Wilson calls out the lack of sexuality, she calls out Odysseus' lack of wit, she calls out Nolan's imposition of Christian morality on the ancient world. It's all the sorest thumbs that somehow most critics didn't see sticking out.
But writing dialogue is not one of Nolan’s talents. The language is relentlessly expository, humourless and flat. Attempts at vigorous speech – ‘My dad’s coming home’ or ‘Let’s get off this fucking beach’ – sit uncomfortably next to grandiose meditations: ‘Yes, my queen. The breaking of Zeus’ law, spreading like plague. Our age of bronze is collapsing, and maybe he couldn’t bear to see the ruins of what he’d done. Anywhere. Least of all, his home.’
Wilson's name had been used so much by advocates of the film it seemed to cause a minor meltdown among the zealots when she revealed her dislike of it. Joyce Carol Oates seems slightly embarrassed now that her tweets about Wilson's review were picked up by various outlets.
though Twitter is totally ephemeral, & all on Twitter know that what happens on Twitter matters only on Twitter & has not even a fleeting shadow in the real world, yet, to my astonishment, not one but two ultra-casual tweets of mine on the subject of Nolan's "The Odyssey" were pumped up into two (2) separate articles in The Guardian (!). for one who'd written actual reviews for The Guardian years ago, & usually admires its essays, I have to say that I am somewhat shocked that The Guardian of all publications should be rummaging through the online Dumpster for something to reprint.
Yes, she apparently is describing her own X account as an "online Dumpster". Anyway, the main tweet from Oates that's been going around news sites is this one:
yes, her tone of dismissal & haughty superiority strike a sour note. rather than disagreeing with interpretations of Homer in a collegial manner, this person, who has benefited enormously from Nolan's film, speaks in the crude language of MAGA folks attacking someone with ideas that differ from hers. within the world of translators this seems all the more surprising since all translations are, presumably, subjective & not equivalent to the original text. one would expect a translator, of all people, beholden to a text, in service to a text, to be just a wee bit more thoughtful & respectful of others who are acting in good faith just as (she would claim) she is.
"The crude language of MAGA folks"? Really? In her review, Wilson says,
The race-neutral casting of Nolan’s Odyssey was inevitably deplored in some quarters. But there is nothing progressive about it. Most of the non-white actors – Zendaya, Lupita Nyong’o, Himesh Patel, Corey Antonio Hawkins, Travis Scott – play versions of the Black best friend, whose only role in the drama is to provide aid to the white protagonist
If Oates were truly familiar with rightwing or MAGA discourse about the film, she would know that those quarters are complaining about the race-neutral casting because it has people of colour playing white characters.
There's nothing remotely MAGA about Wilson's review. Oates use of the term amounts to ad hominem. Oates' claim that Wilson is unable to tolerate other points of view is so at odds with the evidence that it makes Oates seem like she's the one unable to tolerate an alternate point of view. This seems even more so in a more recent tweet in which Oates has manipulated herself into calling the text Odysseus a weakly written character by to-day's standards:
whenever classics are involved feelings naturally run high. however, Nolan could not possibly have made a film in which Odysseus was a sort of action figure with no regret or remorse; a "primitive"man of action; everyone would have hated such a film for its superficiality. in "The Odyssey" there are many, many lines in which Odysseus is deeply moved, even cries; he behaves in childlike impulsive ways at odds with "cunning" Odysseus. evidently ancient Greeks did not consider a man crying/weeping, admitting to "blanching terror" any sort of unmanly man.
yet, Odysseus is also pitiless with perceived enemies, who are usually just unfortunate individuals not of his tribe. he cares not in the slightest for women raped by his men or the "booty" they cart off like common thieves.
how to create a coherent character out of such a mixture? doubt that any filmmaker could manage it.
It's such intellectual dishonesty to criticise a fictional character for being clever in one scene and emotional in another. Contradictions can be a problem but they can also be the greatest asset in a screenplay, the very stuff of compelling complexity.
Ugh. What is it with this movie? I loved Oppenheimer, which I remember getting criticism for Florence Pugh's nudity and a lack of Japanese characters (it was plenty controversial in Japan), neither of which I had a problem with. Did Nolan dutifully go in the opposite direction on both counts--less sex and more diversity--and now zealots wish to reward him? I really don't understand the religious level support of this movie.
I do believe it's fair for artists to have different interpretations of source material. One of the reasons I love old movies is because they offer a window into perspectives on the past. People in the 1930s thought it was perfectly fine to have Robin Hood in clinging tights, they thought Maid Marion should wear a glittery frock. People saw movies like Robin Hood and many of them knew that the real Middle Ages didn't look like that. But not everyone. Many people grew up believing that Gone with the Wind was a perfectly fair and accurate view of the Civil War. Not everyone's a college lit major, taught to understand point of view. When films like The Odyssey and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight tend to push the same revisions, it's worth considering how many people take this as a direct view of the past. At the very least, there's no reason to condemn Emily Wilson for not towing the line.