Komentarze do opinii: Odyseja Nolana to wielkie rozczarowanie. Zamiast mocy klasycznej historii dostałem płaskie postacie i brak emocji

Bukary

Zaraz. Doczepiłeś się mojej uwagi ze ekranizacja pozostawia wiele do życzenia gdyz niekoniecznie zgodna jest z treścią Homera. Podałem więc opinię na ten temat osób znających tekst źródłowy. I film i artykuł zawiera kontr opinie co nie zmienia faktu istnienia krytyki. W przeciwieństwie do ciebie nie ograniczyłem się do pojedynczej wybranej opinii zgodnej z moim stanowiskiem a podałem szersze spectrum wypowiedzi różnych autorów.

I tak:

Emily Wilson, a classical studies professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose 2017 translation of The Odyssey was cited as an influence by Nolan, published a scathing review in the London Review of Books. She stated that the film:

Lacks "emotional, political, and ethical depth".

Features Nolan's "usual combination of grandiosity and superficiality".

Contains "abysmal" writing and unconvincing character motivations.

oraz:

She directly questioned the complete physical absence of the Gods Zeus and Poseidon from the screen… argued that by deleting the literal squabbling and divine architecture of Mount Olympus, Nolan "missed themes that were essential to the poem," flattening a tale of divine destiny into a purely secular, human drama.

W podsumowaniu jej wypowiedzi przytoczonej przez autora możemy jednak też przeczytać:

Despite her harsh critique of the script, she called the release "an event to celebrate" for getting the general public reading Homer again.

I dalej:

Dr. Masson (LitProf): Argued that the film forces a "Procrustean" reshaping of the story, turning Odysseus into a Dark Knight-style anti-hero rather than a model of Homeric wisdom and virtue, while replacing themes of virtue and hospitality with Hollywood-styled vengeance.

Daniel Mendelsohn (Bard College / Princeton)The Charles Ranlett Flint professor of humanities and fellow translator focused his criticism on Nolan’s psychological reshaping of the protagonist.

Writing for The New York Review of Books, Mendelsohn argued that Nolan stripped Odysseus of his trademark traits—humor, wit, seductiveness, and supreme cleverness (metis).

He stated that Nolan fundamentally "remade Homer's hero in his own image," flattening Odysseus into a "tormented, guilt-ridden sibling" of Nolan's other brooding, anguished protagonists like Batman or Oppenheimer

następnie detale od innego autora:

Writing for Engelsberg Ideas, Professor Armand D'Angour (University of Oxford) criticized how Nolan undermined the narrative architecture of the poem.

D'Angour lambasted the omission of the poem's greatest recognition scene, where Penelope outwits Odysseus by asking him to move their unmovable marriage bed. In the film, Nolan reduces Penelope's intelligence by having her simply recognize him because he strings the bow, opting for Hollywood realism over Homer's climax of matching wits.

He noted that Nolan has Odysseus perfunctorily stroke his dying dog Argos, completely reducing the stark, agonizing emotional weight built into the original text.

D'Angour criticized how the film handles Athena (played by Zendaya). In Homer, she is objectively real, moving in and out of the plot. D'Angour noted that Nolan's script blurs her reality so much that it is ambiguous whether she is actually there or simply a figment/projection of Odysseus’s trauma-ridden mind.

I na koniec:

Carl James Grindley (University of British Columbia)… While less of a harsh critique and more of a structural analysis, Professor Carl James Grindley noted … that "omitting the supernatural was a defensible choice... if you commit to a naturalized Odyssey, the gods can go". However, he emphasized that this completely reframes the narrative, turning Odysseus from a legendary hero into a psychologically broken, modern war veteran suffering from severe PTSD who essentially hallucinates or invents a mythological backstory to explain his missing years.

Sorry specjalnie filmu nie krytykuje ale widzę jego wady i łatwo ocenić mogę do jakiego typu odbiorcy jest skierowany.

Niezłe. Facet napisał, że film skierowany jest do pseudointelektualistów, a Kwisatz_Haderach i Bukary natychmiast zgłaszają się do odpowiedzi.

Coś w tym musi być, gdyż każdy inteligentny człowiek napisałby, iż film Nolana to adaptacja homerowskiej Odysei, a nie jej ekranizacja więc zgodny z epopeją być nie musi. Daliście się zaorać jak najgorsza gleba.