NOLAN'S ODYSSEY_review
I finally went to the cinema to watch the notorious film about what happened after the Trojan War: the famous Odyssey. There’s no such thing as “spoilers” for the Odyssey, my dear reader; historically speaking, there is not even an original that can be taken for it. So read my take if you want; it hardly matters. Or don’t read it, because it’s not important at all.
Anyway, I will say it. Nolan’s Odyssey succeeds in expressing its zeitgeist. He uses the Odyssey as a pretext to talk about the crisis of the American empire, of course. Which, personally, I find disappointing, because Homer’s Odyssey is far more interesting than watching Matt Damon play yet another traumatized soldier.
Nolan manages the rare feat of irritating the far right, which, on its own, is in my point of view always a good reason to start something, but he also risks alienating another audience: any sort of good story lover.
So the way it hit me: the simplification of the “poor soldier forced to kill thousands but still closes his eyes and cries sincerely because deep down he’s a good person,” which immediately reminded me of his last movie, Oppenheimer. With all due respect, it’s in my eyes a repetition of the same moral structure. More than repeating the plot, it’s turned into almost a genre of North American psychoanalysis: revisiting its wars, revising its own guilt, and in the end reaffirming its morality, because if guilt exists, it must mean there’s something fundamentally good in this society that will rise to the occasion and save us all. I know.
The script was extremely weak. The dialogues are inconsistent. Odysseus shouting “Let’s get out of this fucking beach!!!!” followed by lines using formal address as if mimicking ancient dialogue was a big turn off to little petty me. Artistically, it is poor “mostly due to the script,” you would say which in my universe is the spine of any production, so it’s always what gets me. And of course everyone has their core observations and interests; I am not a sucker for digital effects reviews, for instance, I do not even have the background to say much about it. But I can talk about aesthetics non stop, for instance. And I will get there.
But before, let’s talk about the Greek gods. In ancient times, the gods were represented as these deeply human figures in mythology. They had our virtues and addictions. And that’s precisely what was so amazing about the Greek gods. And it is also precisely what I missed in Nolan’s Odyssey: there was no sensuality, no corporeality; they’re practically ectoplasmic silhouettes, with the ethereal aesthetic of Roman Catholic saints, which makes everything dull. And speaking of dull, Homer’s Odyssey is full of humor. Nolan’s version is tedious.
And then there’s the way Nolan situates the film politically and culturally. In the first act, he introduces a diverse cast: a Black Helena that apparently upsets the right people a lot because suddenly they feel misrepresented or underrepresented. What happened to the Diane Kruger white wash representation of it? But nobody was more upset than Elon Musk with the Black Helena. This man who has so little, openly expressing how much he needs everybody in this movie to be white, although this will bring no material difference to his life, still, it is all he needs to get by. Billionaire, by the way.
We also had Elliot Page as a warrior, which immediately triggers the anti‑woke USA right wing to attack the movie even before its release, pushing the progressive camp to support it in advance. But the film itself carries a Christian moral framework. Nolan’s Odysseus feels guilt, repents, confesses; he’s a man seeking his pardon. Penelope doesn’t exactly absolve him, but she gives him a path toward redemption.
Nolan made a film that provokes the right wing by showing them as the contemporary pagans: the ones with a pre Christian morality, who long for a Caesar, who romanticize the empire, who are drawn to the figure of the pater, this master of his household and his servants. At the same time, he tells the progressive camp: do not fool yourselves or fall in love with yourselves that fast, because the truth is you operate with a Christian morality, because much of what you defend, measuring a society by how it treats its vulnerable, respecting foreigners and the poor, this was founded with Christianity, even if you often reject the Christian tradition in your hall of affections. And it is true. This interplay between the work and its reception is in fact Nolan’s genius.
Nolan is a curious director; whether you like him or not, he has something that gets people into theaters. He has positioned himself as a relevant filmmaker, and his movies, regardless of taste, generate endless discussion. I always engage with his films, whether to praise or critique. With this release, he demonstrated an impressive command of the cultural machine. He knew exactly how the film would be received and shaped the narrative arcs accordingly, almost as if the film was an artistic intervention, a performance. There’s the work itself, and then the way it will be received. Even his interviews promoting the film are interesting. He compares AI, for example, to a Trojan horse made of glass: we know it’s a Greek gift, we can see the danger inside it, and yet we still open the gates for it.
The movie, the work itself, doesn’t appeal to me. Signing the script as “Christopher Nolan and Homero” was… incredibly tacky. Hahaha! Truly unnecessary. Even so, Nolan remains a major director and an interesting public figure. He’s simply not a good screenwriter. /aug26