Today, I finally got around to watching Christopher Nolan’s new(ish) film: The Odyssey. Overall, it wasn’t bad, but there are a few key areas that I would question.

For the avoidance of doubt, and if you hadn’t realised already, this post contains spoilers for the film.

So to begin, my overarching issue is the way in which the film jumped around the different sections of the Odyssey. The original Homeric version had 24 “books”, and was reasonably episodic: Odysseus did this, then he did that, and then that.

Nolan’s adaptation goes even further, skipping certain episodes and condensing them together to make it into a roughly 3-hour film. The best example of this I could find is Ogygia, with the nymph Calypso, who holds Odysseus captive for 7 years. In Nolan’s Odyssey, she plays the role of captor, feeds Odysseus lotus flowers, and acts as the person he tells his story to for the majority of the epic. For context, all three of those belong to separate episodes in Homer; Calypso, the land of the Lotus Eaters, and the Phaeacians.

Beyond personal preference, there is also an argument for respecting Homer’s intentions. The Odyssey was written at a time of Greek exploration and colonisation, particularly of western Mediterranean regions like Sicily. The mysterious and barbaric nature of all these separate islands was a product of Greek fear of the unknown. What is a key feature of Homer, feels almost glossed over in The Odyssey. Whilst this may not be an issue for many, I am a fan of classics, and so would have liked to see a bit more thought as to why these adventures are as they are, with the film reflecting that.

Whilst I agree that the current length of Nolan’s Odyssey is best as it is, I would personally have enjoyed an extra hour of film, if it accompanied an expansion into more of Homer’s world.

There were, however, some aspects of the film that were done exceptionally well. The scene of Circe turns the Itchicans into pigs was especially disturbing but very well produced, and Odysseus’ dealings with the suitors was thrilling. Argus the dog always makes me cry, and it was no different here, due to a heartwarming final appearance.

Overall, I would say that this was one of the better films I have watched. As a pure adventure film, it scores very highly in my opinion. As a representation of the Odyssey though, my knowledge of the Odyssey comes into conflict with it.

I suppose, really, that is to be expected though, because what Nolan has produced is essentially an adaptation and an interpretation of the Homeric work, rather than a true reproduction. And that’s brilliant, because it shows the power these stories have still today, that we can shape and transform them to give new meanings, yet they are still recognisable as the ancient classics. Nolan’s Sea People, for example, draws on the Greek fears of the unknown reaches of the world, as an existential threat, rather than Homer’s island cannibals being fear of exploration. That divide is what makes an interpretation worth watching, because we see what someone else thinks of it.

This film is undoubtedly going to win many, many Oscars and other awards, and I think it deserves that. My opinion is biased by reading Homer’s Odyssey first, but that didn’t stop me enjoying it.

If you’ve seen The Odyssey, I would encourage you to read Homer’s work as well. Not in the original Greek mind — that may be difficult. But there are hundreds of books written recounting the story, as well as audiobooks and podcasts. I’ll leave links to some of my favourite at the bottom.

Hopefully anyone who has watched The Odyssey enjoyed it, maybe as I did, maybe not. If you’re going to see it soon, then you’ve spoilt a lot of it by reading this in advance. 😂

Sources: Wikipedia (for spellings — Greek names are hard okay!)

Stephen Fry’s Odyssey; The Rest Is History; Natalie Haynes Stands Up For The Classics — BBC Sounds