As I begin to write the chapter which will certainly anchor my dissertation, considering the role the goddess Athene plays in the Odyssey, how she helps effect, what some scholars have called, the only real character transformation in Homer, the growth of Telemachus from a Mama’s Boy to his father’s son, I have tracked down online cheap copies of the two most famous screen adaptations of the epic.
I came away gravely disappointed, the more recent a 1997 TV adaptation far worse than the 1954 Kirk Douglas version. And the former despite excellent realizations of Penelope and Anticleia by Greta Scacchi and Irene Papas respectively.
In the 1950s version, Kirk Douglas played the role he always seemed to play in that era (at least through Spartacus), the self-confident hero, ever smiling, rarely faltering, always declaiming, never wavering. It was from this adaptation that I first learned about the Odyssey, having caught it on TV as a boy and remembering most clearly the scene with the Cyclops (which I loved) and forgetting nearly everything else. Back then, it had seemed so real, I was all but certain Cyclops (Cyclopses?) existed.
And yet now, when I watched it last week, so familiar with the epic, I just couldn’t believe Douglas as the long-suffering Odysseus. But, he at least had a more expressive face than Armand Assante, the actor who would realize the role in the more recent version. That Italo-American actor hardly changed his expression through the flick, always dour, never determined. He showed no none of the warm tears Homer described, when he was finally reunited with his son.
When he arrives on Ithaca, the home for which he had longed for two full decades, his face was unmoved. No goddess was there to greet him on the shore as the owl-eyed Olympian welcomed the real Odysseus now over three thousand years ago. Nor did she disguise him before he approached the hut of his loyal swineherd Eumeaus. He just waltzed right in and started taking food. Instead of sympathizing with his plight, I wanted the swineherd to slit his throat.
Director Andrey Konchalovskiy didn’t give the long-suffering wanderer time to test his servant. But, what was worse than that was that while Konchalovskiy did include the Olympians (in contrast to the 1954 version), well just three of them, he cut back Athene’s role. She was not dynamic, setting things in motion as in the epic, but static. It seemed that once she arrived on screen, the director had instructed Isabella Rossellini, the actress who portrayed her, not to move a muscle, but to stand in place and tell Odysseus she was by his side.
As I watched it, I wondered at the hubris of Hollywood, with producers and directors significantly altering stories that had delighted audiences for millennia even before their medium was even conceived. As if they knew better than storytellers who learned from the audiences because they had read a few books on screenwriting theory. And then my thoughts turned to Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings (which was supposed to be the subject of this post until I got carried away) and I appreciated his achievement all the more.
This is not to say that I, a huge Lord of the Rings fan, “approved” of every change he made. While, to be sure, I quibbled with a few of his choices, including one major casting decision and numerous story alterations, particularly in the The Return of the King, I realized just how faithful he was to the spirit of the epic and to the characters of nearly the entire dramatis personae.
To be sure, he made Gimli more humorous than he was in the books, but he understood that a little comic relief was necessary in this visual medium.
A hard task it is to adapt something from a verbal to a visual medium which keeping its spirit. Those who adapted the Odyssey seemed more interested in bringing a classic to the screen than in appreciating its story. Peter Jackson was able to bring a story to the screen while, on the whole, appreciating the story.
Given that Jackson remade King Kong , I wonder if he’s available to remake the Odyssey. And maybe, while he’s at it, why not tackle Beowulf.
Viggo Whatshisface as Aragorn the beta male?
Nope, Elijah Wood as Frodo. Whereas in the books, Frodo was the oldest of the four main hobbits. In the movies, Elijah Wood was the youngest (by far) of the actors playing said hobbits. Frodo comes from the old English, “frod” meaning wise. And few, if any teenagers, can play wise. Wood was 17 or 18 when they started shooting.
I thought Viggo pretty much got Aragorn.
Ever listened to the commentary? Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, and Sean Aston gave Elijah Wood a really hard time. playing jokes like inventing a whole new game for him (with ever changing rules) that he believed.
Of course it was interesting with Christopher Lee explaining how he’d told JRR Tolkien how he wanted to play Saruman… (There’s also a clip on You Tube where Peter Jackson explains why Christopher Lee is so Awesome. In short it’s “But Saruman wouldn’t be able to scream whenhe gets killed, that kind of stab knocks the air out of the lungs.” “How do you know that Christopher… no, wait, I don’t think I want to know.”)
Mortensen as Aragorn did feel right to me, and the bit in Fellowship (my favourite of the three) where he salutes right before he charges into combat is one of the CMoA in the movie for me.
Hollywood is more concerned about the pretty faces and the action than they are in story-telling, which to do justice to an epic like the Illiad or Odyssey would require much too much time. Something like this is better served as a mini-series, preferably on Showtime or HBO.
True, look at Troy, or Beowulf…
I think a mini-series might be able to do it justice though, gods know there’s enough sex and violence in there.
Speaking of expressionless, what about mono-expression? Elijah Wood spends the movies in an expression of perma-surprise to rival Granny Botox. He spends them looking like his vibrator shorted out… while it was in him. Same with Cate Blanchett / Galadriel, they were separated at birth.
Not being heterosexual, I could have done without the enlargement of Liv Tyler’s part. But I understand that a major romance is necessary in this visual medium, and that a heroine is necessary to modern audiences.
Well, Frodo was certainly the most intelligent of the hobbits. Tolkien makes that clear enough. The authors of the _Bored of the Rings_ parody picked up on it well. Let us join their depiction, on p.24:
Or from p. 28-29:
I have a hard time respecting people like Mortensen who make a fine living “playing” great-warriors-of-legend, gun-slingers and violent gangsters, and then go around the talk-shows spouting-off about pacifism and No War For Oil. He spent an entire-hour on Charlie Rose (PBS) badmouthing Bush and the War on Terror solely based on his “fame” from LotR….as-if he was some great geopolitical-military figure.
Hit your mark, say your lines…and shut-up.
If they do Troy again, it be nice if they actually kept it more true to form…and not white wash or downplay the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus.
I remember the 97 version, thats the only one I have seen. I was also like…11 or so when it came out. I enjoyed it through but then again I was 11.
Ted B,
I agree. Of course I find the dichotomy interesting in itself. Aragorn is the US in a lot of ways. Reluctant to lead, unwilling to do more than guide, until there’s no choice. Then it’s making alliances and kicking Butt.
Still one of the funniest spoofs I’ve ever see — Michael Moore goes to Middle Earth and exposes the crimes of the Aragon administration after Helm’s Deep…
http://inmycopiousfreetime.blogspot.com/2009/02/moore-parody.html
Patrick, good point about Showtime and HBO–and they’ve both done some great adaptations of books. And Livewire, we agree about Troy and Beowulf.
And ILC, I had a similar reaction to Wood, noting that he had three expressions, stoic, boyish cheerful and greatly upset, though he did seem to expand his range in the RoTK. We saw Blanchett quite differently; I did believe she was 18,000 years old, the (approximate) age of Galadriel at the end of the Third Age.
Well yeah, I was being too rough on Blanchett. She had some good scenes, I bought her as Galadriel more than I let on, and I liked it when she cracked a smile at the end.
P.S. Are you sure about 18,000 years old? I would have put her more at about 8,000. She was born relatively late, in Valinor – the Trees were still going but not for all that much longer. And it was only 600-700 years from the death of the Trees to the start of the Second Age, and then 6000-7000 years after that.
I’ll have to track down the book in the History of Middle-Earth, the books Christopher Tolkien published after his father’s death which deals with the length a year when the light of the Trees waxed and waned.
I think the ratio was very roughly 10:1 so yeah, it would depend on how many Valian years she was around. And this discussion is way too geeky 🙂
And this discussion is way too geeky
And I’ve never liked you more, ILC… 🙂
Thanks Wesley… I think 😉
And Google says the answer is: 8,440. (http://greenbooks.theonering.net/questions/files/030105.html#03)
I’d say she looks pretty good.