‘The Odyssey’ Translator Emily Wilson Slams Christoper Nolan’s ‘Abysmal’ Screenplay: ‘I Would Be Ashamed to Have Written Any Part of This Script’
Posted by mcfw31
‘The Odyssey’ Translator Emily Wilson Slams Christoper Nolan’s ‘Abysmal’ Screenplay: ‘I Would Be Ashamed to Have Written Any Part of This Script’
Posted by mcfw31
42 Comments
> Nolan sung Wilson’s praises during his press tour for “The Odyssey,” telling Empire magazine that he used the opening line of her translation (“Tell me about a complicated man”) as a guide for bringing his Odysseus (Matt Damon) to life on the big screen. But Wilson concluded of Nolan’s film: “I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script.”
> “The release of ‘The Odyssey’ is still an event to celebrate,” Wilson said. “This epic is bringing audiences back to cinemas … translations of ‘Odyssey,’ including mine, are flying off the shelves … [and] perhaps the film will persuade a few college administrators not to cut their literature, language and history departments.”
I know her translation was the basis for the movie but i find it bizarre news outlets are acting like she’s the original author because this is the second review i‘ve seen from her.
I don’t understand this criticism. Was the script of the film not a good screenplay?
…
I liked it 🤷🏽♀️
This woman is a professor at a University and expected Christopher Nolan to write deep, complex, 3 dimensional characters.
Girl, it is more likely for dinosaurs to roam the world again than for him to write a complex character
Her translation is not my favourite but I do love her a lot as a person and academic. I like seeing classicists actually speak their mind.
“There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.” lmao, what? we’re critcizing a nolan movie for a lack of sex?
Christopher Nolan is not know for great screenwriting. His spectacle makes up for it.
MY GIRL!!!!
Why is Emily Wilson going so hard on the criticism? Like I get all the points she’s made and I agree with a lot of them, but saying stuff like “I would be ashamed” feels unnecessarily mean and bitter.
When are people gonna realize this was made for GENERAL AUDIENCES and not exclusively for ancient history scholars? It literally excels at what is was produced for and general audiences are loving it. Like, be for real and come down off your high horses. She honestly comes across bitter.
No matter what IP it is, the book is always different from the movie/show. Some of the things that make a book great are things that are not cinematic.
I thought Nolan’s take was interesting. It easily could’ve been too slow or too hokey.
Hey, I loved this movie, but…..
Why are people hating so damn much weirdos
“Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ lacks many of the elements that make the poem great. It has nothing convincing to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between one warrior’s glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends and neighbors. It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.”
Haha she’s just plain hating at this point, I can respect it, but I’ve seen the film and this is not terribly convincing criticism (except for the sex, I agree there should be way more sex).
This is kind of surprising to me, like her version got so much initial criticism I thought she’d be a little gentler about doling it out?
I was gonna say they should interview Robert Fagles too but I didn’t realize he died in 2008 womp womp.
Eh there were aspects of it I can criticize, but the takes acting like this is *The Room* of sword and sandal movies are getting absurd.
I don’t entirely disagree with her but the other commentators here are right. It was for the general audience who either do not know the odyssey or haven’t read it outside of school/in a while.
I think Odysseus was complex for a Christopher Nolan film but he was made to be too “nice” (if that makes sense) compared to the original. Odysseus wasn’t a saint in the original. They really downplayed the final murder scene. Also, he fathered Circe’s children or at least had an affair with her. I figured that they made him super loyal to Penelope because most audiences can’t handle nuance and morally grey protagonists to save their life and wouldn’t be able to root for a cheating murderer.
Anyhow, I can see how a classics professor wouldn’t be too pleased with this adaption. I think you have to look at it not as an adaption but a story of a soldier returning home to his family and the emotions that come after war. I liked the movie and the original story as individual works.
Homer could denounce it, himself, and I wouldn’t care a lick. Fantastic film.
I understand why an academic might not like this film or have a different interpretation. That said, her review is worded unnecessarily harsh. Thanks, I’ll pass on your book.
This is an article in Variety about another article in the Guardian about her initial piece in the London Review of Books. This is modern journalism, folks.
Honestly, I viewed this movie as Nolan’s way of saying “war turns men into monsters” and anything that didn’t fit that thesis statement was axed.
I thought it was a good film, I wasn’t looking for a word for word adaptation.
I’m gonna be so real- the movie was good. However it could’ve and maybe should’ve been multiple movies. Trying to capture the whole story in a 3 hour movie is so hard and we missed a ton of deeper side plots.
But for a singular movie I thought it was pretty well done.
People think she’s being dramatic, but her academic studies and life’s work translating are suddenly being famously tied to something that she doesn’t recognize at all as the original story she deeply cares about.
She’s allowed to separate herself from this adaptation. I’m sure many of her colleagues and past students have wondered. Especially if Nolan has dropped her work and name multiple times in press for it, citing her as inspiration for the screenplay.
Nolan seen wiping tears with money
Every time I see the word *SLAMMED* in a headline, I want to SLAM my face into a wall
Loved the movie as a spectacle and as an interpretation that resonates with a modern audience but I also laughed my ass off at how clunky some of the lines were or how he hammered every single theme to the ground. But that’s Nolan
https://i.redd.it/1nk3djk6atfh1.gif
People are so desperate for this movie to be less than or to attach asterisks to it. “Its a visual experience. Nolan cant write we know that.”
Its a good movie. With a good central plot, theme, and story. Maybe I can concede theres a portion or two lacking some depth to the dialogue specifically, but pretending its just a movie made to be a soundscape in IMAX just comes off as desperate to be the smartest person in the room.
I haven’t seen ANY DISCOURSE on how brutally awful and rushed the script was because everyone is fighting about the race of the actors 😭
Saw the film with my 2 friends and all 3 of us agreed the dialogue felt like pressing A during exposition in a video game. What the HELL was that!!!
The cool part is she didn’t write any part of the script. Or any part of the original lol
This is a quote pulled from a lengthy [review of the movie you can actually read here](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man). I think overall it’s really complicated, she was dragged into this by her name alone despite having no actual association with the movie, but the association has been primarily very positive for her. So it’s completely within her purview to write this review and it’s fair of her to do so but maybe it is a little strange to use such harsh wording on the “I would be ashamed…” line specifically? idk. I did read the review, I haven’t seen the movie so I can’t say if I think she’s completely hitting the mark here but it seems rationally critical. If I was so strongly associated with a movie I really didn’t like I’d probably want to write something like this too but I don’t always make the best decisions when it comes to overexplaining myself and criticizing when it’s not required!
I can’t believe she didn’t like incredible writing like “feel free to add a bunch of other stuff” in a historical epic!
This is why you should not watch dramatic interpretations of literature that you love. You’re always going to be disappointed. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t let the rest of us enjoy ourselves.
Why link to the review of a review instead of what she actually wrote? You can read Wilson’s actual words that she wrote here: [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man)
I do think it’s weird that they’ve been so open about basing the movie on her translation, since they made a movie that doesn’t really honor that work? Seems like they’re slapping her name on to be trendy, and I don’t blame her for being upset.
Pretty sure this very smart woman is capable of understanding the difference between a general audience and an academic one y’all. The number of people jumping to discredit an expert because they don’t like this headline is wild.
I kept telling people they can say it’s based on her translation all they want but it’s 100% his own adaption and story.
Am I the only one who thinks her criticisms are valid? I enjoy reading what scholars think about the film. I enjoy discussion about its strengths and shortcomings. Like Wilson acknowledges in her review, Nolan has revitalized discourse about a centuries-old epic by creating this film. Picking it apart is the fun part, and I’m disappointed the comment section is so bitter about… criticism? It feels blatantly anti-intellectual.
I’m a little surprised by these comments. A lot of pop culture enthusiasts complain about how PR-driven public figures have become, but when an expert in the field cited by the creator of the work offers honest criticism, she’s flamed for being too harsh?
She’s written 4000 words in her film review, far more thoughts than many of us will have had about the movie, and Variety has cherry picked quotes from a Guardian article which has cherry picked quotes from her original review. Just because she’s harsh doesn’t mean she’s not fair. The press is meant to be a platform for honesty, hurt feelings or not. She doesn’t owe it to Nolan to be nice about a film he cites her work for, as though he is doing her a favour by adapting it and adapting it badly at that. I enjoyed The Odyssey (film), I truly did, but it is not an accurate adaptation of Emily Wilson’s work or Homer’s work in terms of characterization and core themes, and she has the right, as both the translator and a Homer expert, to offer up her truthful opinion without mincing her words.
I’m not saying you should disagree — by all means, you should. But don’t engage with a real review with the comebacks like “why is she being so mean”, “why do they keep interviewing her”, “doesn’t she understand how screenplays work”, “she’s an academic she doesn’t understand it’s meant for the masses” or “it’s just an audio visual experience, movies don’t need to be more”. It’s low effort and misses the point of critical dialogue entirely. And if you want niceties, watch press junket interviews and Variety interviews instead.
Link to the original review: [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man)
EDIT: to add “she’s an academic she doesn’t understand it’s meant for the masses” as an example of dumb critcism. Do you really think this bestselling author, who has had a public platform for a decade, whose work’s main criticism is that it simplifies classics’ diction and meter to make it more accessible to the public, understands what a broad audience is less than you? Let’s all think and research for a few more minutes before dismissing things you don’t agree with with the weakest possible reasoning.
“our age of bronze is collapsing” is one of the worst line I have ever heard in a movie so I totally get why she would feel like that.
Also I didn’t really see anything or her translation in the movie.
I don’t remember them ever referring to their slaves as slaves, that was a pretty headline departure from previous translations which used words like servant and handmaiden.
One of the other interesting things she did with her translation was to describe Penelope’s hands as strong which totally makes sense as she’s weaving all day and pulling the treads back out at night. It’s a really important aspect of Penelope’s character in the poem. It shows the audience that she is the perfect match for Odysseus, she is just as clever and deceitful as him. Nolan doesn’t show us any of that though, he just tells us in one line of dialogue.
That brings us to the Matt Damon of it all. This Odysseus is shown to be quite clever. Building the horse and the sheep trick to get out of the cave for example but he is in no way deceitful like in the poem. He only disguises himself once on advice from Athena.
His motivations are quite simple, he doesn’t seek Kleos or glory. All he seems to want is Nostos, to go home. This is what separates Nolan’s Odysseus from Homer’s and makes me doubt that Wilson’s translation was an influence. He is hardly the complicated man she wrote about.
The language of the movie is heavily modernized. The movie is a great spectacle, but the dialogue felt kind of out of place for the setting. I think everyone having American accents also contributed to this feeling.
Agree. The dialogue was lackluster.