MOVIE REVIEW: The Odyssey

"Monstrous"...It's a weird way to start, but I think Chris Nolan likes this word. And he seems to want Anne Hathway to say it. (lol) (See Interstellar)

"LEGEND THAT HURTS"

I've been waiting for this movie for almost thirty years. My introduction to Homer's epic came in 1997, with the NBC television miniseries featuring Armand Asante as Odysseus. And ever since it aired, The Odyssey has held a special place in my heart (I still watch it on Tubi). I seem to vaguely remember reading excerpts of it in high school, but given that time in my life (I wasn't an avid reader), and how classical subjects in high school can sometimes be conveyed/presented/encouraged in the most boring ways, that didn't really hold my interest. I just knew I was fascinated by the story, given that the 1997 miniseries left a pretty stark visual impression in my head. But also in the early to mid-2000s, at the height and phenomenal success of the Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson seemed to be the one who could, at some point, do the story justice on the big screen, especially given that the story deemed so "impossible" to film was done. For some years, I even joked that, if The Odyssey was made into a big budget feature, I would officially retire from watching movies...As of yesterday, that's not true, turns out. (lol)

Well, Peter Jackson decided to stay in Middle Earth, and so, fast-forward to 2024, the most wonderfully unexpected thing happened: Chris Nolan, on the heels of his well-deserved Oppenheimer success, announced he would be directing The Odyssey next. The level of excitement I felt was matched only by the announcement of the big screen adaptation of Frank Herbert's Dune a few years before. The MCU has done wonderfully in its cinematic run, but Dune and The Odyssey reinvigorated an excitement I'd not felt about movies in a long, long time. From Lord of the Rings to Dune (Parts 1 & 2) to The Odyssey, with all of their visual and narrative complexity, you get a sense of experiencing something you've never seen before. And with Chris Nolan helming the project, something about that just seemed sublimely perfect.

With that said, Chris Nolan's interpretation of The Odyssey was expectedly unexpected. The storm of public opinion/speculation leading up to the release aside (I wonder how many people have actually read the story), I anticipated that he was going to do some different things with Homer's epic, given his affinity for a more grounded approach to storytelling. As a reader, especially with something as popular as this three-thousand-year-old story is, it's natural to formulate ideas/expectations of what you would like to see through the visual medium, what you think is indispensable, etc. But I've also learned to process the director's vision for what it is, though that doesn't mean I will agree with everything. With that said, I liked Chris' interpretation a lot, but I didn't love it as much as I wanted to. The Odyssey is evidently peak filmmaking, the latest testament to Nolan's prowess as a visual storyteller. We clearly saw Nolan at his best with Oppenheimer (maybe that's just my opinion), and this film continues to display that level of artistry. In short, The Odyssey does not play around.

This is Nolan's darkest and heaviest film to date (I'm still coming down off of it). From the pristine palace on the hill to the ships to the caves, it's raw, it's grimy, primal, relentless, mean and absolute. You see this in every aspect of the film, and just about every character is either in pain or causing it. (LOL) I applaud Nolan for setting the tone immediately and effectively with the first scene. As a build-up, if you want to call it that, it's steeped in tension that carries through the rest of the film and only gets worse, especially in context of the sufferings of Odysseus and his men. And this sense of tension is only helped/maintained by the tight pacing of the film. For the nearly two-hour forty-five-minute runtime, there's little reprieve from the heaviness. You see this same kind of tight editing in Oppenheimer, but for The Odyssey, I did desire to live with a few moments a little bit longer. Persistently tight pacing, especially with a three-hour runtime, can threaten to exhaust the viewer. But with such an equally persistent evolution of events, it still plays out quite well. Although, sometimes, it felt like we were just plowing through. The tone is also effectively supported by Ludwig Gorannson's amazingly organic score. If he ends up winning Oscar number four next year, I won't be surprised. The effective pacing also means the sacrifice of some of my favorite and famousest (sorry, I had to) interactions/dynamics from the poem. Polyphemus is there, Circe is there, Calypso, but there are several distinguishing, recognizable dynamics from the poem, whether it be dialogue, settings or actions that aren't in the film, or are very different, which, honestly, was disappointing to me. It's like having a Frosted Flakes commercial but Tony the Tiger doesn't say "They're GRRRRREAT!". Or like traveling to the North Pole expecting Christmas Town, only to find Santa lives in a busted-up shack with a rundown suit, is malnourished, divorced, has no reindeer, no elves, and doesn't say "Ho ho ho!". Many of the key scenes are in the film, but "They're REEEEIMAGINED!". (LOL) Still effective, but come on, man. But then, people probably aren't going to sit through a five-hour long movie. (LOL) Hence, the '97 miniseries was split into two parts.

This movie is unmistakable as an adaptation of its source material, but Nolan very much makes it his own. While the poem bears its brutalities with flare, the original story portrays a lot of the aftermath of the Trojan war from an almost heroic, fondly adventurous telling, much of it relying on the telling of Odysseus' legend from those who knew him best, fought with him, etc. A lot of the characters act as if they'd hardly endured the hardships of a ten-year war. But a major theme of this film is the price of a thing, consequence, and shown, in many ways, more effectively than in the poem. While many of the characters are in place as they are in the poem, there is no joy, no sense of heroism, glory or adventure. From the living to the dead, there's a lot of regret, a lot of guilty conscience, which is starkly more human and relatable. It's in the poem too, but Nolan does a better job at its portrayal. In the film, personal legend seems more a curse than something to sing about. And no victory without honor feels victorious at all. Nolan does a fantastic job at digging out the motivations and flaws of the characters, presenting an angle to the story that is extremely compelling and provoking, and that outshines any notion of glory of heroism. There's legend, but it hurts.

A big question mark surrounding the film was the use of modern-day vernacular, the use of American accents over the traditionally European, especially with so many English actors in the film. The speculation was severely overwrought, in my opinion, and while the use of American accents and modern speech didn't shatter the illusion, it was noticeable. I personally think the film would have benefitted more from non-American accents and weightier expression. But that's not to say it wasn't well-written. There's nothing about the writing that is sub-par. Chris reasoned that he wanted the script to evoke something more raw and edgy rather than something intellectual, which I understand, but I creatively disagree with, ultimately. With modern expression and no accents with a movie and story like this, you risk the immersive capacity of the film. But ultimately, it works. I just don't want to see Odysseus and hear Matt Damon the American.

Athena is the most prominent visual representation of the divine, and even with certain license taken, even she serves as more ambiguous than literal. The gods are realized/felt more through the creatures, the offspring, the uncanny beings wielding unnatural or supernatural ability/gifts, or bearing monstrous (see, even I couldn't avoid the word) appetite, literally (lol). While this serves Nolan's vision well, again, I feel there were missed opportunities for something a little grander and maybe even a little more visceral, if that wouldn't take it over the top. I definitely wanted to see more from the gods. But one standout quality I loved (and expected) is how Nolan dabs into the horror genre with the supernatural/divine. It never crosses the line of terrifying, but is disturbing, at best. It'll make you squirm a little bit at certain places, with one scene in particular. And while the film capitalizes on the human dynamics/perspectives, having an obscurely divine presence was a little disappointing, because the overtly divine dynamics of the poem is part of what makes it so awesomely epic and endearingly memorable. Circe's palace filled with men turned to animals too magnificent for this grounded vision? The politics of the gods? Maybe. But to borrow from Matt Damon's Odysseus, only "bringing it all" will truly suffice the visual execution of this story.

Nolan's immersive execution of such a complex and visual story is, without a doubt, worth seeing. He delivers an interpretation that is highly intriguing, and I enjoyed, as he's stated, making an evening of it (the theater itself is another story). I'm so intrigued by it that I think I'm going to see it again, which I rarely do at this point in my life. So, that's definitely a testament to the quality of the film. And no shade on Matt Damon (Love that dude. He did the job credibly), and this is more than nostalgia talking, but Armand Asante still holds the crown as Odysseus. That dude...Yeah, that's all for now. (LOL)