Emily Wilson, the classicist behind the generation’s standout Odyssey translation, has finally weighed in on Nolan’s film adaptation of her favorite poem. And the response was so fierce that the London Review of Books briefly went offline, a level of virality not usually associated with that publication.
We might have anticipated that Wilson wouldn’t relish Christopher Nolan’s kinetic take on the epic. Yet her objections unfold in layers that are more intricate than a knee-jerk dismissal.
She doesn’t play the role of Cyclops here. Wilson’s acerbic gaze lands on the film’s relentlessly instructional subplots, the anachronistic diction, the flatness of most characters, and Agamemnon’s peculiar “Darth Vader” ensemble.
It’s worth letting the poet themselves explain their stance. But for readers pressed for time, here are ten of the fiercest criticisms from her review.
10.
It reads as a family-friendly audiovisual spectacle, resembling a grand Fourth of July display, and it carries about the same level of narrative heft and emotional depth.
Honestly? A fair opening judgment, if you’re setting the framework for a debate.
9.
Nolan allows shards of large ideas to whirl within the epic churn, yet there’s no solid, tangible human experience to hold onto.
It verges on the florid, almost as if the critic is speaking in grand, poetic terms. If Nolan’s aiming for Aristophanean levity, he’s at least begun by being placed in the water.
8.
The voyage to the Land of the Dead recalled the excursions beyond the Wall in Game of Thrones.
Context matters here, but readers can safely deduce that Wilson isn’t a fan of that series.
7.
Most of the non-white performers appear as variants of the Black best friend, whose sole function is to aid the white lead.
This line drew some online pushback as it caricatures certain performances, yet it cuts to a flaw some viewers were hoping Nolan might transcend in this adaptation.
6.
The Odyssey shows Nolan’s familiar blend of grandeur and superficiality.
The critique expands to cover Nolan’s broader project as well, inviting a slow, simmering reconsideration.
5.
If you’re not going to compose dialogue in Homeric Greek, you might as well render it in everyday American English. But crafting dialogue isn’t one of Nolan’s fortes.
That line probably stings a screenwriter’s pride as well as any verdict would.
4.
I watched the wrecks and bloodshed while feeling no pang of emotion. My eyes stayed dry, even at Argos the dog’s scene.
From the cheap seats, the exasperated sigh is almost inevitable here.
3.
…the script gives Penelope nothing to do beyond pining for Matt Damon, for reasons unclear. The couple lack chemistry and share little in common. Across Odysseus’s wanderings, the devoted husband clings to a tiny figure symbolizing his wife; the real Penelope hardly registers as more than a curiosity.
This critique circles back to Wilson’s character analysis and, in the process, puts Damon and Hathaway in the frame as the unwitting protagonists of the critique.
2.
It offers nothing convincing about time, memory, history, war, or the link between a hero’s triumphant return and the lives of his kin, foes, allies, friends, and neighbors. It lacks psychological, emotional, political, and ethical depth. The narrative structure feels gimmicky. The prose is dreadful. None of the characters has credible motive for their words or actions. There are no intimate scenes, and the depiction of food is uniformly unappealing.
That’s enough to kill a mood, even for a small creature; and it certainly loses me at the culinary detail.
1.
To put it bluntly, I would be ashamed to say I authored any portion of this screenplay.
That verdict, alas, signals a complete collapse of the project’s ambitions.
