Are you there, God? It’s me, Odysseus

I thoroughly enjoyed Nolan’s Odyssey: it had incredible acting, practical effects, cinematography, and writing (mostly). But the film I watched was of a fundamentally different nature to the poem: it is a stripped back story that focusses on a man driven by guilt, elaborated by Nolan’s approach to the non-linear structure. I do not take any issue with him making changes to the original plot, and in fact, his changes are perfectly aligned with the world which he wants to explore. Unfortunately, Nolan wants to explore a world that isn’t as interesting as his source material.  

Morality & Theology

Nolan’s film departs from Homer by making Odysseus Catholic (stay with me), and that is the basis for why we are deprived of two of the most fundamental plot points in the poem: 1) Odysseus revealing his identity to the Cyclops, thereby leading to his punishment from Poseidon; 2) the test at the end of the poem where Penelope confirms her husband’s identity by checking if he remembers the architecture of their bedroom.

In the poem, Odysseus’ cleverness is his downfall. After tricking the Cyclops into thinking his name is ‘Nobody’, he wants to revel in his cleverness, and reveals his name to the Cyclops. The Cyclops is then able to use his name and curse him via his father, Poseidon. This motivates Odysseus’ tribulations and inability to reach home.

But the gods of Nolan’s film are not so obvious in their intentions.

Odysseus: “Why can’t gods speak in ways we understand?”

Athena: “Who doesn’t understand thunder? Fire? A child’s smile? A good harvest? Who do you think moves those clouds?”

Nolan’s Odysseus needs room to doubt the control of the gods. After Odysseus blinds the cyclops, his men fear the wrath of the Poseidon, but Odysseus proclaims to his men ‘the gods help those who help themselves’. This is the central tension of the film’s deities: Odysseus believes that he controls his fate alone. Hence, Teiresias warns him that his men will eat the Sun-god’s cattle and will die; there is no conditional, as there is in the poem. It is simply a fact of life that the men will eat the cattle, and then they will die. Odysseus proclaims he will ‘defy the gods’, only to fail, and for Athena to tell him he is not above fate and the will of the gods. And it is only once he leaves Calypso’s isle that he accepts this lesson.

So, the ‘Nobody’ trick wouldn’t work in Nolan’s film. Odysseus’ test here is that he must accept that he is not in control of fate. But if the Cyclops spells out clearly that Poseidon will punish him for blinding him, and then Odysseus experiences a storm on the sea,  and still denies whether he is subject to a fate given to him by the gods? Well, he’d be a moron. He needs to have room for doubt, which is why the Cyclops is instead made to wail in a way that sounds almost like he’s praying to Poseidon, instead of making it explicit.

This then makes way for the scene where Odysseus gets baptized and accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. Sorry, I mean, allows for the scene where he accepts what he cannot control and is ready to submit to Poseidon’s punishment.

And then this Odysseus understands he cannot defy the will of the gods the way he did at Troy, so he understands there will be no restoration of harmony, and that is why Nolan cannot include the bed test from the poem.

In the poem, the primary problem of Odysseus being away is that it means social order is in disarray, in the family household and in the kingdom at large. There are no councils, and the suitors abuse the rites of hospitality. Meanwhile, much of the story is about Odysseus reclaiming his identity and who he is, after being detached from it for 10 years.

Because the poem is about restoration of order and identity, the final bed-test is essential. It confirms the relationship of Penelope & Odysseus, by affirming their like-mindedness (homophrosyne). And it demonstrates that the foundations of the household have not been altered, reflecting the foundations of their household being reconfirmed. And finally, the tree from which their bed was fashioned is made of olive, a symbol of Odysseus’ identity and character. In this way, the bed finally represents the restoration of order in the house. Thus, the conclusion of the poem includes the scene with Odysseus and Penelope lying in matrimony, mirroring Book 7, where Odysseus goes to sleep alone.

But the film is about Odysseus’ guilt over the destruction of social order, so we cannot have such a reconciliation. Odysseus sacked Troy, brought about society-wide disorder, and triggered the collapse of civilization. In possibly the most beautiful scene of the movie, Odysseus speaks to Penelope in a shot framed as a confessional, and lays out that he has destroyed the concept of ‘home’, and that is his punishment from the gods, to be reminded of all that he once had, but has now lost.

Nolan’s Odysseus is effectively a war criminal who must live with the guilt of his crime. And because his crime is so great, he cannot absolve himself and achieve the homecoming he so desires; instead, he must go into exile, deprived of his reconciliation.

(But this then leaves a problem: he just lets his son watch over the death of civilization, and he’s going to go out West and chill?)

Structure

Now, I can’t justify the implications of that ending, but it’s not really like Homer’s ending was that much better. Homer’s ending is either so bad it’s spurious, or it just glosses over the major ethical dilemma of Odysseus killing all the young elite men of Ithaca.

Nevertheless, the poem is structurally incredible. It’s split into two halves, with the story of the Phaeacians acting as an essential hinge at the centre. It’s where Odysseus reclaims his identity as he prepares to tell his story, and the audience is given a clear example of what social harmony looks like, through the lens of Alcinoos and Arete.

However, Nolan’s film is a story about the collapse of societal norms that threatens all of civilization. Because we are not trying to get back towards harmony, there is no need to demonstrate it, and therefore, it makes sense not to include the Phaeacians.

Instead, he adapts Homer’s non-linear structure to hammer home a central theme: stories and glorious tales obscure a dark truth.

Penelope: “These songs probably seem silly.”

Odysseus: “They make me cry.”

The film begins with the bard singing of the man whose trick brought Troy burning to the ground. And through Menelaos we see the version we’re familiar with: a glorious scheme from Odysseus. We expect that Odysseus’ return will be that of a triumphant hero. But Odysseus’ stories are designed to contrast with the songs of the bards, as they reflect reality rather than a glorious recall of the story. Therefore, they cover the negative tales that others deny. Hence, Agamemnon’s murder is related clearly in Odysseus’ flashback, not Menelaos’, and similarly, what really happened with Sinon is told by Odysseus. So, he tells these events to Calypso through gradual flashbacks as he comes to terms with his guilt. And in the climax, Odysseus reveals that the songs have softened and smoothed over the Sack of Troy, forgetting the violation of Zeus’s law. His final revelation is that the stories of the People from the Sea are far more sinister than previously thought. We have expected a glamorous epic with the first line of the film, but instead, Nolan adjusts Homer’s non-linear narrative to emphasise in his denouement this triumphant trick was in fact the violation of the covenants of men and has caused the collapse of civilization.

 ***

This is where I’m torn. In Nolan’s tale of guilt, about the contrast between song and reality, I understand his decision to delete some of our favourite scenes from the poem: those scenes fit the worldview of Homer’s poem, not Nolan’s film. But the driving morality of the film is not particularly gripping. This is a story about a man torn apart by the chain of events he has set in motion. But we have seen before so many films driven by guilt, notions of “right” and “wrong”, and of action and consequence. Consider Oppenheimer, The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. Nolan’s key departure from Homer is in the moral framework of the story.

In doing so, Nolan has flattened the complexity of one of Western literature’s greatest works. What makes the Classics so enduring is the constant tension between ideas which are so foreign and alien to us, mixed in with concepts which are so universal, and what draws us to this poem is its manifold layers. Here, we have a hero, who cannot stop lying, and he is celebrated for it. Here is a hero who brings upon himself punishment from the gods and yet is a vehicle for them to give punishment unto others. And the gods themselves are petty and vengeful, and indeed, they are terrifying; meanwhile, terrifying monsters have soft spots. Justice is brutal and violent, and so are our characters. Order and disorder across family and society are illuminated through example and counterexample. The mechanics of a world driven by external shame rather than internal guilt are laid bare for us. Across 12,000 lines, Homer has painted a far-reaching universe for us. But at the heart of it all is a tale about a man who just wants to go home, and reach the arms of his loved ones.

I do not begrudge Nolan for cutting out scenes or even themes to maintain a cohesive narrative. And indeed, I will watch this film many times again – I thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was. But by transferring Odysseus into a modern framework of guilt and justice, and focusing primarily on this lens, he has sidestepped Homer’s exploration of notions of politics, ethics, and family. And in doing so, he has lost the heart of why we are drawn to these poems in the first place: worlds with such depth and breadth, which operate in such an unfathomable way, and yet are so recognizable.