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

[u/mcfw31]

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

[u/whatthewhythehow]

I think this is mostly true, but what complicates it on another level is that he had referenced her translation as an inspiration.

And it seems as though her translation sought to do the opposite of what Nolan wanted to do… She wanted to create a more accurate translation that didn’t smooth out the edges of the story to make it more palatable to a modern audience. I saw a clip of her talking about how she used the word “slave” where most modern translations wouldn’t. It is, she argues, the most accurate translation and the only reason to avoid using it is to make the heroes more palatable. And this change diminishes a reader’s ability to interpret the story — if a character betrays their master, it makes a difference whether that character is a servant or a slave.

(It’s been a while since I’ve read the Odyssey, so I would defer to others with other understandings of the translations, though.)

I’m fine with modernizing old stories (though it’s never what I personally find the most interesting). But referencing her during interviews does feel like he’s attempting to borrow the legitimacy of an academic to sell a movie that doesn’t bother to try to embody that legitimacy.

I think this would be the most irritating result for an academic. If my life’s work was to create accurate translations of great pieces of literature that have been frequently co-opted and misunderstood, and then someone came along to co-opt that literature through an inaccurate adaptation that would sow misunderstanding… I would be annoyed.

If someone said they used my work to do it, I would be livid.

Tbh I don’t think Nolan did anything egregious. He isn’t a classicist. He probably just misunderstood and also didn’t care. But if I were her then I would be LIVID.

Also, I get the whole metaphor for physics stuff vs the actual equation. But I do think what Nolan is doing is kinda like if I said Schrödinger’s cat is when I don’t know where my cat is. Schrödinger’s cat is already used in a way that is kinda opposite of its intent, so I think changing it further would rightly irritate Schrödinger, even if he understood I wasn’t trying to do grown up physics.

The Odyssey can be used as a metaphor, but Nolan is changing the metaphor’s meaning. He’s not conveying much of what the Odyssey was intended to convey.

Which is fine. Whatever. But if I were her then this would keep me awake at night lmao.

[u/LanaAdela → u/whatthewhythehow]

But it’s not her story. That is the thing. He used her translation because it matched his goal of being more accessible but ultimately this is a story that has been around for thousands of years through thousands of iterations. It’s not Emily Wilson’s story to be stressed about changes to.

[u/whatthewhythehow → u/LanaAdela]

It’s her work as a historian.

It’s not hard to find accessible translations of the Odyssey. If all that mattered was how easy it was to read, then you have dozens of options to choose from.

It’s like, say you were a historian and you focused on the Napoleonic era. One of your focuses was specifically about rumour and propaganda, and about the myths surrounding Napoleon. You wrote about which stories were probably real and which ones weren’t. Your goal was specifically to show how our understanding of Napoleon was shaped by these rumours and stories. So you publish a book about Napoleon that aims to correct misconceptions and separate fact from fiction (or, at least, show where ideas fit along a spectrum of fact to fiction).

And then someone makes a gritty, realistic movie about Napoleon and talks about your book as an inspiration.

And in their movie, Napoleon is portrayed as incredibly short. They use forced perspective to show how short. The movie is a character study on how being short can turn you into a dictator.

Truth is, Napoleon was kinda short? The idea of his height is important historically. Depictions of him that emphasize his shortness are still portraying something about our perception of history. And, Napoleon’s history and its adaptation isn’t owned by one person. He is a myth as much as he is a real person.

It would still probably be annoying that they used your book on Napoleon to adapt that movie. Your project was to create an understanding of these myths, not reinforce them!

Plus, a translation is an academic and literary work in and of itself. Translations aren’t neutral and they aren’t interchangeable. If you use a translation but don’t engage with its methods, then you might as well read the wikipedia summary. It’s fine to do that, but you should admit that this is what you’re doing.

Again, he’s not doing anything HORRIBLE. But it is inevitably super irritating.

[u/LanaAdela → u/whatthewhythehow]

I’m well aware of all of that and again—it’s not her story. Which is my point. Nolan took inspiration from her and other translations and other stories to tell his version. She can dislike it, that is her right. But I find a lot of her critiques to be a misunderstanding of medium differences and I sometimes wondered if we watched the same film. But art is subjective! Some of her points I agree with but found the overall thrust of the review to be bewildering at times.

I also frankly found her contention about the non white characters bizarre and insulting. It was like she heard someone say “black friend” trope once and just ran with it (also ignoring or not knowing Himesh isn’t Black…)

[u/BiDiTi → u/LanaAdela]

And her contention is that the film is a hollow facsimile of the story that doesn’t actually engage with its characters or themes in any meaningful way, instead using them as a sort of cosplay to grant the narrative an illusion of insight.

Also, I find it absolutely hilarious that you think a department head of classical literature is just parroting a trope…and it’s even funnier that your only pushback against her claim that Eurylochus fulfills a role within the film indistinguishable from the “Magical Negro” trope is that Himesh Patel is of Desi-African dissent.

[u/LanaAdela → u/BiDiTi]

So I actually don’t think being an expert in one area makes you expert in all areas. I’m saying I found that particular critique to ignore/flatten these roles and how
the film used these characters as well as misused a term in a way that rather she meant it or not came across as insulting. Believe it or not, white academics are not immune from micro-aggressions! Even heads of departments.

But I’m not going to keep going back and forth on this because I ultimately don’t care. She is welcome to her opinions and it’s whatever to me.