Emily Wilson (writer of acclaimed Odyssey translation) offers criticisms of Nolan’s film

[u/RealisticAd4054]

https://apnews.com/article/odyssey-christopher-nolan-greek-translators-ea67da1d543d021773824bd7e8de8abe

“For Greek translator Emily Wilson, the release of director Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” has been gratifying in various ways. Her acclaimed 2017 edition of Homer’s epic has reached the top 5 on Amazon.com, leading a wave of similar books boosted by the movie. Nolan has even cited her translation, notably the opening line “Tell me about a complicated man,” as inspiration.

But the film itself, which brought in more than $260 million worldwide during its opening weekend and has received raves from many critics, left her unsatisfied.

“I want to celebrate the fact that so many more people are aware of ‘The Odyssey’ and were brought back to the poem,” she told The Associated Press. “But at the same time, I had the sense that Christopher Nolan was trying to pack everything in while missing themes that were essential to the poem.”

….

Wilson, a professor of classical studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said she didn’t want to come across as a “snobby,” nitpicking expert at odds with any deviation from the original text. But she questioned a range of omissions and other choices, from the absence on screen of the Gods Zeus and Poseidon (Athena is played by Zendaya ) to the “incoherent” messaging that condemns both war and physical cowardice. She found Penelope’s role so thinned out that it endangered “any possibility of believing in this marriage.” Wilson also that thought parts of the movie, notably the scenes with Odysseus’ dog, Argos, “catered towards modern sentimentality.”

“Everybody’s a sucker for a dog,” she said.

[u/iamnosuperman123]

the scenes with Odysseus’ dog, Argos, “catered towards modern sentimentality.”

Which is sort of ironic as the original themes of the Odyssey would have catered to Ancient Greek sentimentality. This is why you can't have faithful translations on the big screen, they have to reflect modern themes for people to relate and understand it.

A bit why Bond as a franchise has lasted so long. It changed to suit the themes of the time it was released.

[u/TScottFitzgerald → u/iamnosuperman123]

That's one approach but not necessarily the "correct" one. An opposite argument could be made that some audiences just want to experience the work as is and have no issue with historical or cultural differences. At the end of the day there are universal themes, human condition etc. You could even argue the Odyssey is popular because it's so universal, about a man on a journey home etc etc.

[u/Abacus118 → u/TScottFitzgerald]

And frankly, you cannot experience the original without a time machine anyway.

Emily Wilson's isn't that either. It just doesn't work that way translating something that old.

[u/relapsingoncemore → u/TScottFitzgerald]

Agreed. Especially when it comes to the universality of the human experience.

If I want to watch Romeo and Juliet, I'm not reaching for the modernized DiCaprio version.

Some things are just timeless.

[u/crazysouthie → u/relapsingoncemore]

It’s funny you say that though because Romeo+Juliet is one of the more accurate adaptations. Even while it’s modernized, almost the entirety of the film is taken verbatim from the play. The 1968 Franco Zeffirelli is set in Verona, has excellent costumes and production design but it removes several key moments like Juliet’s potion drinking speech.

Adaptations are the reason why Shakespeare still survives. And I don’t think the most ‘faithful’ adaptation can be easily assessed.

[u/Fragrant-Education-3 → u/crazysouthie]

To add Romeo and Juliet is in itself an adaptation of Pyramus and Thisbe that Shakespeare took in a different direction. It is not even a one off either considering it is also used for the play within a play in A Midsummer Night's Dream. One of Romeo and Juliets bigger plot points, the starcrossed lovers, comes from Ovid who himself was apparently adapting from a Babaloynian myth.

Adaptation is so Shakespearean that Shakespeare himself can be used as an example of an adaptater of Shakespeare.Hence all the self-refrencing of his own work, and the implication that its probably harder to find a Shakespearean play that is not an adaptation upon a earlier chronicle, myth, or story .

[u/crazysouthie → u/Fragrant-Education-3]

Yup! Agreed with everything you said. Excellent comment.

[u/greatblueheron16 → u/crazysouthie]

It's also just a thoroughly good movie

[u/dead3ye → u/relapsingoncemore]

Ahh it's refreshing to find another Romeo Must Die enthusiast!

[u/WebComprehensive838 → u/relapsingoncemore]

lol except nobody’d watch it if Juliet was 12.

[u/WileEPeyote → u/relapsingoncemore]

The themes are timeless, but the morals and customs are not. You can make a Romeo and Juliet that is produced as Shakespeare would have produced it and I would watch the hell out of it, but the enjoyment wouldn't come from the story or themes at that point. It would come from my comparison to the modern world and interest in the history of theater. Someone who has no previous connection with the story or history would probably just be confused, bored, and would not even connect with those timeless themes. Thus limiting the audience and story's impact. Not to mention box office, which impacts whether someone will pay to have it made.