“I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script”

Even before its release, ‘The Odyssey’ had a huge burden: that of being Christopher Nolan’s new film. The director has as many critics as followers, and it is undeniable that, along with others like Villeneuvehas become a synonym for “cinema”, despite the ‘freaks’ that the author usually has in terms of formats.

gives birth enormous and very careful visual experiencesbut if something has been criticized at times, it is the script part. For his version of Homer’s poem, Nolan has based himself on a very specific version of ‘The Odyssey’, the translation of Emily Wilson.

And Emily herself has done one of the fiercest criticisms of the filmbut also one that, despite everything, celebrates that something like what Nolan has created exists.

A good portion of sticks (and a little recognition to Nolan)

Despite all the controversies, both those that made sense as those that don’t‘The Odyssey’ i. It is Nolan’s most successful film in its opening weekend, something that has merit when the director has to his credit ‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Tenet’ and ‘Oppenheimer’, films whose anticipation before the premiere was brutal. His adaptation of the journey of Ulysses has given a lot to talk about in recent days, but despite all the criticism from moviegoers and viewers, a very specific one must be highlighted.

Emily Wilson published her translation of ‘The Odyssey‘. It was a different version from the previous ones because it was a modernized version of the story, and it was praised in its day for being agile, little ornamented and perhaps a little dry, but another translation of the story perhaps more suitable for our times, after all. Furthermore, it is the version that Nolan himself took as an example to prepare the script for his film.

As you can imagine, being the translator of the poem and the inspiration for the film gives Emily a stepping stone from which she can express her opinion about the film. and the conclusion in his criticism is that he didn’t like it, considering it to be “a family-friendly audiovisual spectacle, like an elaborate Fourth of July fireworks display, and with roughly the same level of narrative and emotional depth.”

Wilson’s extensive criticism It is supported by three pillars. That of superficiality and lack of substance is one of them, since it considers that the film is an audiovisual spectacle loaded with impressive traditional effects, but without emotional, psychological depth and devoid of the ethics of Homer’s original text. Wilson points out that the characters are flat, blurred and have no convincing motivation.

Ulysses is an “action hero” like Batman could be, a guy devoid of any type of humor, tormented and who is the Western and current vision of that vision of the tragic hero. Without getting into spoiler territory in case you haven’t seen them, too criticizes the dehumanization of enemiesfaceless even in cases fundamental to the plot and, furthermore, the lack of divine elements to make the film more realistic while showing mythological creatures.

For Wilson, “Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ lacks many of the elements that make the poem great. It has nothing compelling to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between a warrior’s glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends, and neighbors. It lacks psychological, emotional, political, and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is a trick and the writing is abysmal.”

He also doesn’t miss one of the film’s recording scenarios.: the occupied territory of Western Sahara. This is something that also earned Nolan criticism in the past and, for Wilson, it is something that normalizes the continued violence against the Sahrawi people by Morocco. Far from being an empty criticism, the author expresses that “it is particularly irritating that Nolan used this land simply as a visually striking background for a film that centers, aggrandizes and redeems the hero of a turf war due to his late and partial recognition of his own guilt.”

The second part of the criticism focuses on how Nolan adapts the story to contemporary sensibility and ideology, but falling into moral inconsistencies by justifying violence depending on who exercises it, as well as maintaining stereotypical film roles. In fact, he mentions how many of the non-white actors they are simply there as versions of the “black best friend” who helps the white protagonist. And, obviously, if something has been criticized about Nolan’s films, it is the role of women, who in ‘The Odyssey’ does not fare better.

Wilson’s criticism is extensive, harsh and touches practically all areas, relating what Nolan puts in the film with the Western and American version of the filmmaker, as well as the representation of both the characters’ motivations and the conflicts. However, and here is the interesting thing about the criticism, Wilson considers that, despite its flaws, it is a positive cultural impact.

“Despite all this, it is an event to celebrate”says Wilson. “In what we are told is the age of streaming, this epic is bringing audiences back to theaters. In what we are told is a time of declining literacy and the “death of the humanities,” translations of ‘The Odyssey,’ including mine, are flying off the shelves. Some of those who buy the book or show up at theaters to see Tom Holland may even study ancient Greek.”

For this, and for considering that such a mammoth adaptation could encourage the general public to return to reading, Wilson is grateful to Nolan. And, although I agree with much of what Wilson says, and many other criticisms of Nolan for ‘The Odyssey’, adapting a work like this is as complicated as Ulysses’ own journey. And, even if it is for the audiovisual part, it is one of those films made to be enjoyed again at the cinema.

In one of the eight hundred formats in which it has been released.

In Xataka | There are people very angry about the inaccuracies in Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’. But not because of the uniforms: because of the diversity