The Realist's Take On The Original Adventure (The Odyssey review)

 

The phenomenon is here. The movie everyone has been waiting for (maybe some people aren't), by the world-acclaimed director Christopher Nolan, returns with his latest feature, The Odyssey, adapting one of the oldest epic poems to the big screen. There has been a lot of talk around this movie, from its use of IMAX cameras to its overall tone to the ethnically blind casting and whether it was meant to be watched on the big screen, as Nolan intended. 

The Odyssey, if anyone isn't aware yet, tells the tale of Odysseus's attempts to return home with his crew after the siege of Troy, an event also recounted in another of Homer's epics, The Iliad, which is set during the Trojan War. As they return, they face various obstacles rooted in Greek mythology. With a more realistic take that leans into realism, Nolan depicts what I personally consider fantasy as something that might have occurred in history, rather than even questioning the involvement of the gods and the magic that comes with them in these poems and epics. 

However, Nolan's depiction of The Odyssey allows him to film in ways we have not seen before. This might be Nolan's most artistic film yet in the liberties he takes in interpreting the source material, as well as in several character designs and motivations. Most of these may not please many historians or Homer heads, especially regarding the children of the gods, but they do speak to what kind of filmmaker and writer Nolan actually is, beyond his more complex and/or simple storytelling. 

Despite the ambition presented here, the film is not bogged down by a deafening score or confusing visuals, or even a story that needs to be dissected further, something that he seemed to have adopted as his style. Here, he tells a very relatable story about a father, trying his very best to return to his family. Some might say that, similar to how Guillermo Del Toro had been including elements of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in his features before finally pursuing the main material, the same can be said about Nolan's features, especially in the likes of The Dark Knight, Interstellar, and Inception, specifically with the pursuits of those leading characters' main motivations. But that does not mean that he did not borrow elements from those previous features to bring what might be his passion project to life. From certain story elements he left open to interpretation to his approach to practical, realistic fight scenes, Nolan goes back through his catalog, relearns what made it special, and lets it shine through in this new feature. 

One of the main criticisms, especially when this project was first announced alongside its casting choices, was that no Greek actors were considered for the Greek epic, but that hasn't particularly stopped anyone from buying tickets. But there is some semblance of an explanation for why this might have been a mistake, even if it doesn't affect the film's success. A-listers are scattered throughout the film; several of them have worked with Nolan before. During the first 15 minutes of the film, I couldn't see the actors as the characters they were playing, and saw them as just themselves, which was the first sign of skepticism. 

Another seems to be the choice to have everyone, including the British actors, speak in American accents and modern English. It does have viewers who are used to period dramas having their actors speak a specific way (the first one that comes to mind that is currently in the mainstream media is House Of The Dragon) that was an interesting and distracting choice. However, it becomes easier to dismiss as the scene progresses unless the scene includes Tom Holland calling his parents "Mom and Dad". 

Speaking of Tom Holland, this might have been my least favorite performance of his. Yes, he does look gorgeous as a prince in Greek armor, but much of his performance lacked personality and didn't stray from merely seeing Tom Holland as just Tom Holland rather than just Telemachus. Matt Damon may get some credit for how he is pursuing Odysseus. It might be his most interesting performance, but I don't know if it is Oscar-worthy, as everyone is claiming it is. Who does pull off one, though, is Anne Hathaway, but this might be a jarring choice considering, yes, she has won an Oscar before, and she is the only fairly fleshed-out female character in the entire film. 

Nolan's main target audience is men, and there is a reason for that; it is clearly shown here in the way he portrays the many male characters. From the dark choices made to survive, including blind loyalty that leads to death, to struggling to see vulnerability as a strength, and prominently, the unconscious fear of realizing you don't want to face your loved ones after leaving them for so long. Especially within Telemachus and Odysseus, Nolan captures the idea that a man who needs to carry the world on their shoulders is well established here, going to turns of how they find it difficult to ask for help or to work together to face a conundrum. Despite portraying the male psyche so well, the characterization of most women in the plot is, unfortunately, sidelined, undermining Nolan's attempt at a 'modern retelling' of the two-thousand-year-old epic. 

Despite certain setbacks, it is very hard to diminish this film with just those criticisms, for Nolan poured his heart and soul into it more than ever before. Personally, it is way better than Oppenheimer, but it steers different from most of his work anyway, as his first fantasy, even if it doesn't delve into the fantastical elements of the source material, and that was what he intended. And yes, you should see this on the biggest screen possible, because the visuals and Ludwig Goransson's score make up for the simplistic tones with modern and classic elements, making going to the cinema an experience worth keeping.