Emily Wilson’s translation of The Odyssey helped inspire the film. She just panned it in a new review: ‘I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script’
Posted by we9o
Emily Wilson’s translation of The Odyssey helped inspire the film. She just panned it in a new review: ‘I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script’
Posted by we9o
33 Comments
This honestly just seems like a really mean take? An adaption is always going to be a reinterpretation and I thought the film was great but even if you didn’t like it why pan it like this? Nolan was always gonna do his own thing with it.
“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 neighbours.”
Nolan’s film isn’t perfect but I disagree with this, I think the film did have something to say about many of those things. The ending especially.
“There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.” Lol.
I read her review and it is truly baffling with some of the critiques. Sometimes you’re way too close to a thing and that distorts your perspective.
When it comes to adaptation I really don’t give a shit about the source material. Film and books are such different mediums that what works in book doesn’t always translate to film. And vise versa. I’m not saying some of her points aren’t valid, but there is a general tone of dismissiveness that just feels more like axe grinding.
Also, because at one point she says he’s never directed an exciting film up until now, which I don’t know what to say about that lol.
It’s also important to remember she certainly wrote my favorite translation of The Odyssey, yet that doesn’t mean she defines what does and doesn’t make a good adaptation. A lot of scholars feel her translation isn’t faithful to the poems. Homer himself is not one singular poet. This is a story that is supposed to be interpreted/reinterpreted/retold and should feel distinct in each adaptation.
She’s a brilliant classicist and truly a talented translator! Not sure film critic is her strong suit, but that’s ok!
I love a hater and defend her right to say these things. I liked the movie but didn’t love the sanitized modern Odysseus. Felt like watching American Sniper.>!The ending also felt extremely corny to me, almost like a fourth wall break, where they ride off into the sunset and Odysseus is like “gee I hope they’re nice to me when they sing songs and maybe use this new fangled writing thing to tell my story” basically winking at the audience!<
Totally disagree with her and also totally agree. Nolan is known for his emotionless scripts at times. But he’s amazing at making a feature film. Emily has a different set of skills. The fact that Polyphemus is not reflected well in the film (“no man”) is a big miss, she’s right on that one. Nolan isn’t a phenomenal script writer *(but he is an incredible filmmaker. And she was rude but also right)**
* I’ve read before his best dialogue work comes from working with his brother, and sometimes his films rely on spectacle rather than heart imo, but the spectacle is enough to make an incredible film
She probably wouldn’t have been nearly as mean if Nolan hadn’t explicitly said he was influenced by her translation. I get her perspective. It seems like she’s not a huge Nolan fan in general and I agree that the guy kind of sucks when it comes to writing dialogue.
Listen she can dislike the film all she wants but I find the part where she tries to [critique the use of POC](https://x.com/kaiyashunyata/status/2081828614106915103?s=20) in the film way more weird and racist than what she’s attempting to critique. I do not think she understands what the black best friend trope is, especially because she also puts Himesh Patel under this umbrella which is confusing to say the least.
Also her saying that Corey Hawkins played the black best friend is so crazy because he is literally an antagonist to Odysseus? Maybe she was clumsily saying he was the black best friend to Rpattz’s character but I still find that kind of offensive and diminishing to his performance tbh.
I think her critique boils down largely to “this is not an adaptation of my Odyssey translation” and she seems kind of irritated by it. Nolan was inspired by the fact she adapted the text for easier understanding and similarly adapted the text to tell his interpretation of the story. And it’s funny how she misses that since her translation is famed (and controversial) for the liberties it takes with the original text in order to modernize it.
A lot of her criticism feels reductive and it feels like a lot of these complaints are almost in bad faith. Her reduction of the characters portrayed by Zendaya, Lupita Nyongo etc. as “the black best friend” is also baffling (and comes off as wildly racist too.) Some of this is that she’s too close to the original text to objectively discuss the Nolan adaptation, but some of it also feels like she has an overall contempt for Christopher Nolan as a person.
I haven’t seen Odyssey yet (it’s so heavily booked in the bigger imax theater in the bay area that my tickets aren’t for a few weeks still, hah) so I can’t really respond to much but there is one aspect she hones in on that I’ve seen others hint at, which is that the film itself is a surprisingly conservative take given all the anti-woke backlash surrounding it. So I wonder if that’s a somewhat valid take from her. It doesn’t invalidate Nolan’s approach, as it’s his own, but it’s not out of bounds for her to want to point out.
I’m not really that rattled by the review. I believe the people who say it’s a great film and expect to enjoy it, but I also think her perspective is fine to have and not a big deal. I also happen to love Joyce’s Ulysses. It’s fine. All of these things can co-exist, and she can have her take on how it compares to the work and people can feel like it’s not relevant to Nolan’s version. Doesn’t seem like a thing that worth castigating her for sharing.
Well, I find her translation subpar so to each their own.
Nolan’s Odyssey is one of the only movies that encompasses most of the tale. (Most adaptations only does one part of the story.) Of course it isn’t going to be extremely detailed or in depth; it would make the movie impossibly long.
Given I have never translated The Odyssey I won’t weigh in too heavy. But it’s fine people have different interpretations of art. Wilson and Nolan don’t have to agree.
I like Emily Wilson, but this is unnecessarily rude, and I’m usually a defender of harsh reviews. So many classicists somehow don’t understand that myths are cool because they can be interpreted many different ways for different audiences lol
I like Emily Wilson a lot, though her comments on the people of color casting was a bit condescending I felt. Other than that I think her full review is very thoughtful and pointed, even if I disagree with it. I think Nolan made a masterpiece. And if I was Nolan I’d be proud Wilson didn’t like it. Nolan is deconstructing the myth, he’s not trying to make it classical, he’s trying to make it an urgent message about today. He’s telling us to engage with the spirit of the text not be obsessed with the classical sense of it. Wilson is very good at what she does and so is Nolan. It’s not a surprise Wilson would bump on this.
Thematically, Nolan told the story he wanted to tell. He wasn’t going to be able to fit all the themes of the odyssey into even a 4hr film. He took liberties with the source material to speak to the audience he wanted to speak to (I also think that’s why he chose American accents and modern language – this is a film speaking to America in 2026).
It’s an adaptation not a recreation.
There are fair parts of this criticism, but also this is a movie and it’s just how it goes. I hope this leads to more films based on mythology and I hope the movie gets people to read more.
I enjoyed many elements of the film like Circe, inside the Trojan Horse, the Laestrygonians, the Underworld, John Leguizamo, Himesh Patel, and the dog. Also, the Sea People angle was interesting.
Other elements… Tom Holland felt like Tom Holland in Ancient Greece, Jon Bernthal was awful because it felt like The Punisher in Ancient Greece, and Charlize Theron felt underused. I believe Emily talks about the real lack of deities especially goddesses and that’s something I noticed. Also, there was a line in the movie that took me out and made me cackle.
It was a good movie, but this criticism from Emily isn’t wrong either.
I’d love more perspectives than hers. When I think of it from her perspective, it’s not a great adaptation. But when I think of it from a theater and folk/oral tradition perspective, I think it’s great!
Just… more interdisciplinary takes please.
So are we just supposed to ignore how reductive (and frankly racist) this section is? The bit about Himesh is especially incredibly dismissive of his narrative importance to the story.
https://preview.redd.it/09v2wzw28wfh1.png?width=1031&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a00cbaf506df3768698acf1d16ced56503940e2
Wilson is a great translator, but there’s a reason film criticism take years of study and practice.
I’ve said this but this is Wuthering Heights (2026) all over again and gets a pass only because Christopher Nolan directed. It might be a good film but does this deserve to be called “The Odyssey”?
I think she’s the one who was mad that Odysseus >!pet Argos and comforted him when he died. I DON’T CARE IF IT’S MODERN SENSIBILITIES, IT WAS THE CORRECT CHOICE, YOU PET THE OG GOOD BOY!!<
Guys, writing her off as being unable to critique film isn’t fair.
Nolan made good decisions to make a good -Nolan- film.
Its a film that has clearly resonated, and people were emotionally moved by.
But they were not the only choices needed to make a -good film-.
Its entirely fair to say he has used the scaffolding of the Odyssey to explore themes he has explored ad nauseum before, and that is disappointing when the original poem has a lot of themes also relevant to us today.
He made a blockbuster with a simple message. It was fun.
It did not engage with the themes of the text, and I’m really sorry, but while the exploration of Odysseus guilt and decay of empire are moving, they aren’t that deep.
Saying “it has to fit in 3 hours” is a useless retort when he *added things in to support a theme not present in the original poem*
It can simultaneously be an excellent movie, and a disappointing adaptation.
I think a lot of people are using “its being reinterpreted again and again!”as a defence against any criticism – but I stand by my annoyance that this Helen is a scarred victim, that this Circe has been made a victim, this Calypso less of a menace, this athena less of -anything-.
Reinterpretations of old stories are worth unpacking critically – because the stories we tell are a reflection of ourselves.
Nolan has made this movie, about a brilliant man suffering from guilt going from set piece to set piece, until he can run off with Anne Hathaway, several times already.
I am bored by this adaptation, though not surprised by it.
This movie reshapes an old story into a new one to secure the empathy of the modern audience- I would personally prefer one that reshapes the empathy of an audience to resonate with an old story.
That doesnt make it a bad movie and my preference would make far less money.
There needs to be room for us nerds to be mad about adaptations like this without everyone losing their minds.
I mean I do like how she called the film out for filming in the Western Sahara
Oh wow, I’m definitely in the minority of people who did not like the movie from the comments criticizing her criticisms (a lot of which I agree with).
Technically, the movie is very impressive. Acting across the board was good.
But changing the central theme and keeping the same ending felt like the character didn’t grow or learn anything. Which made it, even with all the spectacle and action, a shockingly boring movie to watch for me.
I wish I liked it.
The movie was entertaining but it does lack the emotion and character building of *The Odyssey*. She’s far from the first to critique Nolan’s writing skills. He excels at a lot of things but writing isn’t one of them— critics have been saying this about him for years. Those who are closer to the original (aka translators who studied classics) will always be more critical.
Odysseus’ main traits are his cleverness and wit. It’s not quite as emphasized in the movie. The women in the poem are also much more powerful and intelligent. I could add more about the gods and Argos the dog too. It really depends if you can separate the film from the epic. If you’re able to separate the two (which is fair), the film is very enjoyable. If you’re not (which is also fair), you will notice that the film is not a very faithful adaptation and misses a lot of the central themes and emotional depth.
Not everyone will love the movie and that’s fine. That’s what makes the arts so fun. Like, does everyone love the Mona Lisa? The analysis and debate is what’s made the painting so enduring.
Hayao Miyazaki’s Howl’s Moving Castle is one of my favorite movies and the author hated the movie, it happens sometimes.
I’ve not seen The Odyssey yet (this weekend!) but from what I’ve heard both movies share an anti-war message both directors decided to focus on more than anything.
I read her full review and while she doesn’t pull any punches, it’s waaay more thoughtful and nuanced than just this pull quote separated from context. She specifically says adaptations are allowed to differ from the source material but that the movie’s own messages (including about war) are contradictory. Among other critiques.
Why is >!Odysseus slaying the unwelcome suitors framed as righteous, for instance, when at the same time it’s shameful for the Greeks to arrive unannounced at Troy and slaughter its people with a trick?!< At the end she even says she’s grateful that the film has encouraged more people to be interested in Homer’s work.
I don’t 100% agree with her review but I respect her expertise and people need to read the whole thing before getting angry.
The film is not perfect, but I do find it weird how quite a few historians and fans of the original are criticising the removal of the sex scenes. Yes, obviously there’s a cultural dissonance between the Ancient Greek attitudes to infidelity and modern attitudes, but I don’t really see what it adds to the plot or to the character of Odysseus other than straining the credibility of his bond with Penelope and playing into the virile masculine hero stereotype. While there are valid arguments that the situation with Calypso is a twist on the situation in other Greek myths wherein male gods exploit women, I don’t really see a point to his other liasons (i.e. with Circe) and Calypso’s plotline arguably still works even without devoting screen time to a sex scene.
To be clear, not saying that sex scenes are evil or should be censored. I think they have their place in films, just not sure what they really add to the Odyssey specifically.
There are always going to be people who are going to be disappointed in how Nolan told this story. While I’m no longer in the field, I did do a PhD on Classics, and my sense from the various reactions from former colleagues that I’ve read is that they all on the whole enjoyed the movie. Is it a faithful adaptation of the Odyssey? Nope. But it’s in keeping with the epic tradition anyway to kind of tell your own story and to adapt it according to your audience. From what I’ve read, people in the field genuinely liked the movie, enjoyed the story, thought it was well acted, while having small little quibbles with it. People were mostly disappointed with how the female characters were portrayed, lots of comments on Nolan dropping the “nobody” pun in the Polyphemus episode, and also some feelings that the comments on the end of the Bronze Age and the Sea Peoples didn’t really work.
But this movie is great for the field of Classics because lots of undergraduates are going to be signing up for Homer courses this fall. It’s a field that often struggles with enrollment, so movies like this are great, and then you can have them read the Odyssey and you can teach it any way that you like. I started as an undergraduate in Classics way back in 2001 and the movie Gladiator had just come out. I remember my Latin class had over a 100 students, and the professor told us that most years they only had 20. Emily Wilson’s translation is well respected and she’s allowed to feel disappointed with the movie, but I don’t think that’s how most people in the field feel.
no wonder, the dialogue, characters, pacing and costume design were atrocious
Emily Wilson wrote the nastiest review about Anne Carson a couple years ago and compared her to Rupi Kaur lol
Berenthal as Menalaus got belly laughs from my girlfriend. She called him the Quaalude King of Sparta and I can’t unsee it.
It’s almost beat for beat the same performance he gave in Wolf of Wall Street. Same speech cadence, same hand gestures, same faces.
Also the editing in the first twenty minutes almost had us walk out the movie. I don’t know if the actors just didn’t have availability to be on set at the same time or something but it was jarring the way they would cut around conversations. That part thankfully got better.
Hard disagree with her criticism of Lupita Nyong’O, completely agree with her criticism of reducing Calypso to a shell of the role.
Also while I’m here, am I the only one who considered the Cyclops to be loaded with disability subtext in the myth? Polyphemus is only ever loved by his father when Posidon’s pride is wounded. Tragically Odysseus is what causes Posidon to care, not warmth for his son.
When I read the Odyssey in school, I was going through the joys of being bullied for my disability. My parents, much like Posidon, only ever cared when it hurt their pride.
Kinda hate that Nolan ripped that out of the story. Even if it’s just a ME thing.