My Thoughts on Nolan's Odyssey
I saw The Odyssey late last night.
I liked a lot of the movie—but I don't know that I liked the movie a lot. It was enjoyable and especially so because the theater was packed. I haven't seen that in a while.
I'm glad to finally get another take on Homer's world, but I'm not sure I'll see it again.
Matt Damon was good. Tom Holland was good. Zendaya was good I guess? There wasn’t really much opportunity for her to shine or flop. Robert Pattinson was fantastic. Truly despicable and vile. Great acting out of him—the best I’ve seen from him in fact. Nolan knows how much Americans hate canine abuse, though, so maybe playing up that part of the story early and often had something to do with my hatred of his character. These are the sorts of roles for Pattinson. That guy is not Bruce Wayne though.
The wardrobe and overall color scheme was very Nolan—I think he uses a sort of blue tint in his daylight shots to his stuff feel more real and he definitely gets the graininess of his actors features in the shot. It's meant to feel real and grounded like you're actually there, like “this is what it might have actually been like if it happened” but I like the methods that Denis Villeneuve employs to bring you into his movies, to make you feel how it would feel to be in his worlds—at least in Dune pt. 1.
Nolan's usually really good at this grainy, down to earth style but it's hard to do with myth and I'm not sure it should've even been tried. We've had a lot of the grounded, realistic takes, it'd be nice to get some truly epic ones.
I did not like Polyphemus the Cyclops--”no man is killing me” is one of the best parts of the story and it’s cut. Why? Because the cyclops was given a more “realistic” take and having him talk more would be less eerie and might even border on hokey. Though this gritty, grotesque, genetic freak take gave off a sort of Nephilim vibe--in the demonic origin interpretation, which is fascinating because he’s a son of Poseidon and Augustine claimed the Greek and Roman gods were just demons, which would make Polyphemus a Nephilim. But that’s probably a topic for another post.
There were still mythic elements that Nolan dropped in and their inclusion was jarring—in a good way? Agamemnon was allowed to remain mythic in his full armor, which was dramatically different even from his brother’s. I love what Nolan did with him.
The giant cannibals, the Laestrygonians, were mythologized up into head-to-toe silver-clad soldiers and were very epic. The way they sank the ships in the harbor was so dreadful and terrifying.
So even though most of the myth was demythologized as brought-down-to-earth, so to speak, there were still portions that came through is a more mythic form.
As to the message and vibe of the movie, my friend Paul Anleitner is spot on--Nolan used the myth to tell his own parable, though I can't tell if it bugs me or not yet.
Definitely check out Paul Anleitner’s take below:
Nolan's demythologizing of Batman in Batman Begins worked very well. It was dark gritty but not so far as Schneider’s. It had hard science fiction vibes with it’s realistic tech that you believed could work but didn't always work when he needed it. It was the beginning of a grounded world with realistic fights and a demythologized Ra’s al Ghul who sought immortality through symbols, legends, and utilitarian societal manipulation instead of mystical Lazarus pits.
But by the time of the Dark Knight Rises, the demythologizing had run its course—especially when we saw Nolan’s naturalistic, paired down, Bane.
So too, I think that Nolan's dymythologizing sort of missed when applied to The Odyssey, especially the ambiguous potential psychologizing of Athena—a point that Paul Anleitner makes well in his review above. If the goddess took on the form of Zendaya in order to relate to Odysseus in a specially intended way, whether to continually prick his conscious, or grant his absolution after he repents, then that’s pretty fascinating. But if Athena just turned out to be a psychological projection of a traumatic memory, then that sucks.
I won’t pretend to be the biggest Odyssey enjoyer out there but the story did change my life. I became obsessed with bodybuilding from 6th grade through junior year of high school because I read in the Odyssey that Athen made Odysseus appear more heavily muscled in order to garner more favor for him with those he would ask for help. That line “heavily muscled” became my life’s goal. I guess I didn’t expect to see that play out in the movie, but I was sort of hoping it might. Clear and distinct divine intervention didn’t fit with Nolan’s naturalizing/demythologizing vision, however.
I was challenged by the emphasis on xenia/Zeus's law—not so much politically or whatever, but personally. I need to be more hospitable. I want to be more hospitable. I want to want to care for strangers more. That’s classic good Samaritan Christianity. Christians don't believe that we might entertain gods unaware like the pagans thought, but Hebrews 13:2 says we may be entertaining angels unawares (maybe the same thing if you're big into Michael Heiser and the Silmarillion).
So, I’ll just close by saying I enjoyed it but I probably won’t watch it again.







i think nolan is good for the futuristic and modern type of movie, but for something mythical and a bit of fantasy, it feels quite bland for the colors and outfits...
I haven’t seen it yet-not sure if I will-but I can’t help but think that the Odyssey is simply a story not fit for Nolan. Yes, Nolan can make an epic, grandiose film with jaw dropping shots and with beautiful set pieces, but can he make a story that doesn’t just borderline fantastical but openly embraces it? Not sure. His art is more on what is intelligible; on rules and logic, than fantasy with magical elements and a mythology of active gods. The Odyssey shouldn’t be grounded down any more than Lord of the Rings should. And Nolan, for all his genius, simply saw the forest and missed the trees. He made a movie that was epic but not one that was fantastical. And maybe that works for some people.