The Odyssey

The story has been known for ages, even before Homer (the collective we now refer to as the individual, Homer) put the stories into words with his own embellishments. Then for over a millennia, Homer’s words have been adapted and counter-adapted, each with a part or essence of the story they have chosen to put finer points on. Andrei Konchalovsky Emmy-winning miniseries is yet another adaptation, and I believe Andrei’s focus (as echoed by Odysseus to his son, Telemachus, before the slaughter at the Great Hall) is “it is easy to be angry; but to be angry at the right person, at the right time, this is difficult”. Andrei’s story is about the journey of patience and perseverance. How convoluted it often is; how unnecessary what triggers their need often are; how murky the low points can get; and ultimately, how cathartic crossing that finish line is...how the finish line must be crossed wisely. I watched this adaptation – I’m sure as many too are doing this period – to refresh my memory on the story, before heading into Christopher Nolan’s take. Yeah, a lot of details are changed from Homer’s epic. But then again, like I started, this is a story that precedes Homer. Changing the epic with embellishments and selective focus is the very thing that has kept it alive for this long. It is the very thing that grants all adaptations that use the names and the places and the events to pass on a story on a virtue all the legitimacy they need. Including – definitely – Chris Nolan’s. I can bet all I have that Nolan's focus is going to be on the effects of time on the mind, on waiting, on what one can wrought while waiting and what the consequences are. He will be focused less on the moralities of Odysseus (might even whitewash him as a near-faultless hero) and be less focused on patience and perseverance themselves as concepts, the way Andrei was in this movie. It will be about time, causation, and consequence. That is Nolan’s bread and butter. And I love it. I can’t make judgments on the production quality of this 1997 iteration. From my temporal distance, it did its best with its budget to produce something that is passable at the time it was made. Outside of Armand Asante, Christopher Lee (who showed up for 2 minutes) and Eric Roberts, I doubt any of those other actors were big names at the time, so, one wouldn’t consider this a big budget production of its time; so, the production quality can be extensively forgiven for the places it lacked. The acting was average for most of it, and save for a few brilliant moments from Greta Scacchi (Penelope) and Armand, the rest of it was comically bad. The story beats however made up for it in certain ways, where you’re made to treat it as a 3D theatrical experience than embodiments of these characters thrown into the real world. You can clearly see the acts and scenes separation. Sand, sandals and robes movies always have something entrancing about them. And when you take the extra care to have your art direction feel ancient too, and not stylistically rendered to feel epic instead, you adore it…the way you would adore, say, Monty Python. You tend to forget to turn on your critical mind, and just go with the flow. My favourite act is obviously the third one. Everything that happens from Phaecea to Ithaca drew my focus in. A good time. And a good refresher. Hate that they changed the mechanics of what happens in Circe’s island, gave her 4 extra years, and took away 5 years from Calypso. Calypso doesn’t even get to properly imprison Odysseus. That obsessed angle was lost in her story. I've also got to say this. Why does Odysseus get a pass after sleeping with Circe and Calypso, when Penelope's entire thing is her remaining faithful? This is a rhetorical question. But it is one I believe modern humans should always ask. You have to measure up to standards you expect (hope, in Odysseus' case) others in your charge to keep!