Is Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey Accurate to the Epic?

Ruby Lemley, rl123@uakron.edu

Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of The Odyssey just aired in July, bringing a flood of popularity back to Homer’s epics. Being about one of the most foundational pieces of Western literature, expectations for this movie were naturally high, and initial reviews came in mixed. I had favorable expectations of the movie, however, I find that modern adaptations of historical stories and events more often than not disgrace the original tales. So, I decided to do my own analysis of the new movie compared to the epic, using the E.B. Rieu translation published by Penguin Classics to review how well the movie adaptation portrays the historical accuracy, plot, and original theme of the epic, The Odyssey. 

I took notes throughout watching the movie, and picked up many small details but also a few very large discrepancies between the book and the movie. These details were roughly divided into the categories of historical details, characterization, plot, and theme. 

The historical details were fairly accurate as far as the depictions of armor, weapons, and armor. The best estimates for the Trojan War and the following events of The Odyssey are placed roughly around 1250 BC, so this is the reference point I used for historical details. The only changes I caught to historical details were in the type of axes used for the shooting trial and the depiction of the Trojan Horse. During the shooting trials of the suitors that ended up revealing Odysseus, double-headed axes were used and were propped up, crossing each other to form the holes that the arrow would be shot through. Double-headed axes are a more modern weapon, and during 1250 BC in Greece, epsilon axes would have been used instead. Epsilon axes are single headed, shaped like a D, and have holes in the middle of the blade. This switched detail isn’t enormously significant, but utilizing the double headed axes in exchange for epsilon axes made the shooting trial much less difficult, undermining the skill and accuracy of Odysseus. The depiction of the Trojan Horse was much more problematic. In the movie, the Trojan Horse was shown as a metal structure instead of wood. The book described the Trojan Horse as a hollow wooden structure, and this description of it is part of the iconic symbol popularly known today. Though Nolan’s metal horse could have been purely just for visual aesthetics, I feel that it was wrong of him to change that detail of such a well-known part of the story. 

Though there were some alterations to characterization of side characters, the main cast was true to the story aside from having less character development. I felt that throughout the movie, Odysseus’s personality was true to the book, but the change in some plot points and actions resulted in Odysseus not being able to show the more clever, cunning, and problem-solving characteristics that are key points in the book. He also, in the movie, expressed much less ambition to return home and more guilt from the Trojan War than in the book. Tom Holland did a very good job of portraying Telemachus as a young, kind of awkward man put in a tough situation between multiple conflicts. The differences in Telemachus’s character comes from the writing of him in the story. We don’t see as much of Telemachus in the movie compared to the book, and his actions don’t play into the coming-of-age theme that is presented in the book. Not only do we not see the difficulties he overcomes traveling between multiple city-states and the sea, but he doesn’t play an active role in the slaughter of the suitors in the resolution of the story. This lack of action almost entirely removes development from Telemachus’s character, but it also makes the ending scenes of the movie completely irrational. The movie (spoiler) ends in Telemachus being made king. This decision deviates from the original plot of the book, and also doesn’t make sense to me considering Telemachus’s position and actions throughout the movie. He had just come of age, wasn’t able to show problem solving through planning with his father to kill the suitors, and didn’t show any initiative or physical skills in the slaughter of the suitors. This, in my opinion, shows that he was essentially incapable of becoming king, and makes the ending decision of the movie a very confusing and seemingly random one. The two characters who faced the most mischaracterization were Helen and Menelaus. The couple’s interactions and general dynamic was nearly the complete opposite as was shown in the movie. Menelaus was portrayed as an intimidating, cruel type of person that seemed to be keeping Helen captive in their marriage. This portrayal was a disgrace to the original events and characters of The Odyssey. Before the events of the Trojan War, Menelaus and Helen were engaged willingly. The whole war was started because Aphrodite allowed Paris to take Helen against her will to Troy. So, it makes no logical sense for their now reunited marriage to resemble what it did in the movie. Menelaus was also depicted inaccurately in his appearance. In The Odyssey, Homer gave Menelaus the epithet “xanthos”, most commonly translated as “auburn-haired”. This descriptor was used for Menelaus constantly, nearly every time he was mentioned in length, but the creators of the movie made the bold decision to make Menelaus completely bald. Why would they do that. Lastly, throughout the entire movie, all of the characters were portrayed as much less emotional than in the book. Homer wrote more than several scenes where characters, such as Telemachus, Menelaus, Helen, Odysseus, and Alcinous would openly sob and cry about the grief they themselves experienced or the grief of others. Many of these scenes were genuinely gut-wrenching, and the open display of emotions by the characters deepened their interactions with each other and the reader’s experience with the book. The movie did include some scenes with depressing dialogue and sad memories of the past, especially with Penelope, but it never showed a display of grief quite like the book did among the male characters. 

The plot of the movie by far differed the most between the movie and book. Generally, the order of scenes and events, particularly from Odysseus recalling his last, were in a completely different order. The movie also skipped and altered some small things, such as the duration Odysseus stayed with Circe, Helios’s cattle being normally pigmented instead of golden, and the lack of mention of Hermes. I have no problem with these details being glossed over for a lack of time to fit everything into a movie, however, I have many qualms with how the movie handled larger and more significant plot points. For starters, Aeolus’s island was completely skipped. No mentions at all. For how famous the bag of wind gifted to Odysseus by Aeolus was, I think the producers could have included this part of the story instead of some other details. Similarly, the island of Scheria was completely skipped as well. Naussica, Alcinous, and Arete originally played a massive role in aiding Odysseus in getting home. His interactions with them were also how the book relayed the tales of Odysseus’s past to the readers. Instead of including these vital characters, the movie showed Odysseus’s past while he was on Calypso’s island, and to do that, entirely changed the dynamic between Odysseus and Calypso. In the movie, instead of Calypso keeping him captive while Odysseus sat by the sea and wept every day, Calypso fed him magical lotuses to give him amnesia and keep him on her island (this inclusion of the magical lotuses in this point of the story was also used to skip showing the island of the lotus eaters). This decision not only skipped showing much of the true extent of Odysseus’s misery that took place in the book, but it also removed much of Odysseus’s determination and ambition to return home, as he was made incapable of remembering it for a time by the lotus. As disappointing as these changes to major plot points already were, it got worse. The change that I had the most issue with was the alterations made to Polyphemus the cyclops. The movie drastically changed the interactions between Polyphemus and Odysseus, as Polyphemus did not engage in any conversation with the men or the sheep in the movie. In the book, Polyphemus would talk to and gently coo at his sheep while caring for them. Though this is a seemingly minor detail that was skipped, I feel that it takes away some of the crucial meaning shown in these actions - that kindness can exist in all things, no matter how monstrous they appear. In his interactions with the humans, Polyphemus did little more than just eat them. I had heard previous discussion around this change online, and it was received rather positively, as a general consensus was that it made the movie more realistic and horror-like. However, the story of The Odyssey isn’t supposed to be realistic or horrifying. It is mythology, and I see nothing more realistic about a non-speaking cyclops than a speaking one. The point about horror is completely and entirely wrong as well. The point of the story isn’t even supposed to be horror, and still the book was more scary than the movie depiction. Sure, Polyphemus ate people in the movie, but the screen was so dark that I could barely see it, and the book included much more visceral and gruesome details anyway. The book described Polyphemus as dashing men’s brains across the cave floor, vomiting up wine with pieces of human remains in it, his eye sizzling as Odysseus gauged it out, and in a fit of anger, Polyphemus squeezing a sheep until it popped, mistaking it for a human. But, this isn’t the only problem I have with Polyphemus’s dialogue being eliminated. The interactions between the cyclops and Odysseus were used to show vital parts of Odysseus’s character, and without them, we miss out on some main themes of the story that were shown through him. Without the tricks of claiming Odysseus was named “noman”, intoxicating Polyphemus, sneaking out of his cave by clinging to the bellies of his sheep, and then taunting the cyclops by revealing his true name, we miss a vital show of contrast between Odysseus’s cunning and his foolishness. Furthermore, the “noman” trick and Odysseus’s interactions with Polyphemus were some of the most iconic and recognizable parts of The Odyssey, and the producers did a complete disjustice to the storytelling of Homer by changing this. 

There was not one singular theme of The Odyssey, but several such as homecoming, perseverance, coming of age, metis (cunning over force), xenia (referred to as Zeus’s Law in the movie, meaning kindness and hospitality to others), and loyalty. The themes of homecoming and loyalty were excellently portrayed through Penelope’s devotion to Odysseus and the reuniting of the family. Xenia was also prominently presented in the movie, though it was emphasized a little too much, to the point where it took away meaning from some other parts of the story. For example, Odysseus showed lots of regret over the Trojan War in the movie, but this was presented as him being regretful over not respecting xenia toward the Trojans. Odysseus also aided in the slaughter of an entire city and murdered a baby by hurling it from the city walls during the war, but sure, let’s focus on xenia instead. The coming of age theme with Telemachus, like previously mentioned, was present but didn’t go very deep. The theme of metis, in contrast with the others, was terribly covered. With Odysseus’s lack of conversation with Polyphemus, the reduced planning in the resolution to kill the suitors, and removal of other details, Odysseus’s strong sense of cleverness and cunning was nearly completely killed. 

In totality, I cannot say that I would recommend this movie. In terms of historical accuracy, it was better than expected, though it still missed a couple small points. The portrayal of the book’s themes and the characterization were just ok. The movie immensely fell short of my expectations, as it skipped a lot of major and fundamental plot points and details of the story in favor of including comparatively irrelevant things. I would recommend just reading the book instead.