The Odyssey

How much further can we go down the path of sacrificing civility for the sake of one's survival before it's too late and no one survives?  And how much can be sacrificed in the name of convenience?  This seems to be the current kick Christopher Nolan is on with a theme in his recent movies that is first discussed in Oppenheimer and then is explored more thoroughly in The Odyssey.  It's an interesting, pandora's box situation that is presented and is one that makes for a thought provoking exploration of the anti hero where they become sort of a doomer anti hero in the way of they do things that in our society's or at least in American society's eyes are seen as triumphant heroes to look up to but upon further inspection, the feats of these heroes are brought into question of whether they are actually worthy of celebrating.  We celebrate their achievements because on a surface level when broken down into the simplest of terms, these are massive victories that turned the tide of what seemed like never ending wars.  With this, it can be seen that these are worth celebrating because they are seen as a means to an end, and may be argued that if these actions were not taken, would the war have gone on longer and claimed more casualties?  

No one can know for sure and that is the driving point to taking such actions, the fear of things getting worse by the hands of our enemies but then reflecting on the steps taken to prevent that and realizing we're the ones who shot first and got the newest race to the bottom started.  In an interview I saw Nolan do with John Stewart, he said that he couldn't have made The Odyssey without the success of Oppenheimer. Stewart then questioned Nolan's statement by asking how his previous successful films like the Dark Knight films as well as Inception and Interstellar were not successful enough to make The Odyssey .  But I feel the point that Nolan was making here was not as much about the financial backing needed to make The Odyssey but rather he needed Oppenheimer to be as successful and seen by as many as it was, to get the cultural zeitgeist where he needed it to have his modernization of The Odyssey hit as hard as it does.

Oppenheimer was an interesting choice of a story to tell because it was Nolan reminding us of a fear that I feel we have forgotten for the most part because of the time since the last world war as well as the Cold War.  It felt for me that whenever I read about Robert J Oppenheimer, his achievement with the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb was always held up as the sheer brilliance that helped make America into the global power it is.  But to see how much he would look back in dread and to an extent maybe even regret his "achievement," it brought a whole new energy and recontextualization to his legacy.  I find this especially interesting with Christopher Nolan telling this story because I find that he likes to tell the stories of complex characters that vary in degrees of their villainy and heroism from story to story.  My favorite film of his, has who is arguably one of the best villains ever told in a story in the Joker in The Dark Knight, so much so that there's many people who overlook all his villainy in the blurred lines of his misunderstood villain dynamic and prop him up as if he's some sort of hero.  Of course the other side of that coin is Batman who is the anti hero but is seen as this anti hero in the world of the story but from the viewer's perspective he is just a hero, who may have made mistakes but never completely waivers from his one rule to never fatally harm another person.  I bring this up because Oppenheimer and Odysseus exist on the other side of another coin from Batman, ironically speaking of coins, I feel they exist more in a similar kind of place to where Harvey Dent does, kind of, I couldn't help but mention Two Face after talking about Batman and coins so much.

But anyway with Christopher Nolan moving on from making Hollywood's greatest misunderstood villain to now making Hollywood's greatest misunderstood heroes, it feels like a natural step for him to take, especially going from Oppenheimer to The Odyssey.  Oppenheimer brought about the potential extinction of the human race as a whole.  The greatest extreme in this race towards the end of civilization.  The Odyssey is now displayed as a story that shows an early beginning of this race with how his tactic with the Trojan Horse was the beginning of the end of the bronze age.  Of course this perspective is one of the biggest modernizations of the story Nolan has in his telling of it.  This is from his reflection on the Trojan war and his part in bringing its end with the Trojan Horse, where he devised the plan to offer the gift of the Horse to the Trojans for allowing them safe passage home as horses were a sacred animal for Troy and so the Trojans brought the horse into the city walls and when their guard was down at night, Odysseus and a small militia of soldiers hidden in the horse, make their way out of it and ambush the Trojans and open the gate for the rest of the Greek army to invade.  

Now when I learned this story in school it was taught in a similar vibe to the story of Oppenheimer inventing the atom bomb as a smart feat of a brilliant hero who brought it about to end a great war, of course this being a fictional war.  In Nolan's adaptation of The Odyssey, he shows Odysseus struggle with this as a concept that's talked about a lot in the story as an offense to Zeus's Law, that being one of hospitality between a host and guests which is stated out of fear of whether the stranger is one of the gods in disguise.  Now this rule goes for both hosts and guests and with Odysseus seeing their deception of being let in the city walls as being the ultimate violation of Zeus' Law, he has a reaction similar to that of Oppenheimer with making the A bomb and seeing it as the destruction of civilization but where with Oppenheimer that was seen as a metaphorical destruction that occurred, with Odysseus that led to literal downfall of the Bronze Age.  With this, The Odyssey is then framed as a punishment that Odysseus must endure from the gods for his crimes in the Trojan War, similar to that of Oppenheimer punishing himself with the hearing for the authorization renewal of his government credentials.  

Granted the Odyssey is a fictional story, there is still debate on whether there are real events that it is based off of.  When watching the film I couldn't help but think of more things I learned in history classes that could apply to this logic, one of the biggest ones being guerilla warfare.  This is when an army that is usually localized to said warzone ambushes with coordinated attacks against the other side as opposed to both armies squaring off with each other in the designated warzone.  This has been used for thousands of years but I remember it most prominently being talked about in the American Revolution where colonists used it to fight the British.  In the history classes this was taught as a brilliant tactic of the Continental Army to fight off their oppressors.  But the criticisms of this have been the argument that it actually causes more civilian casualties and prolongs the war as it usually takes place in populated areas.  Guerilla warfare is generally seen as a dishonorable way of fighting a war.  And in the end this is what the Odyssey's main question posed in its thesis is, how far should one person or a society let their honor become lost in the name of survival?

Now in the original story, honor was always a major theme as the arc of the story is about Odysseus learning to value honor in doing what's just versus seeking personal glory.  But in Nolan's adaptation it feels the use of honor as a theme is what he does to modernize the story the most.  As it's only been a thing recently in our society where the means to the end are questioned more, especially in times of war.  And so this is one of the biggest things that makes this adaptation more of a work of Christopher Nolan's as this seems to be a theme in his films of questioning if the ends really justify a means that crosses the line drawn for the civilized society he's portraying.  Some examples of this in his older films includes the surveillance of all of the cellphones in Gotham so Batman can find the Joker in The Dark Knight, planting an idea in someone's mind that will change their perspective of reality to help them escape a dream state, telling a known lie to motivate people to work towards a solution to escape their dying planet, or even as far back as his first film where he shows a person who steals only parts of people's possessions to teach them the lesson to not take for granted what they have.  Granted I feel the execution of this concept in Following to be more pretentious, but he has certainly perfected his craft with incorporating this theme in his storytelling since.

Another thing Nolan had perfected for The Odyssey was his use of IMAX, that being shooting the entire film in IMAX 70 MM, making a cohesive visual experience when watching in theaters.  I say this was more cohesive in the visual experience because one thing I noticed when watching previous films of his in IMAX was the changes in aspect ratio, especially on the theater screen going between scenes shot in IMAX and not.  Of course the scenes shot in IMAX definitely had a better visual aesthetic as he always chose the best scenes for that format, especially with the establishing shots but to see an entire movie, only in IMAX format, made it even easier to get lost in the film.  I walked out of this film thinking, this actually feels more like a traditional theater going experience.  I know the limitation with not shooting previous films entirely in IMAX was due to the noises made by the IMAX cameras while rolling and so for The Odyssey they had a custom rig for the IMAX camera to reduce the noise so they can have an easier time recording dialogue and on set sound.  But one thing that I noticed that I really liked was how a lot of the dialog sounded like it was from an older movie like it used older sound recording and mixing equipment.  I tried looking up to see if I can find information on this but couldn't find anything actually confirmed on this so it makes me wonder if they used a filter on the sound to take out what little noise that may have still been picked up from the IMAX camera and took advantage of how it was sounding to have it contribute to the vibe of the film to feel like a classic epic like Spartacus.  But I would be interested in learning if it was a filter used or if he actually used older sound equipment for classic film sound.

Another touch I enjoyed in my experience with seeing this movie was how it seemed like Nolan must have paid the theaters to not display ads or previews before the film, with the only exception being the four minute clip from Dune Part Three that was also in 70 MM IMAX.  I feel going into this movie with nothing but silence helps get into a mindset for it instead of the brain melt that I personally feel from seeing all the cringe ads before the movie previews.  Even when it comes to the previews it can be distracting but having the one clip of Dune Part Three works as it was a battle scene that was shown which worked for setting the tone for The Odyssey that explores the depths of philosophical questions brought about from war.  Of course I'm sure plenty of people were just on their phones before the movie but to each their own.  Of course in seeing this again with family in a standard theater the next week, we were met with the normal experience but also the trailer for Other Mommy which was an interesting choice.  This just makes me excited for how much Nolan has talked about wanting to do a horror movie.

To go more into this second viewing of The Odyssey, I saw it with my brother who is a huge fan of the original story and to get his perspective was interesting.  I enjoyed the movie in general but didn't seem to have the same appreciation for Nolan's adaptation as I did.  He made the point of how the original story was not about learning the lesson of remembering history in order to avoid repeating but rather learning from the folly of hubris.  I'd say to an extent you can find that original lesson in the film but it definitely is not front and center like it is in the original story.  Personally I feel the lesson about repeating history is more relevant today and that's what I feel makes this retelling of the classic story so impactful.  Granted hubris is a big part of what's got us to where we are today so it's not to say a story about learning from that wouldn't have any impact today but I feel for where we are in society today, seeing a story that focuses on what is lost but also how everything will be rebuilt in the ashes is actually a really optimistic take for where things are today.  The first time I saw this film, I felt despair and depression in thinking of where we are now and wondering how much further can we go before there is nothing to rebuild in the ashes but this time I felt more optimistic because in the end I don't believe everything will necessarily be lost but there will always be some but always enough to rebuild and hope for the opportunity to learn.

Speaking of things that have been lost, the second viewing made me appreciate Matt Damon's acting so much in the scene with the sirens.  This scene puts so much weight on Matt Damon as we are in the shoes or sandals of the crew with being deafened to the actual sound of the sirens and to see the nuance in the range of emotions.  It makes you question the more you see.  At face value it feels like agony and suffering but then once you see the crew member take the wax out of his ears and leaps from the ship to go to the sirens, it makes you wonder if it's actually some extreme form of pleasure and the agony is in Odysseus not being able to go to them like the crewmate.  But then he describes what he heard and it's absolutely heartbreaking but I will go over that later.  

I feel this is one of the most memorable, classic Christopher Nolan scenes in the film, similar to that of Coop seeing the videos from his kids after losing time on Miller's planet and pretty much every scene with the Joker in The Dark Knight.  With the mentioned stellar acting performances, I feel The Odyssey has the most in one film with a phenomenal lineup of performances.  Pretty much the entire cast sells every scene they're in so well with the biggest standouts being Anne Hathaway, Robert Pattinson, John Leguizamo, Lupita Nyong'o, Samantha Morton, Himesh Patel and of course as mentioned already Matt Damon.  The mentioned cast steal the screen in each of their scenes or work with each other well to build a great chemistry to make the story come to life, the latter especially seen between Matt Damon and John Leguizamo and Robert Pattinson being such a villain you love to hate.  Himesh Patel also does a great job at elevating the scenes on the journey as he works as a perfect unifying face for the crew that's with Odysseus.  

Samantha Morton is absolutely captivating in her portrayal of Circe with almost begging for there to be a movie just about her.  Anne Hathaway hits some of the absolute biggest emotional highs in the film with her journey of how well she makes Penelope be the most sympathetic character in the film.  But I feel the most praise must be given to Lupita Nyong'o for doing so much with so little time.  She is barely more than a cameo as her character gets not even five minutes in the three hour movie but her presence is so commanding as Helen and her twin sister.  In spite of all the controversy that sparked from her casting, she more than proves why she was the only person for the roles.  I also find it funny how much talk I've seen online about how scary she is in her last scene with Agamemnon and I just think, well of course, her performance was like the scariest part of Us so it's interesting to see that vibe from her but in a very different way.  

Other things I noticed upon seeing the film again a second time around was the continued step up in Nolan's cinematography in elevating this film to being close to that of a Stanley Kubrick film with it being just an impressive collage of visually pleasing works of art almost like something that you would see in a museum.  Another thing I noticed was the sound mixing actually seemed better in the standard viewing of this versus the IMAX 70 MM.  The overall sound quality in terms of clarity was better in IMAX but the ability to hear the dialogue was much better in the standard theater.  Of course one doubt I have in this may be that it felt easier since it was my second time seeing the film but there were times in the action sequences that I definitely felt were easier to hear.  But still I feel the overall immersion is better when watching on IMAX 70 MM.

Now I know I don't talk too much about these other technical aspects of the film but as someone who studied primarily screenwriting in film school, this is a movie that reminds me why I went that path and have a desire for writing in general whether it be telling stories in screenplays, video games or even concept albums for my music.  Whether it be an original story or adapting another story, the most important thing is to find your voice through your personal experience to tell the story through your lens to make it the artistic journal entry to let out how you feel and bring catharsis because that cathartic feeling is what connects people and it's like giving a speech, no one will ever be as invested into what you're saying as you are so might as well make it your own uncompromising vision.  I feel this is definitely what Nolan did and honestly I feel this with pretty much all his films.  Of course I'm not him so I can't say for certain but considering the stances he's taken on things in recent years like AI and the preservation of physical media in the film industry as well as the theater going experience, this adaptation seems completely understandable.  His stance with the things mentioned is to take a more traditional stance with maintaining them.  

Similar to the themes discussed of the inventions made to advance society but in turn has destroyed another part of it that was unforeseen until after pandora's box was metaphorically opened, you can see this with the implementation of these topics he spoke about in real life.  AI can be a tool but so much damage is already being caused by it to our society and the evolution of the film industry into the streaming of the digital age has had its effects in hurting the theater experience as well as negative effects seen with the decline in owning physical media.  As said famously by executives in the gaming industry dealing with its own existential crisis due to the proposed end of physical media, we are entering into a world where the expectation is that we will own nothing and we will like it, which is only proven true by the choice people make towards digital streaming due to its convenience.  In the end for these things, all they offered was convenience as seen commonly and continuously in our world.  

We strive towards more convenient means of living by only seeing what's being sacrificed after and hoping to then preserve what we're losing before it's too late but too many times it ends up being too late. These films take a darker take on this with Oppenheimer making a device that ultimately adds convenience to winning a war and Odysseus doing the same for what's available in those much earlier times in civilization.  This goes back to what I feel is Nolan's thesis on these points of view which he sums up with Odysseus' description of what he heard when he experienced the siren song as it being "all the things you want it to be.  Then all the things you wish you never wished for.  It was the delicious itch you go to scratch...  And find it under the skin, but can't reach it.  So the delicious itch becomes unbearable.  Told you 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."  In the end all we can hope for is that we learn the lesson and can correct the course before it's too late.