Excelently written, bravo. It once again shows that the real exciting discussions and interesting observations are only found within the dissident right culture beyond mainstream slop. Especially in topics about idendity and oneselfness - thanks to guys like you - we are the gold standard.
The Mediterranean itself is a character, the intense sun, aquamarine sea, and bleached cliffs, beautiful yet hiding danger. How could you tell a colorful Greek myth without getting the setting right?
For Nolan to reduce the Med to a Gotham grey palette is reason enough for me to hate it.
Hollywood has become obsessed with this drab pallete. It's the same thing that made the Dune adaptation so horrible. It represents the souls of the people who make these movies: grey and sterile. Lala Land was refreshing if only because it didn't have that awful grey-washed pallete with the zoned out pseudo-spiritual synth music, even if the movie was all about LA white liberal modernity.
What makes this critique stand out is that you didn't just stop at the surface-level casting complaints; you grounded the critique in what Ithaca actually meant to an ancient Greek. Bringing Fustel de Coulanges' The Ancient City into the mix perfectly illustrates what Hollywood misses: that exile wasn't just 'missing your family,' but a disruption of spiritual and civic order. Excellent use of historical framework to expose the hollow worldview of the film.
For being such an expensive production, I thought it was strange how bare and minimal many scenes looked. It was almost like a theatre production. When compared to something like LOTR, which feels lived in, and has so many details that give credibility to the word it’s set in, it’s like something is always missing in Odyssey. Couldn’t really immerse myself in such an empty world.
And all the forced diversity is just such a huge distraction, is it really that important to get a few more Oscars?
I appreciate your analysis of the original epic, along with the aesthetic shortcomings of the film itself. But I don’t think it’s particularly unusual or unacceptable for contemporary artists to retell and retool previous narratives for their audience’s sensibilities. The medievals did this incessantly. Even classical works like the Aeneid and the Oresteia absolutely mangle the themes and characters of the “original” myths they draw on.
Your objection, at least at the thematic level, really only holds water if your readers agree that it is undesirable to criticize the ethos of the glory / militarism / the heroic age in general. Which I don’t think is right. Homer himself is critiquing the age of heroes and our reception of it, after all. His “argument” is admittedly warranted using pagan reasoning, rather than our post-Christian sensibilities, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad to use post-Christian sensibilities to criticize the heroic age. I honestly prefer our Christian sensibilities, even the more castrated secular version of them, to those of the Achaean pagans (apart from the “wife-guy” nonsense you aptly call out, that stuff is indefensible.)
Theatrical and cinematic adaptations of source materials often explore wildly different morals. It’s fine if Nolan wanted to do the same.
Don’t let this distract from my enjoyment of your essay, though. Good stuff, even if I disagree with its core.
In Arthurian legend, Arthur’s father kills Arthur’s mother’s husband and then impregnates her with Arthur. The efforts of Christian writers of that era to moralise the story relied on the reasoning that, at the moment of Arthur’s conception, the former husband was already dead — so Arthur was not a bastard.
I will trust Keith Woods' review that it sucks but it sucking is actually a goid thing.
The deep racial and cultural insult to all Europeans via the race swapping would only be more damaging if the film were good, enticing more White people to watch it despite the casting issues.
Good thing about these globo-slop films is that nobody remembers anything about them, the dialogue is always generic, unmemorable, and humorless, it has no cultural penetration. dialogue designed for translation because the majority of Hollywood's revenue comes from international markets.
Excelently written, bravo. It once again shows that the real exciting discussions and interesting observations are only found within the dissident right culture beyond mainstream slop. Especially in topics about idendity and oneselfness - thanks to guys like you - we are the gold standard.
Thank you, much appreciated
The Mediterranean itself is a character, the intense sun, aquamarine sea, and bleached cliffs, beautiful yet hiding danger. How could you tell a colorful Greek myth without getting the setting right?
For Nolan to reduce the Med to a Gotham grey palette is reason enough for me to hate it.
Hollywood has become obsessed with this drab pallete. It's the same thing that made the Dune adaptation so horrible. It represents the souls of the people who make these movies: grey and sterile. Lala Land was refreshing if only because it didn't have that awful grey-washed pallete with the zoned out pseudo-spiritual synth music, even if the movie was all about LA white liberal modernity.
There is nothing "sterile" about Hollywood, this movie, its oppressive palette, or the "souls of the people who make these movies."
Colorlessness does not mean sterility.
The problem with the impulse and intent behind these things is not that they are sterile in spirit, but that they are chthonic.
What makes this critique stand out is that you didn't just stop at the surface-level casting complaints; you grounded the critique in what Ithaca actually meant to an ancient Greek. Bringing Fustel de Coulanges' The Ancient City into the mix perfectly illustrates what Hollywood misses: that exile wasn't just 'missing your family,' but a disruption of spiritual and civic order. Excellent use of historical framework to expose the hollow worldview of the film.
Matt Damon’s performance in The Martian is probably closer to what he should have been going for as Odysseus.
For being such an expensive production, I thought it was strange how bare and minimal many scenes looked. It was almost like a theatre production. When compared to something like LOTR, which feels lived in, and has so many details that give credibility to the word it’s set in, it’s like something is always missing in Odyssey. Couldn’t really immerse myself in such an empty world.
And all the forced diversity is just such a huge distraction, is it really that important to get a few more Oscars?
Right. I was wondering what all the budget was spent on considering the scenery was so limited
Same way they ruined Dune.
Nolan seems to have strived to replace the archaic/classical Greek tension between areté and hubris with PTSD and pragmatism
Excellent post. Now I am sure I am not gonna spend my money on this film
cool pfp
Manul Gang
The Odyssey is good, actually
I'd hate to see bad then.
This was the most compelling and insightful commentary I’ve read about this film. I hope you do more reviews of the kind in the future.
Thank you
Perfect!
Excellent write up Keith.
Very impressively written. Thank you for the intelligent breakdown. It will make watching it more meaningful for me. Cheers!
I appreciate your analysis of the original epic, along with the aesthetic shortcomings of the film itself. But I don’t think it’s particularly unusual or unacceptable for contemporary artists to retell and retool previous narratives for their audience’s sensibilities. The medievals did this incessantly. Even classical works like the Aeneid and the Oresteia absolutely mangle the themes and characters of the “original” myths they draw on.
Your objection, at least at the thematic level, really only holds water if your readers agree that it is undesirable to criticize the ethos of the glory / militarism / the heroic age in general. Which I don’t think is right. Homer himself is critiquing the age of heroes and our reception of it, after all. His “argument” is admittedly warranted using pagan reasoning, rather than our post-Christian sensibilities, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad to use post-Christian sensibilities to criticize the heroic age. I honestly prefer our Christian sensibilities, even the more castrated secular version of them, to those of the Achaean pagans (apart from the “wife-guy” nonsense you aptly call out, that stuff is indefensible.)
Theatrical and cinematic adaptations of source materials often explore wildly different morals. It’s fine if Nolan wanted to do the same.
Don’t let this distract from my enjoyment of your essay, though. Good stuff, even if I disagree with its core.
In Arthurian legend, Arthur’s father kills Arthur’s mother’s husband and then impregnates her with Arthur. The efforts of Christian writers of that era to moralise the story relied on the reasoning that, at the moment of Arthur’s conception, the former husband was already dead — so Arthur was not a bastard.
I will never see this movie on principal.
I will trust Keith Woods' review that it sucks but it sucking is actually a goid thing.
The deep racial and cultural insult to all Europeans via the race swapping would only be more damaging if the film were good, enticing more White people to watch it despite the casting issues.
Agree. There's a part of me that really wants to go see it, but I can't justify give it my money.
Good thing about these globo-slop films is that nobody remembers anything about them, the dialogue is always generic, unmemorable, and humorless, it has no cultural penetration. dialogue designed for translation because the majority of Hollywood's revenue comes from international markets.
People cheered after the showing I was at. Maybe because it was finally over who knows haha