I walked into this film carrying two prejudices, and the remarkable thing is that it dismantled both of them — one in its first act, and one in its final minutes.
The first prejudice was the obvious one. I expected a "woke" retelling: casting unmoored from any sense of time or place, Indian sailors rowing beside Asian ones, a Black Helen of Troy and her sister Clytemnestra. I was braced for annoyance. But annoyance requires that the thing being changed actually matters, and Nolan's first move is to declare that it doesn't. His war was never about Helen. Compare it with *Troy*, where Brad Pitt's Helen is filmed as a shining, luminous figure — the camera insists you understand why a war would be fought over that face. Nolan strips this away entirely and replaces it with something colder and more plausible: the war is about controlling the trade routes into the Black Sea, which means controlling the Dardanelles, which means Troy. Helen is a pretext. And once nobody is fighting over a face, the question of whose face it is stops mattering. My first prejudice didn't survive the setup.
It helped that the setup itself is magnificent. This Troy is visually humbler than the one in *Troy* — the walls less beautiful, the city less imposing — and yet its taking is superior to anything I've seen in any other film. The music, the anguish, the sense of a clock running out. Above all, the horse: Nolan stays *inside* it while it's being moved, with men packed in the dark, drowning in sweat and fear, and when one of them starts to break and cry out, the others have to silence him — I believe it's Odysseus himself who kills one of the noisy ones. That detail, brutal and small, tells you early on what kind of victory this is going to be. The film knows it too, though I didn't understand how deeply until the end.
There was another early signal I appreciated, though at first I took it as mere set dressing for people like me: the mention of the Sea Peoples. I've been following the story of the Bronze Age Collapse closely for a while now — the raiders from the sea who appear in the records of Egypt, of Ur, of Uruk, right around the time the Trojan War is supposed to have happened; the entire eastern Mediterranean system unraveling; the four hundred years of darkness before civilization crawled back out of the ashes. Seeing that acknowledged in a Hollywood epic felt like a gift to the historically curious — a nod that Troy wasn't an isolated legend but one casualty in a much larger catastrophe. I filed it away as a nice historical touch. It turned out to be the film's thesis, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Because my second prejudice was still intact, and for most of the running time the film seemed to be confirming it: that this would be a diminished Odysseus, a faded version of the character. The domestic half of the story gave me no such trouble. Penelope is wonderful — the performance, the wooden doors of the palace, the texture of that whole world — and the suitors are exactly what they should be: children in men's bodies, without courage or real manhood, trying to lure their way into power through a marriage they haven't earned. Telemachus was a surprising and effective piece of casting. And the long prelude to the reckoning is superb — Odysseus in his beggar's rags, entering his own hall unrecognized, asking only for a chance to string the bow no one else can draw. Patient, humiliating, quietly triumphant. (The reckoning itself, once he reveals himself, tips into something else — suddenly it's Jason Bourne clearing a room of agents, which is a lot of choreography for a man whose weapon is supposed to be his mind. And I confess Argos the dog and the business with the arrows left me cold.)
No, the trouble was with Odysseus at sea. He ties himself to the mast for no reason the film cares to give beyond caprice — he simply wants to be the only man who has heard the sirens and lived. He blinds the Cyclops when escaping might have been enough. Twice, the most resourceful man in Greek literature behaves like a reckless amateur. Now, having gone back to check myself against Homer, I have to be fair to Nolan here: the recklessness is canonical — he just relocated and hollowed it out. In the book, blinding Polyphemus is pure necessity (only the Cyclops can move the stone sealing the cave); the reckless act comes *after*, when Odysseus, safely at sea, cannot resist shouting his real name in a boast — and it's that vanity that lets the Cyclops curse him to Poseidon and costs him ten years. And the mast is not caprice in Homer at all: Circe herself instructs him in the wax and the ropes, and the sirens' lure is not their melody but their promise of knowledge — they claim to know everything that happened at Troy. Bound listening is sanctioned curiosity, maybe the oldest pre-commitment device in literature: cunning applied to his own weakness. So the streak of vanity is truly Homeric; what Nolan removed is the *reason* — and an Odysseus who is reckless without reason is just reckless, which is to say stupid, which is the one thing Odysseus must never be.
Then the ending seemed to compound the offense: to get home, Odysseus must give in, surrender himself to Poseidon, let the sea decide. The one man who defies the gods — giving in. I felt the sourness rising, and here I owe Homer another correction, this time at my own expense. That surrender scene is Nolan's invention: in the book, Calypso releases Odysseus because Zeus commands it, and no price of submission is ever named. But the god-defying rationalist I was defending is not quite Homer's either. Homer's Odysseus is pious, leans on Athena constantly, and is even prophesied to make his peace with Poseidon through sacrifice after the homecoming — reconciliation deferred, not refused. My Odysseus, the man who lives by reason as if the gods were not there, owes less to Homer than to Epicurus — the philosopher who effectively let the gods die, who said the world can be explained without them. I was projecting a Hellenistic mind onto a Bronze Age king. I haven't yet read the Odyssey itself — I've been working through the Greek epics via Stephen Fry, the myths, the heroes, *Troy*, but not yet the prime source — so Nolan and I were, in a sense, both adapting a book I hadn't read. His invention just ran opposite to mine: where I rationalized Odysseus, he humbled him.
One thing I did verify the book contains, because it's the passage that made me want to read it: Odysseus's encounter with the dead, where the shade of Achilles tells him he would rather be a hired hand serving a poor, landless farmer than rule as king over all the perished — a flat repudiation, from the mouth of the man who chose eternal glory over long life, of the bargain itself. That exchange has been a touchstone in my own life; it has shaped real decisions, taught me to choose a full life surrounded by family over burning myself up for a cause, however noble. The film skips it, and I missed it. Perhaps its spirit survives elsewhere — in Calypso, interestingly softened here: not the malevolent captor I remembered, keeping Odysseus for her own interest, but a woman blurring his memories to spare him their bitterness. An escapist's bargain offered and finally refused, which is Achilles' regret run in reverse.
And then came the scene that made the whole thing worth it — the golden nugget, the part I'd rewatch over and over if I ever find a clip of it. Odysseus, still a beggar, speaking with Penelope through the door. And he tells her that everything being sung and celebrated about him — the horse, the sack of Troy — is a violation of Zeus's law, the law of hospitality and sanctuary, the thing that is sacred to everyone. He has been made immortal in song for breaking the one thing that holds men together. And he follows the thought all the way down: when the sacred bonds between men are broken, there is no civilization left. Nothing separates us from beasts. He even names his own age — calls it the Bronze Age — and there's been plenty of internet hate for that line, but who cares about the name? The point is that he *knows it's an ending*. He can feel that the tacit contract between men is dissolving, and that when it dissolves, nothing but darkness follows. Which is exactly what history records: four hundred years of it.
Then he says the thing that had been sitting underneath the entire film, waiting to be named. These raids by men who live on islands and come from the sea to destroy cities — who are they, if not the Greeks? *They* are the Sea Peoples. Not by blood or origin, but by what the broken contract has made of them. And suddenly everything reorganized itself in my memory. The recklessness at the mast and in the Cyclops's cave wasn't a diminished Odysseus; it was a damned one — a man who has already broken the sacred thing and is watching himself become the catastrophe. The surrender to Poseidon isn't the defeat of reason by faith; it's what's left when a man realizes his reason was the instrument of the crime. I had misjudged him in every scene, the same way I'd misjudged the film in its casting call. The Sea Peoples weren't a historical Easter egg. They were the mirror.
That is why the scene landed so hard on me — partly because I love that stretch of history, but mostly because of what it implies about now. Who knows how close we are, in 2026, to that same erosion of the sacred things between men — no closer, perhaps, than Odysseus thought himself while wheeling a gift to the gods through the gates of a city he meant to burn. When the sacred contract dies, the shadows arrive. We might be watching it happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment