Nothing against this piece, it’s a good read but the simple fact that this was written tells me that the racist, misogynistic right got what they wanted out of their disingenuous anger over the casting in a fucking fictional movie. No one needs to justify why a WOC is playing Helen of Troy or why the movie isn’t historically accurate!
This ‘timeline’ is so stupid, and embarrassing and Elon Musk’s deep insecurities, hatred of everything and disgusting wealth are infecting this country in horrible ways.
It really kills me how effective right wing anger is at not only becoming nationally covered but at drawing everyone into their bad faith arguments.
I loved the Odyssey film. I just watched it a second time, got to take my son. He usually hates movies and he really enjoyed it too.
I get why some literary purists complain about the movie. I had similar feelings about the new Dune movies in relation to the books, which I grew up reading. But listening to Villeneuve talk about why he made the subtext into text in the film, and why he rewrote some of the characters to do it, I realized that he was trying to honor something deeper about the books.
It's the same with The Odyssey. I only read very condensed versions of it as a kid so I didn't have a deep connection to the source material, but I can see how someone who does would be put off. The Odysseus they knew had lots of sex and killed even more people! Where are the hangings I was promised! Completely aside from right-wing bad faith, there's a common failing of people everywhere when they relate to art - everybody feels like they have a right to be entertained in the manner they expect. Give them something that grinds their gears without enough foreplay, and they process their own discomfort as a reaction to "bad art". Good critics know better, but good critics are thin on the ground.
I think the right has hypercharged their sensitivity to that kind of discomfort. It's too bad; that kind of reaction is a failing of human nature. It's certainly easy for me to fall into that trap, to see pernicious bias in innocuous headlines, to assume malign intent. I saw some guy saying the Odyssey casting was "objectively a slap in the face" and I thought, what a pathetic opinion to have; then I read a piece in the Times reporting on the Stevens/Al-Sayed debate and thought, ah, there goes the Times, putting a thumb on the scale for Stevens. My reaction was a difference in degree but I don't think a difference in kind.
I wonder what it'll take for people on the American right to stop being so hypervigilant and reactive, to stop living in a world of continual false-positive threats. Hope I live to see it.
Do the idiots criticizing a (@&*&* movie for lack of "historical accuracy" understand that the Odyssey is a fable, constructed by many poetic contributors over µany, many years who had no accurate historical memory of an event they had no experience o? Do they also question the historical accuracy of "Romeo and Juliet," "Henry IV" parts 1 and 2 or "The Tempest" (based on an actual shipwreck, by the way)?
Also, do these fools have any idea of what Eastern Mediterranean people of c. 1100 B.E =/- really looked like? Or are they the type of person that believes Jesus was white, blue-eyed and had darkish blonde hair?
Also, I think Denzel Washington would be perfect as Lady Macbeth. Try that on, m_____ f_______s!
This Odyssey discourse reminds me so so much about the freakout over the 1619 project.
I will grant that the pushback against 1619 project had a bit more intellectual honesty about it. Actual historians with real credentials definitely had some trenchant pushback (count me among those who thinks Matthew Desmond's contribution was honestly kind of shoddy). And of course 1619 project was an attempt to tell a sort of corrective to traditional historical narrative. So there's more room just in general for genuine debate about what 1619 project got right and wrong (as opposed to what is possibly the oldest fictional tale in western canon. A tale that's been interpreted and reinterpreted approximately a kajillion times the past 2,500 years).
But let's be real about where the vitriol was being aimed at most, both the person and a lot of the real motivations. It was about Nicole Hannah Jones and it was about a lot of people who couldn't handle a narrative that challenged a narrative of the glorious American past. Now with the former, her essay was clearly the lead essay and she was the editor of this project so at least initially maybe fair enough that a lot of criticism was concentrated at her. But I had the weird experience of reading critiques of 1619 and specifically about NHJ before I had even a chance to read the essays and her lead one in particular. And not all the critiques were all from dishonest right wing hacks. So I went in sort of bracing myself for a screed that would make the most extreme elements of the Nation of Islam blush. And my reaction was....that's it?! And no not "wow this essay is perfect, no notes", but just more, "wow this was a lot more tame then I was expecting based on coverage". Now I'll grant that criticism thrown her way was probably as much about her Twitter feed as anything (many such cases). And in the case of Andrew Sullivan, I'm not in any position to adjudicate whatever role she may have had in his leaving New York Magazine because I was literally not "in the room"*. But it sort of gave the game away to me how much the vitriol at her essay was so not in proportion to how incendiary the essay really was. And I also found it very interesting that I basically couldn't find criticism of other essays from people like Kevin Kruse.
Anyway, this even stupider Odyssey controversy and the 1619 stuff was enlightening in some ways. That sometimes there's no need to overthink this stuff as to people's motivations (which you get at). There are a) lot of dishonest people out there trying to score cheap political points b) there's a (thankfully) small (and I think shrinking) number of real racists out there who unfortunately have real power in this administration and include the richest person in America c) a lot of people who can't handle any sort of challenge to a very particular view of the past especially one that challenges a view of a glorious past.
* The NJH with Sullivan maybe the ultimate example of how much his personal beefs really could his judgement and his ability to think rationally. When he said NJH was the most powerful person at the New York Times (repeatedly) it was really hard for me to not literally eye roll. Also, you can understand A LOT about Sully's view of transgender issues by the fact that a) he spends an inordinate amount of time at Provincetown and b) the history of his clashes with lefty gay rights activists in the late 80s.
I hate that these chuds have made it so that you can't voice a legitimate critique of this movie without people thinking you're a knuckle dragging Musk-stan. I haven't seen it yet, but I intend to soon. I've heard great things about it from people who's opinions I trust, but what if there's a sequence I don't like? A directorial decision I have an issue with? I think the same thing about almost every Nolan movie I've ever seen: "that was a great movie, but I wish he had done XYZ differently." Now if I feel like there are any flaws in this movie and want to discuss them, I'm going to think twice and maybe not even bring it up at all for fear that I'll be seen as one of these assholes.
Thanks Brian. Anne Applebaum recommended Emily Wilson's translation which I ordered this morning. Going to read it before seeing the movie, she says that's the kind of translation it is. Then not to compare one to the other, but having read the poem, I think the movie will be That Much More, enjoyable.
What a fantastic read - insight into our desire to be comic book heroes instead of humans. Loved it.
Thanks!
Denzel Washington did play Macbeth!
So @Seth Masket reminded me!
Denzel Washington played Macbeth. National Review dismissed it as a "woke, Oscar-ready Shakespeare update." https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/joel-coens-stunt-macbeth/
❗️❗️❗️❗️
Thanks— I updated the piece with your reminder.
Nothing against this piece, it’s a good read but the simple fact that this was written tells me that the racist, misogynistic right got what they wanted out of their disingenuous anger over the casting in a fucking fictional movie. No one needs to justify why a WOC is playing Helen of Troy or why the movie isn’t historically accurate!
This ‘timeline’ is so stupid, and embarrassing and Elon Musk’s deep insecurities, hatred of everything and disgusting wealth are infecting this country in horrible ways.
It really kills me how effective right wing anger is at not only becoming nationally covered but at drawing everyone into their bad faith arguments.
I loved the Odyssey film. I just watched it a second time, got to take my son. He usually hates movies and he really enjoyed it too.
I get why some literary purists complain about the movie. I had similar feelings about the new Dune movies in relation to the books, which I grew up reading. But listening to Villeneuve talk about why he made the subtext into text in the film, and why he rewrote some of the characters to do it, I realized that he was trying to honor something deeper about the books.
It's the same with The Odyssey. I only read very condensed versions of it as a kid so I didn't have a deep connection to the source material, but I can see how someone who does would be put off. The Odysseus they knew had lots of sex and killed even more people! Where are the hangings I was promised! Completely aside from right-wing bad faith, there's a common failing of people everywhere when they relate to art - everybody feels like they have a right to be entertained in the manner they expect. Give them something that grinds their gears without enough foreplay, and they process their own discomfort as a reaction to "bad art". Good critics know better, but good critics are thin on the ground.
I think the right has hypercharged their sensitivity to that kind of discomfort. It's too bad; that kind of reaction is a failing of human nature. It's certainly easy for me to fall into that trap, to see pernicious bias in innocuous headlines, to assume malign intent. I saw some guy saying the Odyssey casting was "objectively a slap in the face" and I thought, what a pathetic opinion to have; then I read a piece in the Times reporting on the Stevens/Al-Sayed debate and thought, ah, there goes the Times, putting a thumb on the scale for Stevens. My reaction was a difference in degree but I don't think a difference in kind.
I wonder what it'll take for people on the American right to stop being so hypervigilant and reactive, to stop living in a world of continual false-positive threats. Hope I live to see it.
Achilles, the most celebrated Greek warrior of the Trojan War, was depicted in legend as the bi-sexual son of a Sea Goddess. Sorry Pete....
Do the idiots criticizing a (@&*&* movie for lack of "historical accuracy" understand that the Odyssey is a fable, constructed by many poetic contributors over µany, many years who had no accurate historical memory of an event they had no experience o? Do they also question the historical accuracy of "Romeo and Juliet," "Henry IV" parts 1 and 2 or "The Tempest" (based on an actual shipwreck, by the way)?
Also, do these fools have any idea of what Eastern Mediterranean people of c. 1100 B.E =/- really looked like? Or are they the type of person that believes Jesus was white, blue-eyed and had darkish blonde hair?
Also, I think Denzel Washington would be perfect as Lady Macbeth. Try that on, m_____ f_______s!
This Odyssey discourse reminds me so so much about the freakout over the 1619 project.
I will grant that the pushback against 1619 project had a bit more intellectual honesty about it. Actual historians with real credentials definitely had some trenchant pushback (count me among those who thinks Matthew Desmond's contribution was honestly kind of shoddy). And of course 1619 project was an attempt to tell a sort of corrective to traditional historical narrative. So there's more room just in general for genuine debate about what 1619 project got right and wrong (as opposed to what is possibly the oldest fictional tale in western canon. A tale that's been interpreted and reinterpreted approximately a kajillion times the past 2,500 years).
But let's be real about where the vitriol was being aimed at most, both the person and a lot of the real motivations. It was about Nicole Hannah Jones and it was about a lot of people who couldn't handle a narrative that challenged a narrative of the glorious American past. Now with the former, her essay was clearly the lead essay and she was the editor of this project so at least initially maybe fair enough that a lot of criticism was concentrated at her. But I had the weird experience of reading critiques of 1619 and specifically about NHJ before I had even a chance to read the essays and her lead one in particular. And not all the critiques were all from dishonest right wing hacks. So I went in sort of bracing myself for a screed that would make the most extreme elements of the Nation of Islam blush. And my reaction was....that's it?! And no not "wow this essay is perfect, no notes", but just more, "wow this was a lot more tame then I was expecting based on coverage". Now I'll grant that criticism thrown her way was probably as much about her Twitter feed as anything (many such cases). And in the case of Andrew Sullivan, I'm not in any position to adjudicate whatever role she may have had in his leaving New York Magazine because I was literally not "in the room"*. But it sort of gave the game away to me how much the vitriol at her essay was so not in proportion to how incendiary the essay really was. And I also found it very interesting that I basically couldn't find criticism of other essays from people like Kevin Kruse.
Anyway, this even stupider Odyssey controversy and the 1619 stuff was enlightening in some ways. That sometimes there's no need to overthink this stuff as to people's motivations (which you get at). There are a) lot of dishonest people out there trying to score cheap political points b) there's a (thankfully) small (and I think shrinking) number of real racists out there who unfortunately have real power in this administration and include the richest person in America c) a lot of people who can't handle any sort of challenge to a very particular view of the past especially one that challenges a view of a glorious past.
* The NJH with Sullivan maybe the ultimate example of how much his personal beefs really could his judgement and his ability to think rationally. When he said NJH was the most powerful person at the New York Times (repeatedly) it was really hard for me to not literally eye roll. Also, you can understand A LOT about Sully's view of transgender issues by the fact that a) he spends an inordinate amount of time at Provincetown and b) the history of his clashes with lefty gay rights activists in the late 80s.
I hate that these chuds have made it so that you can't voice a legitimate critique of this movie without people thinking you're a knuckle dragging Musk-stan. I haven't seen it yet, but I intend to soon. I've heard great things about it from people who's opinions I trust, but what if there's a sequence I don't like? A directorial decision I have an issue with? I think the same thing about almost every Nolan movie I've ever seen: "that was a great movie, but I wish he had done XYZ differently." Now if I feel like there are any flaws in this movie and want to discuss them, I'm going to think twice and maybe not even bring it up at all for fear that I'll be seen as one of these assholes.
Also, here's Denzel doing MacBeth's most famous soliloquy: https://youtu.be/8H6ChVKjHwQ?si=yMTN2o6ay8r4y4jL
Thanks Brian. Anne Applebaum recommended Emily Wilson's translation which I ordered this morning. Going to read it before seeing the movie, she says that's the kind of translation it is. Then not to compare one to the other, but having read the poem, I think the movie will be That Much More, enjoyable.