A Silly Adaptation of "The Odyssey"
economist.com
economist.com
This is a deliberate interpretation of the Odyssey with a very interresting approach IMO: can a man who destroys a whole civilization can come back home as a hero ? The main theme is about shame and how to deal with it. The film is really pretty good and far above any avg blockbuster.
Maybe it's the modern era with brands and so many off-the-shelf prepackaged products that there is an invisibly applied assumption that there is only one true form of a product or piece of literature. That's coming from a consumerist, marketed, branded culture. Looking with a longer perspective, most archetypal stories and myths are interesting precisely with interpretation of their time making them relevant and connectable again in the time of their retelling.
It's not at all odd to point out that a movie is at odds with the common interpretation. That interpretation and the tradition that made it common should not be tainted by incompatible takes, they should be respected in order to avoid confusion and prevent the use of well known sources as promotional vehicles for war-mongering pseudo-art.
If the makers of the modern movie wanted to promote a different idea, they should've named it differently without confusing the public that the original had anything to do with their fantasies.
Of course this is an issue with adapting all ancient myths - dealing with the cultural dissonance. Odysseus, our hero, on returning home, has his female slaves killed because they were defiled by his suitors, when their bodies were his by right. This is treated as as a virtue, part of Odysseus reestablishing his rightful authority. A modern retelling could explore that dissonance a bit, with the cruel caprice of both gods and kings, and be interesting, but not popular.
Treating it is a virtue is very much translation dependent aspect. Some translations treats them as guilty sluts, but not all.
It is a thing he does, but not necessary "virtuous" thing.
Also, Penelope is actively defending her faith to him. She did not had to, she could marry a suitor and save herself a trouble.
Historical arranged marriage are not romances, but people grow to have relationships to each other. People do care, just like we care about cousins, siblings or other unchoosen groups. It can grow to hate and abuse too, but those are not present in Odyssey.
My favorite example is in the old testament when God sends a couple angels to Lot and a large mob of sodomites (people from the city of sodom, although they probably satisfy both definitions of the word) converge upon him and demand to rape the angels. Lot immediately attempts to negotiate by offering to let the mob to rape his own daughters in lieu of the angels. The mob denies this generous offer so the angels drive them away under their own power, thus calling into question why Lot felt the need to offer his daughter's unto a large mob of literal sodomites.
The angels tell him to leave because God is planning to destroy the entire city, and somehow Lot is actually being spared since he is somehow the only righteous man in Sodom. He is warned not to look back at the city as he departs, but his wife foolishly disobey this instruction and is immediately transformed into a pillar of salt as one would expect.
Then later they're out in the wilderness where there are no men and the two daughters are getting hot and bothered so they drug the recently-widowed Lot and rape him, becoming impregnatedin the process.
In all fairness I think the implication behind that last plot development was a sort of abramhic version of karma since Lot is an extremely unsympathetic character despite somehow also being righteous enough to merit being spared the fires of sodom. However given what I know about how incest usually works in the modern world i can't help but wonder if (assuming this is at least partially based on true events) we're actually just getting Lot's side of the story after he inexplicably emerges from the wilderness with two grandchildren and no other sources of paternity.
Anyways the bronze age is one helluva drug.
Until I started reading the bible myself, I had unquestioningly accepted everything my elders (parents and teachers) had told me but reading stories like this made me start to question my beliefs and over the next 15 years I gradually believed less and less (progressing from Catholic to Christian to theist to deist to atheist).
Offering them his own daughters as victims definitely does appal anyone today, and I guess comes from a strong culture of obligation to guests - before your self or your family. Lot did not know they were angels so did not know the alternative existed.
On the other hand they agree with us that gang rape is very wrong.
The pillar of salt thing and the destruction of the city are weird. On the other hand there are many modern examples of people wanting to destroy a place or a people they believe to be wicked.
The incest is presented as something they did, not as morally right.
I like your interpretation of getting Lot's side of the story, but not too literally as this was an oral tradition that was only written down much later.
There are many wildly different value systems in the world today. None that say gang rape is fine, but many will blame the victims.
Either way, there is a strange ending to this story which is that Lot's daughters got him drunk and seduced him.
- We are creating a lot of entertainment about cool sociopaths with no regrets too.
None of that means regret does not exist in individuals these days nor in 20th century. And ancient people did in fact expressed regrets.
The Nazis wanted to return to ancient values, specifically the values they perceived as those of the classical world. Himmler thought Christianity was a plot by Paul to undermine the Roman Empire and aimed to eliminate the 10 Commandments. Hitler cited Sparta as an example of the sort of society he wanted to create.
But also, there were plenty of Christian and Catholic Nazi. Catholic priests (outside of Germany) actively worked toward Nazi project. Commandments are always malleable, including the "tho shall not kill" one. By the way, the recently excommunicated catholic priests group was started by a French catholic Nazi. And by all I have see, they kept with the founders tradition.
Hitler was not historian. He had selective imagination based reading of history. Him constructing an idea of "ancient people who have no empathy and no regrets" does not imply ancient people were all with no regrets and no empathy. It just implies empathy and regrets were in the way of the racial purity and world domination project.
The Catholic Church condemned Nazi ideology in the 1930s and said racism is incompatible with Christianity. The story of the papal encyclical is quite interesting. Lots of priests ended up in prisons of concentration camps.
The Nazis were determined to specifically get rid of Christian values. They invented two new religions to try and replace it: Nazi neo-paganism and Positive Christianity.
Hitler was not a historian and hugely misinterpreted history, but the Nazi view of Sparta was not just a myth. Sparta was literally a society based on a racial hierarchy, with the Spartans structuring their society around keeping control of the helots.
The Catholic Church was instrumental rather then objecting.
Also German nazi had appeal to conservative Catholics in Germany, they were one of the constituencies voting for them. You had some nazi into neo-paganism, sure, but the cross with conservative Catholics was real.
---------
And like I said, recently excommunicated group of priest was founded by a famous French nazi. They were hiding him for years after the war.
Current pope is definitely not a nazi, just for the record. Absolutely not, he truly sees races as equal and poor as equal. Nor he is left wing as some say, he is conservative without crossing to far right side. But he also makes uglier undercurrent in catholic church fairly angry. Not counting Vance here btw, he seems to be in a very small weird mini group of his own.
---------
Sparta was fascists, but not really into race science. That was discovered only later. If they were racial, they would be better able to keep their numbers - but instead their system ensured the amount of citizens was smaller and smaller.
From the very beginning. Look into how the churchmen happily destroyed pagan temples and killed pagan priests in the Roman Empire when they had the power to do so. Look at how they justified and clamoured for death (including of Christians) during the Crusades. Or at how long they've taken to take a position against slavery. Or how they've bent the knee to fascists in the XXth century when it was politically expedient to do so. The few who stood by their principles are very rare, even though they've been used to whitewash their institutions later.
And to avoid getting blamed of anti-Christianity: that's also true of Buddhists (look at how they killed Muslims in Myanmar), of Muslims (the Saudis especially), and the way most Jewish synagogues have reacted to the genocide is nothing but horror and shame.
Religion (as in the institution) has almost always lagged behind virtuous developments: it's virtuous people who have largely initiated these movements and sacrificed for their cause. You don't get to the level of wealth and power that the Church has by taking morally right stances.
Paywall free link.
I didnt care for Tenet at all, which i thought wasted a good concept, but i would never call the movie an embarrassment because it was clearly very well made. I just didn't like it.
But he dared take on The Odyssey, so suddenly everyone is a classical scholar who read it in the original language and has enough knowledge of ancient greek and pre-greek societies to adequately judge it. Because clearly showing disdain for a reinterpretation of a good work makes you a sophisticated person.
That is definitely possible, as there's been a lot of silly lockstep ideological reviewing of things in the last 5 years. However, Jeremy Jahns, who reviews movies based on them being movies (and them not being not sufficiently post-structural, post-colonial critiques of the patriarchy) likes it based on movie reasons, so that was encouraging.
You say this like it might be shocking. I would expect nothing more than major movie critics bandwagoning a movie like this.
also lots of reviews online about it being woke, if this is you then skip it...this is art from an artist and if you don't like his vision then skip the movie. no one is forcing you to watch it
Two words: why should I care?
Exception: If you personally are Homer, I'd like to hear your thoughts.