A few scrambled thoughts on Odyssey

-          I find the storytelling very fast. It needs to be a series. Its like watching Harry Potter or Mahabharata in three hours. There is just too much content.

-          If I say it is old wine in a new bottle, that is obvious, for Odyssey is a very, very old story. What I mean is a specific kind of wine – some specific qualities, which are reiterated here. Specifically, male machismo, domination, and the justification of male violence and victory. It deviates a little bit from the traditional telling, asks many questions, reveals doubts and self-censures in the mind of Odyssey, allows women to express more contemporary opinions, and yet, stays true to the central theme – what a hero Odysseus was, despite being such a douchebag. Basically, a whitewashing of Odysseus. Some of those points will be discussed below as they come up in conversation.

-          It is interesting how the whole movie is structured around the Zeus' law of hospitality. I did wonder why it was bandied about so much since the beginning. But it's clear in the end – it is there so that Odysseus can pretend to have remorse for his actions. He broke Zeus' law of hospitality by breaking his hosts' trust, crammed inside the horse and taken inside, but here got out and destroyed them all, through deceit, betrayal. The movie portrays him as remorseful for breaking a code that an entire civilization was built upon. But I don’t think the text portrays him as remorseful, I think the text portrays him as victorious and glad.

-          It was interesting to learn that Cyclops was the son of Poseidon, and Odysseus' vengeful violence on Cyclops was the reason why Poseidon sent bad winds his way to prevent him from going home. I'm sure that's in the text, but somehow, I hadn’t noticed it. That scene was particularly traumatic for me to watch, because of its violence and all. I had assumed that Odysseus would be celebrated for it, and was glad when he was not. The troubles that plague him later are his own karma, then.

-          Circe is shown as an unattractive, old lady and I don't know what to think about that. The movie completely erases the part where Odysseus mates with her and lives with her. In doing so, it erases the part where Odysseus was unfaithful to his wife, thus whitewashing him. Actually, I think I like Madeline Miller's version better, where Circe is shown as a woman who is attractive to men – that changes the dynamic a lot. For example, when Eurylochus encounters her in the movie and says we won't hurt you, we believe it. But the dynamics would have been completely different if Circe was shown as pretty, and then Eurylochus and/or some other man would have surely wanted to do her harm, showing their true colors, and better justifying Circe's actions.

-          I also did not know that Circe pointed Odysseus to the place where he could ask for directions home, and there he talked to so many ghosts. The most interesting part was that Agamemnon comes and warns him – 'do not do as I did. Do not go home naked. Assess the situation first, and go only when you are sure of your position'. No wonder, Odysseus learns from it.

-          The Calypso episode is SO disturbing in so many layers that I don't know what to say. First of all, it whitewashes Odysseus – he is living with Calypso, loving her, for eight years, because he ate a lotus and lost his memory? Hahahah. This is an insult to Odysseus' agency. We are looking at the story from a modern, monogamous point of view where 'Penelope and Telemachus mean the world to Odysseus.' THEY DON'T. He's just a lecherous man like any other, and lived off of sexy Calypso's land, food, and body for eight years, willingly (although I have heard that he was a captive, that is still a better interpretation than this bland therapist who is willingly choosing to remove herself from main character space)! And in the movie, after enjoying her hospitality for seven years, he blames Calypso for it. HOW COULD YOU?

Oh Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we only had his agency we could see that she's the one who should be saying HOW COULD YOU!!! Ungrateful wretch!

Calypso is shown complicit in his desire to go home. Hahahaha. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry or barf when he says – I am ready to go home, and she says – as I knew you would be. Hahaha why is she suddenly the good woman helping him fulfill his goals? I think I liked the old version better when she was a woman with desires and agency and her own agenda. Now she is just a sidekick to the great Odysseus, helping him go home to his wife even though she has fallen in love with him and would like to keep him, presumedly.

-          More whitewashing of Odysseus: in the movie, he warns his men not to slaughter Apollo's cattle, but they do despite his warning, and deserve their ends. Is that how it is in the book, or does he keep his knowledge to himself and let them die? I have to research this one.

-          I really wish we could have heard the song of sirens, instead of hearing about it. I guess there is no one capable of doing it. Maybe a lovely song by AR Rehman? And even the song that Odysseus recounted – sounded like more of whitewashing. In the movie, the siren songs seems to be filled with philosophical questions (all the things you wanted to be. Then, all the things you wish you never wished for... what you most want is what you most can't have, and what you most can't have, is what you already had and lost. It was the song of all the promises I failed to keep.) This again gives him a platform to be more remorseful for his questionable actions.

-          After Odysseus comes back, he kills the suitors of Penelope. Along with them, he also kills Penelope's twelve handmaidens. Many critics have called him out for it, perhaps the most famous is Margaret Atwood who wrote a novel where the handmaidens get to protest this unfairness. Nolan again whitewashes this by making the girls complicit in Penelope's misery, conspiring with her suitors against her. It works well enough in the movie, but I was just reading about how there are new translations of Homer's work by women where we see that these women were slaves and they were raped by the suitors so they did not have much choice in the matter.

-          Helen questions the war. Helen apologizes for it. I am glad Helen gets a voice but I am also not sure that's what Helen would have said. What are the dynamics of her relationship with Menelaus after they return? Seems complicated at best.

-          What I found funny is that 'the face that launched a thousand ships' is written by Christopher Marlowe and published in 1600s, much later than the original Odyssey. The fact that this, and words like 'hello' find a place in Odyssey, is funny to me.

-          I find the poster of the helmet exceedingly ugly, like a sci-fi insect. Agamemnon gets like a total of two minutes in the film, so why is his helmet on the poster?

-          It was also interesting how goddesses are portrayed in western mythology. We find them wearing exceedingly simple robes. Even the best of them are monochrome, and the focus is on the cut, the style, and the diaphanous nature of it. Hindus on the other hand believe in extravaganza. Think of Durga or Lakshmi, who would be portrayed with layers and layers of jewels, and golden crowns and all. Perhaps the parallel of Athena would be Sarasvati, the goddess of learning and knowledge – and usually even she is portrayed with jewelry and crown, though her sari is usually simple – white, with a red border at most. In some situations, she could be portrayed that simply. But even then, she would not be as simple as Athena. It was refreshing to see Zendaya as Athena, even though I don't think she was looking her best.

-          Overall, I don't understand what is the point or the value of making such a movie, other than, perhaps, casting a black woman as the world's most beautiful woman, and a trans man as a soldier. Sure, these open up new worlds of diversity. Not like I get to have a say, but I think the diversity is a good thing. But other than that, what is the point of repeating and justifying and glorifying the same old male violence? If only texts like Madeline Miller's could be explored more. Or perhaps I just expected more of Mr. Nolan. Sigh.