NOLAN'S ODYSSEY_review
I finally went to the cinema to watch the much‑talked‑about film about what happened after the Trojan War: the famous Odyssey. There’s no such thing as “spoilers” for the Odyssey, my dear reader, so read my take if you want; it hardly matters. Or don’t read it, because it’s not important at all.
Nolan’s Odyssey succeeds in expressing its zeitgeist. He almost uses the Odyssey as a pretext to talk about the crisis of the American empire. Which, personally, I find unfortunate, because Homer’s Odyssey is far more interesting than watching Matt Damon play yet another traumatized soldier.
He manages the rare feat of irritating the far right, which, on its own, is already a positive outcome, but he also risks alienating another audience: anyone willing to look a bit more closely, readers of Greek classics, lovers of a good story.
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. To me, it’s a repetition of the same moral structure. More than repeating the plot, it’s almost a genre of 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 that by the end will prevail and will save us all. In my opinion, the film was extremely weak. The dialogues are inconsistent. Ulysses 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. Artistically, I found it poor, mostly due to the script, which is always what gets me. And of course everyone has their core observations and interests, but for me, as a script-oriented person, it was quite silly.
My second point: the Greek gods. In ancient times, the gods were represented as these deeply human figures in mythology. And that’s precisely what I missed on 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 Helen, Elliot Page as a warrior, which immediately triggers the anti‑woke right wing to attack the film even before its release, pushing the progressive camp to support it in advance. But the film itself carries a christian moral framework. Nolan’s Ulysses 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 by showing them as the 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, you operate with a christian morality too, because much of what you defend: measuring a society by how it treats its vulnerable, respecting foreigners and the poor, it is fundamentally christian, even if you often reject the christian tradition because it is so uncool. This interplay between the work and its reception in my perception is Nolan’s genius.
Still, 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 were an artistic intervention, a performance. There’s the work itself, and then the way it will be received.
Now, his interviews promoting the film are brilliant. He compares AI, for example, to a glass Trojan horse: we know it’s a Greek gift, we can see the danger inside it, and yet we still open the gates for it.
The work itself doesn’t appeal to me. Even so, Nolan remains a major director and an interesting public figure. He’s simply not a good screenwriter. Signing the script as “Christopher Nolan and Homero” was...incredibly tacky. Hahaha! Truly unnecessary.