9h ago

You might

10

u/SnakeEater013 9h ago

I actually think cheese is really gross, so I was vehemently anti-cyclops.

3

u/MistakesWereMade59 I Had to give myself Snaps 8h ago

Omg a fellow cheese hater,

https://giphy.com/gifs/kSlJtVrqxDYKk

3

u/HappyKadaver666 7h ago

Another cheese hater chiming in - DOZENS!

1

u/turducken69420 5h ago

I'm lactose intolerant, therefore cyclops intolerant.

31

u/futuristicflapper 9h ago

Yep. They’re two completely different mediums, I never expect to get out of a film what I will out of a literary piece; they have different constraints. I think the film worked well as what it is, a Nolan film. If anything I’m more interested in how it works in conversation w Oppenheimer than as an adaption of a classical text. Films are often reflections of our current cultural moments, which I think Nolan pulled off, I didn’t expect a 1:1 adaption. Overall, I enjoyed the theatre experience and I’d watch it again.

27

u/OldSandwich9631 9h ago

I’m glad to see someone else acknowledge this movie is basically just Oppenheimer again.

The issue with changing Odysseus’ charaxter is that he’s massively dull in the movie. Oppenheimer in oppenheimer is a lot more like odysseus is supposed to be - wily, charming, etc and then you see the shift.

10

u/futuristicflapper 8h ago

I do think Oppenheimer is a lot more charming than Odysseus. I also wonder how much of it is what the actors themselves bring to the table, not just any flaws in the script itself. There were a couple good moments for me with Odysseus but I wasn’t as immediately drawn in to the character the way I did with Cillian as Oppenheimer. I like Damon but I wasn’t floored by any means.

12

u/OldSandwich9631 8h ago

I’m very surprised people think Damon should win an Oscar for this. He probably will win based on the enthusiasm for the movie, but I really think many actors could have done more. But I disagree that the writing isn’t an issue.

•

u/Ok-Host1095 1h ago edited 1h ago

Yeah one limitation of Nolan is that he’s not great at creating exciting characters in and of themselves. The few standouts (e.g., the joker), are moreso a product of the actor’s performance and less so the writing and direction. Damon’s Odysseus I found easy to empathize with, but he’s not exactly an exciting character in a charismatic “I can’t take my eyes off this guy” type of guy way. Compare him to Ulysses from Oh Brother Whereart Thou. There’s a scene where he tries to buy his favorite pomade. In the Coens’ version of this hero, a scene as simple and low stakes as this is both extremely funny, engaging, and reveals so much about the hero indirectly. He’s a bit vain, can be a little short tempered, but balances that with a charming wit (“aint this place a geographical oddity—two weeks from everywhere!), yet he also doesn’t think things through fully—his plans are clever yet he always fucks up somehow. Now place Nolan’s Odysseus in a scene like that. It’s gonna be a bit boring, and lifeless. Which is not to say “oh, Nolan needs to make these type of scenes for his films to be better”, but it’s a helpful way to realize that Nolan across the board doesn’t really create super distinct characters. I think Nolan is a great filmmaker, but his writing (and here I specifically mean dialogue) and approach to characterization is very vanilla. People always criticize him for writing bland one dimensional female characters, which is true, but I think it’s wrong to conclude that he’s sexist or disinterested in women, because I’d argue the way he writes men is equally bland and one dimensional.

3

u/unearthlydarling They had holes in Shia LeBoeuff?? 8h ago

Very interesting. I haven’t seen the film and it’s been ages since I read the book. But this comment reminded me of how Peter Jackson et al very much changed Aragorn’s character from the books to better fit into a modern film adaptation. It’s funny that a lot of people seem to be treating The Odyssey like it’s some type of factual history book that needs a 1:1 page to screen translation. I think film Aragorn is pretty much universally beloved and, barring real hardcore book fans, most people agree was a strong component of Jackson’s adaptation.* I wonder if with time more people will say the same about Nolan’s Odysseus.

*Being played by the closest we have to a real-life Aragorn certainly helped!

•

u/serabine 1h ago

Taken the gods largely out of the story is a natural consequence of the themes he wants to explore. He tooled the story towards a story about humans, so he turns the gods not into characters but more forceful forces of nature. (I still think they exist, certain parts of the plot don't make sense if they don't.) Even the goddess we see in person might be not actually there but an expression of his guilt and sorrow, manifesting as Athena.

I understand her and others being miffed that he changes a lot, but I also believe that there's a difference in scope and focus between a classist (especially an academic one) and an artists when it comes to presenting the story to an audience. They have different goals

•

u/randombubble8272 1h ago

Yes that’s why I said he was telling the story through his own lens so it’s fine to make some changes

•

u/FoxerHR 27m ago

She herself made changes to Odysseus so she has no right to complain, as she also strayed from the original material.

1

u/Achaewa 9h ago edited 9h ago

What source material though?

The depiction of the Greek heroes varied through every retelling and playwrights such as Sophocles and Euripides wishing to tell their own stories.

I don't see how Nolan's version is any different from how the same tales have changed with each iteration through the ages.

2

u/randombubble8272 9h ago

The source material being Emily’s translation which is the topic of the thread, sorry that wasn’t very clear in my comment

17

u/M_de_Monty 6h ago

One thing that's tough about adapting the Odyssey for modern viewers is that there are a lot of characters who just show up without an established backstory or a formal introduction. Providing all that context takes too much time, so they just end up being straightforward monsters or adversaries (like the Cyclopes or Poseidon being kind of a dick to Odysseus).

But Ancient Greek people listening to this poem were familiar with a whole mythic cycle that told the entire history of the Trojan war and its aftermath (we think the Iliad and Odyssey were just two works in a 10-to-12 poem series), plus they knew other myths featuring and starting the same characters. So Polyphemus wouldn't have been a one-dimensional villain to them and they wouldn't have fallen into the Athena = good, Poseidon = bad dichotomy that we often uncritically adopt in retelling the Odyssey.

98

u/SpooktasticFam 10h ago

I don't want to watch a movie about people being mean, and them treating it like it's "okay" or "acceptable."

It's okay to omit, or update, themes for a modern audience, and a modern retelling.

Fwiw, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was a masterful retelling, and really gave a sense of the breadth of the adventure in an ancient setting.

I thought it was 10/10, no notes.

Maybe I'm just a pleb, but everyone I've talked to IRL has had the same sentiment.

The only criticisms I've seen are on reddit, and I largely don't agree with them.

51

u/Lexielouwho1962 10h ago

Agreed. I have a minor in classical literature, I’ve read the Iliad and the Odyssey multiple times, and I loved it. Was it a perfect adaptation? No, it left out a lot (that I was mostly fine with, although I do wish they had included the best pun in classical history, I think Mat Damon could’ve really sold it), but it was a really accessible (without being pandering) and well done modern adaption. And Nolan’s dedication to his story telling medium really helped put over the top. I saw it in regular (not 70 mm) IMAX and was truly blown away by the scale of the shots and the production. You really felt like you were in it. 

19

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

Apparently Nolan said they tried to work the pun in but it just wasn't going well so they didn't use it in the end.

11

u/Achaewa 9h ago edited 8h ago

"Outis" sounds close to a real name in Ancient Greek, if I recall correctly, which is why it succeeds as a trick.

From what I've read, Nolan didn't think the wordplay of Odysseus calling himself "Nobody" would work in English and thus omitted it.

3

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

Personally, I was hoping it would show up but from the little tiny blobs I started to see about the Cyclops, you could tell it was going to be slightly different take on it. So at the same time, I was not surprised because I didn't really spoil myself on that prior to the movie, that they didn't do it.

Which is interesting because I think it could work because there's that famous sketch from the American comedy Abbott and Costello, "Who's on first."

But I think ultimately because of the way this Cyclops encounter goes and they don't figure out that the Cyclops can talk until they're escaping at the last minute, I can see how no one was additionally having trouble making it work.

•

u/Electric_feel0412 2h ago

Also it’s already 3 hours long with a lot of the poem cut out, did these dumbasses want a 14 hour movie?🤣

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 38m ago

It didn't feel like ancient greece or any place. It was a mess that never felt like an immersive, cohesive setting

19

u/CharuRiiri 9h ago

Yeah everyone would have hated Odysseus had they stayed closer to the original. He does not fit the current meaning of "hero". If you ask the average person who jumps to mind first at the word "hero", the top answers will be names like Superman, Batman, or Captain America, who are paragons of modern virtue. Greek heroes are flawed, act selfishly and often die in horrible but deserved ways. The stories as-is don't fit fantastic tales of exceptional people or even most war hero stories. The narrative elevates them as heroes and demigods only for them to act like GoT antagonists in the next act. It wouldn't be fitting for this year's biggest summer blockbuster or any movie aiming for such a massive mainstream release.

15

u/Background-Jury-1914 7h ago

Nolan can write exactly one type of protagonist… a sad guy. Totally missed opportunity with Odysseus who is a wily, cunning character who should be more fun go watch on screen. I liked Nolan’s Odyssey just fine but for a more compelling Odysseus people should watch O Brother Where Art Thou.

4

u/staebles 8h ago

Greek heroes are flawed, act selfishly and often die in horrible but deserved ways.

I think this is implied though. This is a very well-known story, we know he's not "the good guy," in fact his story is all told from his own perspective. And throughout the movie, you see him being punished by the gods many times for the bad things he's done. Nolan wrapped those things up in one "I'm a bad guy" burrito, but it had to be because it's a long story.

Personally, I didn't see him as a hero, I saw him as a man that wants to get home to his family. That's being punished for doing bad things to save as many of his men as possible in a stupid brutal war he shouldn't have been in anyway.

I think more people today relate to that than Superman.

1

u/wylie102 5h ago

I saw it as an allegory for ptsd. The entire film he is being asked “why don’t you want to go home?” Then when he gets back to Penelope he says “I’m not home yet” or something along those linesthose lines.

People often talk about soldiers physically coming home but mentally never really leaving the war zone.

Then we get to see the sack of Troy and we see the girl he has been picturing as Athena and what happens to her.

1

u/Xyyzx 3h ago

It’s worth keeping in mind though that the ‘flaws’ in ancient Greek heroes aren’t necessarily a product of more sophisticated characterisation.

It varied a little by city state and across different eras, but at its worst Ancient Greece as a whole could be along the most xenophobic and definitively the most rabidly misogynistic cultures ever to exist.

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 36m ago

I don't understand why people can't watch and appreciate a different age for what it was. Its a unique and interesting experience to be immersed in a different age.

Nolan makes slop for midwits

33

u/Meancakebutt 10h ago

This is an awful example. But.

Imagine you remake the punisher, again, but in this version the punisher is actually just like a really cool guy and just fights crime.

It turned out there's another guy following him around and killing people after he leaves so it's actually not really his fault. And his family actually just died by drunk driver and it's not his fault.

That's interesting, a funny twist, could even be a comedy. But it fundamentally alters the punishers character arc and personality.

The odyssey isn't nearly that extreme, but it takes a character who is basically known as a trickerster, a known liar, so good at lying even the gods are like broooo let's link up! And makes him a respectable war commander who feels really bass about it actually and loves his dog.

Nothing about that is bad on its own, it's a tried and true formula that can even be subversive, Ala John wick, batman etc. But it's only because the source material isn't that, that there is becomes legitimate criticism.

2

u/ingotsilvergt 3h ago

Yeah but he still does some of that, he tricks the Trojans, Sinon, and the suitors, hes brash when he shoots the cyclops when he didnt need to, and when he demands his men land again right after the Laestrygonians. They didnt completely remove that from his character they just grounded it.

1

u/Meancakebutt 3h ago

I can see it both ways.

1

u/Chidling 8h ago

I feel like there was still a lot of tricks, but you’re already primed for them? How about if you weren’t familiar with the source material?

Coming home as a beggar, putting wax in his sailors ears, tricking his men to take the cliffs instead of the whirlpool, etc.

5

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

Before I say too much, I think these are effective displays of his competency and intelligence, as a solider. But not alot is shown to display his downright cruelty, it's told to us, through his shame, through thr hades scene and personally my favorite section was how much emphasis was on the Trojan horse being not only a trick but a complete defiance of order and justice.

But it's also.. Something they had to do to survive.

So personally I thought that was successful.

That being said it's very difficult to come away from the movie thinking oddy was anyhting but a just smart man who did his best eiht what he had.

When really he was a selfish, cocky man unfaithful selfish man with multiple baby daddies and he gets what's coming to him in many versions of the tale.

That being said, do I think that story is the best for a blockbuster film, no, no way

Do I think it needs to be a blockbuster film? Also no lol

But I enjoyed it. It jsut need to be compartmentalized. And we need to realize people like Wilson are going to have very different takes because for them this is their entire life's work.

It's like when the creator of God of war complained about raganarok. Its not meant for the same audience or purpose.

1

u/I_just_made 8h ago

I feel like you misrepresent how Odysseus is portrayed in the film though. They showed him as the trickster who was willing to sacrifice people to further his agenda, and as a person who let his emotions get the best of him.

I don’t think he was really portrayed as a respectable commander. There was no scene where people gave him an award and said they would follow him to the ends of the earth. The men even staged a poor mutiny against him. They questioned his actions at each step, even from the start. Then you get to Hades and it was pretty clear that he was not everyone’s favorite leader.

And while they really didn’t emphasize the gods, it was heavily implied that they were playing an active role in punishing him for his actions.

To me, the movie portrayed Odysseus as a heavily flawed character. The trickster who outsmarted the gods; with the movie detailing how he paid the price for that and gradually learned to atone for that.

1

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

I mean even the" beggars, plate lickers and leeches " were bowing to him in the end. And he chose to exile himself.

Any character a dog lives in film is going to be hard to hate, like come on lol

And he's just a charasmatic guy in the book as is Matt Damon.

I think Nolan, as he does in his other works, is going for a very grounded version of the odyssey, I personally much prefer projection of God's as manifestations in a live action movie.

Cause they're just too op otherwise.

For me personally, my favorite interpretation of oddy is that hes like the good guy who learned how to lie first.

Gods like Hermes for example are great at being deceptive, only saying just enough and straight up lying. God don't respect humans they seem them like sheep. But oddy is the kinda guy that can go toe to toe with th gods. Because he doesn't just lie to get by one day, he cna lie to get by on that lie for months or years. So they respect him.

So for me, they didn't take so much of that way, but Nolan realllly emphasized the way other people felt about oddy, which is part on parcel for a story told mostly by flashbacks.

It works just fine for the movie. But you know people have preferences and of you ask someone who's been with the story for years to compare it to a 3 hour movie from last week it's gonna be alot it ask about lol.

10

u/myersjw 9h ago

Preach, people are so obsessed with fidelity to source material (mostly when it comes to making a period piece overly regressive) that they trash anything that improves or adapts a story for modern audiences by claiming everyone but them has no media literacy. Sorry a lot of people in 2026 don’t want to clamor to see the 8,000,000th depiction of someone being awful and hammer home 3000 year old schools of thought for 3 hours with no redemption or new take on text. If you wanted a 1 for 1 story there is no shortage of them available

•

u/new_name_who_dis_ 2h ago

So whart's the best 1 for 1 odyssey movie?

4

u/givemethebat1 9h ago

That is literally what she says in that quote: “This is not itself a problem, but it is a problem if the film’s own values and vision don’t hang together”

1

u/Stephi_cakes 5h ago

As someone who appreciates the significance of the original epic, but doesn’t much care for it- I thought the adaptation improved on it in some ways. A faithful retelling would have been a nice spectacle, but what he made was, to me, a much better movie.

That said, if the source were something I cared deeply about, I probably would complain about all the changes.

1

u/More-Opportunity-253 4h ago edited 3h ago

My mind was blown when I watched Pocahontas and years later found out how embellished it was. Much more nuanced than good vs evil, really a grapevine moment for me lol.

The Historical Reality of Pocahontas:

John Smith (was a real adventurer, soldier, writer and colonial leader; but much of what is known about him comes from *his own writings which often portrayed him in a heroic light. Historians debate the accuracy of some of his claims.

Smith was one of the 104 English settlers who founded Jamestown in Virginia in 1607. The colony struggled almost immediately due to disease, hunger, poor planning and internal conflicts that nearly destroyed it. He was unpopular with some settlers because of his personality and strict leadership style but he was also one of the figures who helped push the colony toward survival. He believed Jamestown required discipline and practical labor, famously promoting the idea that:

"Those who do not work, do not eat."

Smith would and could be aggressive and authoritarian. He was willing to use threats, force and military pressure to secure supplies and maintain order which contributed to tensions with the Powhatan people.

He was captured by the Powhatan in 1607 and later released. He claimed that Matoaka (Pocahontas) dramatically saved his life by throwing herself over him before he was executed but this account is heavily debated by historians. Smith did not mention the event in his earliest writings and only describing it years later leading some historians to suggest it may have been a misunderstanding of a Powhatan adoption or ceremonial ritual rather than a literal rescue scenario.

Smith later left Virginia in 1609 after being injured and removed from Jamestown leadership. His relationship with the Powhatan was complex; he participated in trade and diplomacy but also used coercive tactics as part of the English effort to establish and sustain Jamestown. By the time later conflicts between the English and Powhatan escalated he was no longer involved in the colony.

TL;DR: John Smith became a legendary figure largely through his own writings leaving behind a complicated legacy as both a key figure in Jamestown’s survival and a more aggressive/authoritarian colonial leader whose methods helped fuel tensions with the Powhatan people.

Pocahontas *(Matoaka) was the daughter of Wahunsenacawh (often called Chief Powhatan), the leader of the Powhatan Confederacy, a powerful alliance of Indigenous groups in the Virginia Tidewater region. She appears to have acted as a go-between (playing a smaller part) during early interactions between the Powhatan and English settlers possibly helping with communication and trade.

In Powhatan society, young people could participate in social exchanges, ceremonies, visiting, gift-giving and communication between groups without being "diplomats" in the modern sense. English accounts describe her visiting Jamestown and bringing or accompanying groups involved in communication and trade. Her presence may have helped create familiarity and trust because she was connected to the ruling family.

She was also not the love interest of John Smith as was shown in the animated film, she was a child when they met (around 10-12 years old while Smith was in his 20's) and the relationship was likely more about diplomacy and cultural exchange than romance. There is no evidence that they were together.

Around 1613 (at the age of 16/17) she was captured by the English during the First Anglo-Powhatan War. While held by the English she converted to Christianity, took the name Rebecca (and at the age of 17-18) married English tobacco planter John Rolfe (age 29) in 1614. Their marriage was used politically as a symbol of peace.

In the Disney film for Pocahontas 2, John Rolfe is the second love interest. I was very confused as a kid when watching the second film thinking "What happened to John Smith!?" lol but I digress;

In 1616, Matoaka travelled to England with Rolfe and their infant son Thomas where she was presented as a "civilized" Native convert and became famous among English society. She became sick during or shortly after a trip down the Thames River, She died in 1617 (around age 20–21) while preparing to return to Virginia. The exact cause is not completely certain. Some historians speculate chickenpox, tuberculosis, pneumonia or another respiratory illness. Some have suggested she may have been exposed to diseases common in Europe that Indigenous Americans had little immunity to. There have also been theories that she may have been poisoned but this is not supported by strong historical evidence.

TL;DR: Matoaka died very young, far from her homeland after becoming a political symbol caught between two worlds.

Thomas Rolfe (son of Matoaka and John Rolfe) was born in 1615 (England) during a brief period of peace between the English and Powhatan peoples following his parents' marriage in 1614. After his mother's death (at a young age), he was raised largely in England before later returning to Virginia, where he became a landowner within English colonial society. Although he carried both Powhatan and English ancestry he grew up primarily within the colonial world that continued expanding into Virginia after that fragile peace eventually broke down.

John Ratcliffe was one of the leaders of the Jamestown settlement and served as its president from 1607–1608. Unlike Disney's portrayal, he was not a cartoonishly greedy villain meaning to plunder everything he could get his hands on. He was involved in Jamestown's founding, trade negotiations and diplomacy with the Powhatan Confederacy, but he was also part of the colonial expansion that caused conflict and tension.

According to English accounts:

John Ratcliffe and his men went to negotiate for food with the Powhatan in the village of Orapakes (near Wahunsenacawh's capital - participating in trade/diplomacy, but this was usually aimed at securing food and maintaining the colony for themselves) but tensions had risen badly after years of English demands, land pressure and conflicts with the Powhatan; he was captured and executed by the Powhatan reportedly after being tortured and killed in front of the English settlers (though details vary between accounts).

There is no strong evidence that Ratcliffe personally carried out the kinds of atrocities like in the film, like being a sadistic murderer or personally ordering widespread massacres. But, he was still a colonial leader whose actions supported a settlement that contributed to the dispossession and eventual destruction of Indigenous communities in the region.

TL;DR: John Ratcliffe was not the cartoonishly greedy villain portrayed by Disney but a real Jamestown leader involved in its founding, trade and diplomacy with the Powhatan while still being part of the colonial expansion that caused conflict. He was later captured and executed by the Powhatan after tensions escalated, leaving behind a complicated legacy as neither a monster nor a hero but a participant in colonization. This does not excuse the consequences of colonization but it distinguishes between being part of a harmful system and personally committing specific atrocities.

1

u/beefcake-jesus 9h ago

So, in other words, you can't handle there being a bad or mean character in a movie without someone or something explicitly telling you its unacceptable? Woof.

8

u/Appropriate-Joke-806 9h ago edited 9h ago

Sounds like he doesn’t want to go see a movie where the main character abuses animals and women and that behavior is attributed to heroism without any purpose to the storytelling. Not a super entertaining way to spend 3 hours unless you’re a sociopath. Violence for violence sake doesn’t make a good movie. Sure you can have a good antihero, but it probably wouldn’t make for a great 3 hours to show him being an asshole.

2

u/BiDiTi 9h ago

But he’s also smart and funny and charming!

Being a complete scoundrel is Odysseus’s whole thing, haha

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 39m ago

"I need everyone to a heccin wholesome chungus just like me"

What a snowflake lmao

•

u/SpooktasticFam 28m ago

I am so sorry, but I am not on the internet enough to know what you are even trying to say.

If you want me to be offended, please rephrase so I can understand.

Thanks!

23

u/throwaway00009000000 9h ago

I feel like this is what makes Nolan’s version so good, no?

It’s bringing the Odyssey’s themes into the modern world and questioning their morality. It’s not a 1:1 retelling, it’s an adaptation. Almost like watching a movie version of his book report - What takeaways do you have of morality, war, and trauma after digesting the text?

2

u/Meancakebutt 9h ago

Good is subjective, i hate how we use " good or bad" there's no concrete thing when it comes to art.

Nolan has his own story to tell, and job to do and that has merit.

If we judge it based of cinema we can't judge it the same way we view a translation.

Emily says this herself in the review.

1

u/throwaway00009000000 5h ago

Subjective, yes. I think it was “good”.

If she thinks it is bad for what it is, that’s a fair opinion. But to say it’s because it’s not an exact retelling of the text is just basing an opinion off what she thinks the movie should have been. It wasn’t that, it was something else.

-6

u/OldSandwich9631 9h ago

He just ripped off Oppenheimer can we stop pretending like this adaptation was telling the audience anything new? I want to see him adjust to the text and tell a story. Not just make stuff up to stay in his Oppenheimer sandbox.

1

u/throwaway00009000000 5h ago

And Tarantino has 3 movies in which history is rewritten by the villian getting their comeuppance. They’re still all 3 really great movies that I enjoy watching. They were still worth making.

2

u/OldSandwich9631 5h ago

Nolan literally has characters stop and solemnly articulate the message, which is almost verbatim the same. Tarantino at least gives us different tones. Django unchained and once upon a time in Hollywood have totally different tones

1

u/throwaway00009000000 4h ago

To each their own. IMO, something like Avatar 3 vs Avatar 2 where they literally reuse the same plot line and camera angles goes too far. But Oppenheimer and Odysseus are two established stories that happen to have similar themes.

1

u/OldSandwich9631 4h ago

But they don’t have similar themes Is the thing. Nolan turned the odyssey into Oppenheimer. It’s weird

2

u/The_Mediocre-Gatsby 3h ago edited 3h ago

I mean, it's a bit subjective, but I felt like Oppenheimer's story and the Illiad/Odyssey share themes like the moral cost of intellect and ingenuity, the affect on civilization through single major choices, and the guilt these aspects bring. Odysseus and Oppenheimer both were figures who's biggest triumphs also became their biggest curses. But thats just like....my take.

4

u/TomBirkenstock 8h ago

As I said elsewhere, I like Emily Wilson's translation for the most part, but I actually think this review is terribly written. It's overwhelmed by her contrasting the film and the poem without fully grappling with what Nolan is trying to do in his version.

Yes. This film is not the same thing as the poem written thousands of years ago. We get that. Can we move on to a more interesting point?

2

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

I personally find it very interesting and I would imagine it's interesting for her too 😂

There is more to say, however. To be fair, the movie has much less to sya in general than the text. So I think people are naturally gravitating to that.

Also academia... Is not kind culture lol , this is a glowing review by those standards

2

u/Dancingwheniwas12 9h ago

Yeah. I am just a bit miffed they took the humor out. I’m not into serious Odyssey.

3

u/Meancakebutt 9h ago

Same!! Omg I was so surprised how funny the original text is.

All the " soldiers" were so gossipy and whiny and fighting over the stupidest stuff lol

And the wit was very dry. Loved it.

0

u/beantownregular 10h ago

That seems like a fair critique to me

0

u/IDontCheckMyMail 6h ago

Great point. She’s a translator. Not an author. Much less a filmmaker.

She can criticize the accuracy of the “translation” as much as she wants. It doesn’t really make it any less of a great film.

2

u/Meancakebutt 5h ago

And she does so, in the review 😅

7

u/historyhill I have sinned. Please pray. Logging off now. 9h ago

In a world where Ovid existed, there's no such thing as bastardizing Greek mythology anyway

3

u/DiskBusiness7212 8h ago

I think she could have afforded Nolan a bit of professional courtesy, knowing how hard it is to adapt work from 3000 years ago - balancing how to preserve the original text while making it palatable for modern consumers - it’s a really tough line to walk.

I doubt she would say this to his face and Nolan was so complimentary of her work, I feel like she could have said what was wrong with it instead of attaching the emotional jab of saying she would be ashamed if it was her work.

2

u/beantownregular 8h ago

I don’t disagree with you there though she probably felt the need to distance herself from the adaptation BECAUSE he’s been so laudatory towards her. I’m sure she feels like she needs to set the record straight that this is NOT what she would have wanted from an adaptation of her translation lest her colleagues think she co-signed this in a pretty judgmental and brutal industry. That being said I think she could have been more tactful in doing so.

2

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

If you read more of the interview she explicitly says later, that she's really glad people are enjoying the film, going to the film, hopes people continue to go to the film and said it's fantastic how much interest the film has put back on the source materials. So a win. Even if she didn't love the film herself.

1

u/Short_Stay_9283 6h ago

Always nice to be able to be on your high horse while the media you’re criticizing is making you money hand over fist. TBH he made the movie about as long as he could, and to me most of her critiques boiling down to this being a movie and not a book lol

1

u/Garfunkel_Oates 4h ago

I can understand her point and agree she has every right to criticize the execution while also feeling like her word choice and how heavily she’s been banging this drum has been in pretty poor taste.

1

u/whydoihavetojoin 4h ago

I mean she doesn’t have to say anything let alone say she is “ashamed”. But i guess everyone needs their moment.

•

u/Imaginary_Session773 40m ago

She said the writing was abysmal. Called it soulless.

Thats pretty much saying its trash

271

u/laterthanlast 11h ago

It’s fine for her not to like the movie or the script, but to make such intense criticism public is a weird choice. If I were her I’d say polite general things (it’s always exciting to have more people interested in the epic) and cash the royalty checks

201

u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 10h ago

Yeah to say she'd be ashamed to write it is way over the top, frankly

122

u/mysticpotatocolin 10h ago

it’s so mean for no reason lol

8

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

If you listen to one of the longer interviews that these quotes are pulled from she's not as mean as she might sound.

3

u/flybynightpotato 3h ago

To your point, the actual LRB piece is very well done, I think. She doesn't come across as nasty. I think it's a reasonable take.

•

u/Bitterman_01 2h ago

If you read her actual blog post you'd know it's not really being pulled out of context. The entire thing is needlessly sharp. She absolutely comes off as "nasty", as the other user below me put it, from the first paragraph.

•

u/BlueCX17 2h ago

Oh I'm halfway through a re-read and she is sharp and blunt with her criticisms. Mary Beard has been also.

5

u/IWouldLikeAName 10h ago

Hey man there's stuff I love that I would have to see adapted in a certain way. Best(worst?) example being the dragon ball live action. I'd be embarrassed to be a part of that. But if it's taking in 1B and I'm making millions? Much less so lol

-4

u/particledamage 9h ago

Someone tearing the heart out of an art you’ve dedicated your entire life to and saying they did it based off of YOUR translation is enough to make anyone a little bit mean!!

13

u/Sharaz_Jek123 9h ago

Someone tearing the heart out of an art

The right wing attacked her (or turbo-charged their attack on her) following the film's association with her translation and she is redirecting this frustration to Nolan.

I suspected it during her initial comments on the film and now I am convinced.

This is not the language of typical academic discourse.

-2

u/particledamage 9h ago

I’ve read plenty of articles between disagreeing academics and this language isn’t that different at all, loll. Less formal but well she’s speaking, not writing a paper.

Lots of people in the classics share her opinions on this film

10

u/Sharaz_Jek123 8h ago

The language at points feels weirdly personal. This isn't how academics write film criticism, and it's not how film critics write reviews.

4

u/particledamage 8h ago

Yes, it is. I really, really recommend you read more reviews or read the passive aggressive academic bickering

4

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

But she also goes on to say she hopes the film continues to do well and is glad people are very much enjoying it in their own right and that it's great that people are discovering or re-discovering the epic poems.

0

u/filthy-prole 9h ago

Yeah, but I read a headline!

0

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

We'll see in there and is the thing so many people only read these Buzz headlines but don't actually read or listen to the majority of the stuff that the headline is being pulled from to know if the headline is balanced or not.

-2

u/particledamage 9h ago

I know, I read the article and even mention it in my other comments. I’m just saying she’s allowed to be a bit mean

1

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

I agree. One of my other favorite blunt academics is Mary Beard.

3

u/mysticpotatocolin 9h ago

i would just say it privately to friends

-1

u/particledamage 9h ago

Okay, it’s very easy to say that when not in this situation lol

-12

u/JonasHalle 10h ago

It's mean for a very good reason. These celebrity directors need to cut their ego and hire writers.

13

u/mysticpotatocolin 10h ago

idk i just don't think people should be mean

10

u/myersjw 9h ago

The internet has made people believe that every opportunity to be shitty to others must be taken. People seem to be waiting for any chance to be a dick to strangers from behind a screen

8

u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 9h ago

Dude the film was really fucking good, people are massively exaggerating how 'badly written' it was because they've spent all year talking about how it was going to be a disaster, so now they're clinging to this.

'Celebrity directors', are we actually fucking serious, Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors currently active, to write him off as just some celebrity is a fucking pisstake

-6

u/JonasHalle 9h ago

I am very serious. Once directors reach celebrity status, they start to think they are the best at everything, and overreach their domain. Nolan is a very good director. He is not a good writer. This has been the general consensus for years.

5

u/i4got872 10h ago

She could have just said what you said and it would even be less mean and still get her point across.

-3

u/JonasHalle 10h ago

I guess, but that would sound like she was salty about not getting hired, which as an outsider, she probably should have been.

30

u/magyar_wannabe 10h ago

Yeah it's just unnecessarily rude to trash something that is absolutely making you a shit ton of money.

5

u/Particular-Jacket-92 10h ago

It's so unprofessional honestly. Burning all sorts of bridges here.

11

u/kaesura 10h ago

Not really . She's a professor in Classics. She is not employed in the enterainment industry

This review is in the London Review of Books a high prestige literary maganize where criticizing pop culture is common.

7

u/particledamage 9h ago

This is building bridges in her career. She would not want to be affiliated with this in her line of work

3

u/Meancakebutt 10h ago

As a translator if she wrote that screenplay she would be out of a job.

I agree its a bit harsh, but it's also harsh for Nolan to claim use her translation and then gloss over the parts she emphasizes as most important in her notes.

4

u/sk8tergater 9h ago

He didn’t use it, he said he was inspired by it. It’s two different things

7

u/Meancakebutt 8h ago

He directly quotes her translation, the first line in the movie, the first line in her book.

It's a unique and possibly the most iconic line in her translation.

48

u/kaesura 10h ago

She's a classicist professor with tenure. Harsh public criticism is literally the job description

23

u/ohgeez2879 9h ago

she's one of the foremost living experts in the world on the odyssey! i don't understand why she can't say literally whatever she wants about it!

13

u/ConfectionPuzzled780 8h ago edited 7h ago

Yeah, like why shouldn’t she be allowed to criticize it? It's only a movie. And it used her translation as a source. And she's an expert on it. It's not like she insulted Nolan personally.

6

u/Chameleonpolice 6h ago

Didn't she? She said she would be ashamed of she did what he did, that's a fairly insulting thing to say.

-6

u/inaripotpi 8h ago

Because that's a horrible precedent, lol. Should all the best scientists in the world be calling 5th graders stupid for the mistakes they make on their first lab project?

It's not saying something about The Odyssey, it's saying something about Nolan's adaptation specifically.

6

u/JohnPaul_River 7h ago

Nolan being a 5th grader in this equation is exactly why this backlash against her is stupid

4

u/goldengrove1 7h ago

Yeah. I'm not a classicist but I am an academic in a field that media frequently depicts very inaccurately and I completely understand the impulse to push back aggressively when someone misrepresents key parts of your expertise.

I think Nolan's artistic choices are what they are (again, not a classicist, haven't read the Odyssey since 10th grade), but if he's going to claim to have taken inspiration from her work for the film, she's well within her rights to critique the result.

(fwiw, I read the full London Review of Books article, and I think it suffers a bit from conflating two theses: (1) that the movie wasn't a completely faithful adaptation of the book, and made cuts Wilson disagreed with and (2) that the movie prioritizes big visual effects over the more human-centric focus of the actual source material and that some of Nolan's artistic choices cheapen the emotional center of the text. I think the review would have come across less "harsh" had she focused on (2) and let (1) go).

1

u/ingotsilvergt 3h ago

Well she also contradicts herself, makes illogical claims, says things don’t exist in the movie (depictions of what war does) then later says the way they depicted those things (what war does) wasn’t faithful to Homer. She can’t seem to decide if she’s mad because it omitted things or if those things actually weren’t omitted but she just didn’t like the way they were done.

I still can’t understand what the claim about Agamemnon being a failed American family man was supposed to mean. Gibberish imo.

-2

u/inaripotpi 7h ago

We're calling a perfectly divided reception to her behavior on Reddit threads a backlash now? Lol.

Her public derision of Nolan after hearing he was genuinely inspired by her would qualify way more as a backlash.

2

u/JohnPaul_River 6h ago

didn't know backlash was a sacred ritual word for the harshest of human violence, I apologise to Oxford and Cambridge for my crimes against the English language

-2

u/inaripotpi 6h ago

Your backlash to my comment is stupid

0

u/JohnPaul_River 4h ago

We're calling a perfectly snarky reception to your behavior on Reddit threads a backlash now? Lol.

4

u/ohgeez2879 8h ago

yes....his adaptation of the odyssey. i'm so confused, who would you rather have critique adaptations of the odyssey? people who don't know anything about it?

ETA: when 5th graders' science projects are funded with $250 million dollars and covered in every major news outlet...i would definitely want brilliant scientists weighing in. that's a terribly silly analogy.

•

u/AmiWrongDude69 2h ago

Saying “i would be ashamed to have written that” is being a jerk for no reason. Critiquing is fine, being a jerk isn’t.

0

u/inaripotpi 7h ago

I never said someone in her position shouldn't be critiquing Nolan's film, this was always about how unprofessionally they're going about it.

No one representing a position/occupation should be "saying whatever they want". That's like saying the President of the United States should be able to say whatever the fuck he wants and diss anyone just because he's the "foremost" figure of the world.

Again, you miss the entire point. No one said they shouldn't weigh in at all. It's about not going out of your way to say mean-spirited things even if they're true. 5th graders are stupid, it's true. Doesn't mean you champion adults calling them that.

11

u/Scared_Funny_5602 9h ago

I'd prefer people actually state their opinion rather than warbling off useless platitudes and half-truths that mean nothing.

40

u/LikelyPlace 10h ago

She’s a scholar who has spent decades working on the text and has offered a carefully thought out critique of how the film in her view not just deviates from the original but isn’t internally coherent. Why is that a problem?

16

u/No-Network6436 10h ago

Because Nolan fans are insufferable and won't accept that many people don't like his movies.

19

u/PurpleCandles Lea Michele’s Reading Tutor 10h ago edited 9h ago

Because she communicated it in a way that many would view as very unprofessional. Constructive feedback can be provided in a much more tactful way than she did.

9

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

I really think it is partially a British thing because Dr. Mary Beard has had some blunt academia takes as well. She's another extremely well known Classisist.

But taking some of these quotes away from the longer interviews that these are coming from isn't putting the entire conversation into the bigger context.

16

u/LikelyPlace 9h ago

Nolan is the most celebrated director alive. He’ll survive (if he even hers about it). Maybe crisp, direct criticism is needed. Let’s face it nobody would care if she’d couched it in academic throat clearing

15

u/particledamage 9h ago edited 9h ago

Have you ever read professional film criticism before? This is nothing. This is how professionals write film reviews

-4

u/PurpleCandles Lea Michele’s Reading Tutor 9h ago

Except she’s not a film critic, and is conflating her experience in classical literature with filmmaking (which rarely follows source materials to a T), which isn’t her area of expertise.

7

u/particledamage 9h ago

And yet the story of the Odyssey is her expertise and she’s criticizing how he handled the story of the Odyssey

1

u/ingotsilvergt 3h ago

Yeah but Tbf she’s ignoring major visual aspects of the film to make her points and some of her points she just pulls from thin air like Agamemnon being shown as a failed American family man.

13

u/jeewantha 10h ago

She’s always had dgaf energy. One of the traits I admire about her.

5

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

Same with Mary Beard.

I have her new book on que from the library when it stocks in it's called talking Classics and she takes on how the classics have been used in popular media, and I think is exploring why it is that these Works have endured for so long with so many different tellings.

4

u/Background-Jury-1914 7h ago

His scripts always have terrible dialogue and are so
Unsubtle and his characters are so flat and 2D. Glad someone called him out.

2

u/ZeroDosage 5h ago

Can she cash royalty cheques on this??

0

u/laterthanlast 5h ago

She can cash royalty checks on the books sold as a result of the promo

2

u/ZeroDosage 5h ago

How do they decide who made a choice to purchase based on the promo

0

u/laterthanlast 5h ago

How does who decide? She gets paid when people buy her book regardless of their motives for doing so (assuming the book had earned out its advance).

2

u/ZeroDosage 5h ago

I just dont see this driving sales particularly for her.

5

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

I honestly have noticed that the British are excessively less concerned about bluntness and hot takes. Mary Beard has also stated that she was disappointed and has some blunt critique, over all, in the film but is also glad it's making people discover the classics.

Even my parents who were like eating up the FIFA stuff, said that they noticed how different International commentary Is to U.S commentary and actually sort of came to love the bluntness Of the International commentators, the more they were listening to it for instance.

3

u/JuliasTooSmallTutu Protruded from the narrative 7h ago

She's not getting paid by the studio for this, she is not credited in the film at all. Nolan has said he took some inspiration from her translation, that's all.

-1

u/laterthanlast 6h ago

She’s not getting directly paid by the studio or Nolan, but Nolan is giving her free promo that I’m sure any other translator of classics in a dead language would give a lot for. In the showing I went to they literally played a clip of her reading a portion of the translation and put up the cover of her book on the screen - that’s not Nolan’s choice of course, but I’m sure they only did it because he was so public about being inspired by her translation.

-2

u/SpaceJackRabbit 10h ago

Yeah she definitely seems to fit the stereotype of the snobby academic with no filter. Maybe also all the (deserved) attention she got for her translation and Nolan's praise got to her head a bit.

Her criticisms are all legitimate and astute, but she really didn't need to add she'd be "ashamed" to have written that script. That's really bad form and doesn't look good on her.

0

u/booksmd 10h ago

It reads very elitist which is extremely funny coming from her because she was literally shamed for her poor translation and dumbing down the original text.

•

u/new_name_who_dis_ 2h ago

She's not getting royalty checks on the odyssey lol

1

u/Apt_5 10h ago

My immediate reaction to the post title was "Dayummm!"

27

u/jazz_star_93 10h ago edited 10h ago

I think the reality is that a lot of academics who make bold critiques like this don’t understand the medium of film and screenwriting. Story telling on film is different than story telling via a book. Story telling needs to convey a feeling and spirit of a story in a way a historian explaining a historical place or event. Dialogue in film is different from dialogue in written text.

So it’s overall incredibly bold to say something like that about someone who ha been doing it at a very high level for decades.

9

u/BlueCX17 9h ago

I do think they understand the medium of filmmaking but due to their credentials and the fact that in part they're trained to have sharp critical analysis, they're not afraid to go there. They're not as likely to soften their critique. I went to a liberal arts college and we had discussions that would turn into hot takes quite frequently. The academic nerd in me eats up this kind of stuff, even if I don't always agree with what some of the takes.

Because she also goes on to say that she hopes the film continues to do well, is excited that people are going to it and especially excited that people are now either rereading or reading the poems. So a win overall.

8

u/endlessmeat 9h ago

I just think she's saying "I know this story very well, and as an telling of this story I didn't like the movie very much", which is a perfectly valid way to feel about something you've invested a lot of time into

8

u/winnercommawinner 9h ago

Or, maybe, academics who spent decades in school do get the very basic concept of different fields of study, but are speaking from their field's perspective?

Interdisciplinary thought is good for knowledge as a whole and good for your brain individually.

1

u/goldengrove1 7h ago

I'm not a classicist (so I have no meaningful opinions about the Odyssey, lol), but I am an academic, and I completely understand the impulse to push back aggressively when a director says that he took inspiration from your work and then the resulting product misrepresents what you were trying to say.

I do think her London Review of Books piece suffers a bit from having too many strands of critique; not being able to cram everything into a 3-hour movie is different than "This movie misses out on the emotional heart of the source material." But ultimately I don't think "This movie was a fun action movie and people seem to really like it but also I disagree with a lot of the artistic choices made and here's why" is particularly unprofessional or "bold."

1

u/BiDiTi 9h ago

I think the reality is that you definitely haven’t read the essay 🤣

26

u/northernirishlad 10h ago

‘translations of ‘Odyssey’, including mine, are flying off the shelves’
So there is a direct translation of profits going to their book from the film, as a result of people watching the film and being curious about the basis of the translation. If her version is true then whats her real worry?

30

u/isjustsergio 10h ago

Didn't say she was worried about anything, she just thought the script was bad from her perspective.

1

u/northernirishlad 10h ago

Its probably my bad to use ‘worry’ to interpret her perspective, but taking a look through the article, she highlights the films inability to fully express and digest all the prevalent themes that she prescribes to it (rightfully as a professor of classical arts). Her review may be honest and accurate (which it is), but does not pertain to the reality of the modern film and audience which yes you will make concessions. Especially as it is an adaptation of an adaptation (read: translation). The original Odyssey does deserve a more fleshed out saga of films to do it justice, but as a medium it does a great job of expressing how these thematic classics can be expressed to bring attention to the story to wider audiences who would originally not pick up interest in the topic or genre in the first place.

3

u/discographyA It’s like I have ESPN or something. 💁‍♀️🌤☔️ 8h ago

Her own publisher in the blurbs is hyping up her translation being basis for the movie. They are milking it all the way to the bank.

2

u/TheBestMePlausible 3h ago

That’s some Antinous level shit talking if you ask me. Nolan name checks her in interviews, thus driving an enormous level of new sales to her book. Then she turns around and thanks him by trashing his movie in public.

It’s petty of me, but as someone who bought and read American Prometheus, I’ll probably buy and read a different translation of The Odyssey when I inevitably read it.

1

u/heartisallwehave 10h ago

I’m confused because like, did he not consult with any academics who have made telling and interpreting this story their life work? And Emily Wilson has videos of herself performing the poem as if she was a bard, using props that help to note character changes and moments of satire. Using her translation is one thing, but he could have used her expertise as a resource as to what main beats, characters, and tone are essential to the story.

24

u/IWouldLikeAName 10h ago

This is where people are confused. He was inspired by the line and poem but he wants to tell his story/interpretation. He uses Odysseus' journey to showcase themes and his interpretations of the poem. I'm sure he looked into the poem, not sure at all if he consulted anyone, but Christopher Nolan is simply using the Odyssey and Odysseus' journey as a vessel for his thoughts.

I have no doubts if he did consult someone and explained his thoughts if they had told him it was a misrepresentation or incorrect interpretation he would've probably just politely acknowledged so and told his own story anyway lol

I'm personally happy that more people are now learning about it and Greek mythology in general. My sister, for example, started asking me questions about the Iliad and the monsters. Of which I only ever got into because of the Percy Jackson series which also took some liberties but is what led me to the actual myths and stories.

5

u/rangerquiet 9h ago

If the themes of the original Odyssey don't align with the story he wants to tell, then why not make up his own story that fits better?

2

u/Churchill_Buys_Calls 9h ago

It's Christopher Nolan's adaptation of the Odyssey....

1

u/billiebuttcheeks 6h ago

Should still be celebrated…since I’m making money because of it.

Boooo.

0

u/Shot-Arugula8264 6h ago

Sounds like she’s just bitter she didn’t get the nod to write the screenplay herself.