Troy

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the Greek gods were basically like humans, and you can consider them players in the story as well, plotting just as much as the humans. I want epic conflicts & wars of the gods. The Iliad was the ancient equivalent of Hollywood, and big god-powered conflicts are part of that.

The God's are essential to the best story. "Actions and emotions" of humanity, pah! The Gods' meddling is one of the best parts.

[joncha]

Originally posted by SnowFire
Uh, how do they explain Agamennon's near-invincibility then? I guess he's just been lucky?

Actually, yes. When you have that kind of warfare, and some escapes unharmed... well then, it must have been the "gods" that spared him, right?

They handle that sort of idea perfectly when in comes to the Achilles myth, but I'll let people actually watch the movie for that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When you have that kind of warfare, and some escapes unharmed... well then, it must have been the "gods" that spared him, right?

Um... you realize this isn't technically 'history', right?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

When you have that kind of warfare, and some escapes unharmed... well then, it must have been the "gods" that spared him, right?

Um... you realize this isn't technically 'history', right?

It is history dressed up with the lyrical genious of Homer. According to archeologicsts which actually based their research on Homer's tale the Trojan war or something very closely relating to it did take place. Ruins found in western modern day Turkey match the locations given by Homer and fit the characteristics of Troy.

Now whether Athena came whispering to the ear of Odisseas on his way for Troy as Homer says... it's another matter.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The God's are essential to the best story. "Actions and emotions" of humanity, pah! The Gods' meddling is one of the best parts.

Well, as fun as Clash of the Titans was back in the day, I much prefer how they handled it in Troy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is history dressed up with the lyrical genious of Homer.

EXACTLY my point! It isn't technically 'history'. It an epic poem describing a historical event at a later point in time, taking some... artistic license .

[joncha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Um... you realize this isn't technically 'history', right?

...and neither was The Passion, what's your point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by joncha
Well, as fun as Clash of the Titans was back in the day, I much prefer how they handled it in Troy.

BAH! Why can't anyone make a decent Greek/Roman movie where they show the God's scheming and fighting amongst themselves?

Maybe we can get Ragnarok made and have the Norse Gods on screen .

[Imran Siddiqui]

...and neither was The Passion, what's your point?

That story showed supernatural beings. No one complained there because it took away from the 'human element' .

[joncha]

I would have if I had bothered to watch it.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I read the spoilers anyway even though I didn't see it .

As for your criticism, I don't think that's horrible. I mean the story is a fable, why not connect to it another fable. There may be another movie in the making.. even after the Odessey .

Agreed. At least it's not a contrived connection, but one the ancients made, too.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

...and neither was The Passion, what's your point?

That story showed supernatural beings. No one complained there because it took away from the 'human element' .

I agree, Imran. This is a cinematic version of an epic poem- not a History Channel documentary about hypocausts in Roman Britain.

The Greek pantheon has a role to play in the film- without Athena and Ares, you don't get a contrast between just war and belligerence, and more importantly, you don't get the idea that the Greek gods were super powered versions of mortals, capable of vindictiveness, jealousy, rage, hatred, envy, lust- all of which of course inspired later Greek philosophers to reject the supernatural and embrace rationalism and scientific enquiry. People who claim that gods will interfere with the story of Troy are rather missing the point- the whole affair is set in motion by the malignant goddess of discord, Achilles is part deity and owes his immortality to supernatural powers and a decisive role is played by the gods both in the battles and the deaths of notable heroes, and in what happens to Troy and the wily Odysseus. The gods would be no more unbelievable than the characters in 'the Matrix' (actually as Homer wrote them, a good deal more believable), 'Underworld' or 'The Mummy'.

Achilles's relationship with Patroklos is mentioned by later writers such as Shakespeare and Cavafy as a reference for homosexuality, although Peteresen has played it safe by giving Pitt/Achilles a heterosexual love interest. The conflict over the slave girl has more to do with spoils of war and entitlement and rank (and possibly Achilles' sulky 'bad boy' nature) than any overt heterosexual interest.

I don't necessarily agree with Agathon that it is an aforegone conclusion that it will be a travesty- after all Petersen (director of 'Das Boot") has shown he can direct a war film. What you will not get is the poetry of Homer, but you don't go to the cinema for beautiful poetry, you read books and go to poetry readings.

It is a truism that bad books can always be made into good films, but that good books rarely translate well to the cinema screen- perhaps because we all cherish our own internalized versions of the books we love, where we have already decided what the hero/heroine looks like, or sounds like, and it's rare for any actor to be able to come up to our expectations (- Kevin Spacey was just plain wrong in 'The Shipping News') or for any film to duplicate for us the qualities that made us feel a book was special- although to some extent I think television serials of Dickens' adaptations have worked rather better in that respect, perhaps because of the way a television serial and a serialized novel are designed.

[Bereta_Eder]

I haven't yet seen the movie but I will however I imagine it's just Hollywood right? We're not looking into accuracy but entertainment and sensation. The closest "approach" to the ancient psyche I've seen, apart from the plays in Epidaurus or Herodion, was one done for TV about Odisseas but I don't know the name of the actor or the director. But both the actor and the director are supposed to be well known. They did capture what the essence of Odisseas was which is actually contained in just one word: "Polymechanos". The "many - resourceful" is maybe the closest it can get in english. The way the actor played, reacted, thought, the grimaces on his face all vibrated this aspect.
I don't know enough about Achilleas to attempt a character classification but the fact that he was a demigod (thus his goddess mother could predict his future) and the fact that this isn't if I understand correctly included in the film doesn't go for "accuracy" to the tale. So I regard it as a nice pop corn hour hollywood flick destined to do just that: give a pleasant time of love passion battle and greatness, however not anything really relating to the story, which I think wasn't the intention of the director anyway seeing as there are many "false appearances", false accounts etc when compared to the original. So an hour and something of nice entertainment it's basically what it is, I don't think it inspired to be anything more. It could in theory try as other filmakers have done but I don't think that's what it went for.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Achilles's relationship with Patroklos is mentioned by later writers such as Shakespeare and Cavafy as a reference for homosexuality, although Peteresen has played it safe by giving Pitt/Achilles a heterosexual love interest.

It wasn't peterson who did that but ovidius who wrote about briseis. the poly's gay community fixation at making everyone gay is amusing as ever. not that i can vow with certainty as to whom occupied Achilleas' bed but funny nevertheless.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by paiktis22



the poly's gay community fixation at making everyone gay is amusing as ever. not that i can vow with certainty as to whom occupied Achilleas' bed but funny nevertheless.

Oh what rubbish.

Imagine, I'd really have to strain very hard to make the Sacred Band of Thebes gay, wouldn't I?

Or to make the story of Harmodius and Aristogeiton 'gay', or imply that the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion was in any way purely platonic- two men who raced around the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus!

Look dearie- anyone who has to be restrained for fear of cutting his throat in despair at the death of his fellow warrior has a slightly closer relationship with the slain hero than just that of fellow volunteer fighters.

'....now that my dearest friend is dead, Patroklos, who was more to me than any other of my men, whom I loved as much as my own life.... I have lost Patroklos.

...I have no wish to live and linger in the world of men, unless, before all else, Hector is felled by my spear and dies, paying the price for slaughtering Menoetius's son.'

E. V. Rieu's translation in Penguin Classics.

From Palto's 'Symposium':

'The honour the gods gave to Achilles is another matter. They sent him to the Isles of the Blest because he dared to stand by his lover Patroklos and avenge him, even after he knew that he would die if he killed Hector, but that if he chose otherwise he might go home and end his life as an old man. Instead he chose to die for Patroklos, and what's more, he did it for a man whose life was ended...

Aeschylus talks nonsense when he claims in 'The Myrmidons' that Achilles was the lover: he was more beautiful than Patroclus, more beautiful than all the heroes, and still beardless. Besides, he was much younger, as Homer says. '

Phaedrus, the speaker of these words, thinks that Patrokloss was the lover and Achilles the beloved; he criticizes Aeschylus for reversing these roles.

Erastes and Eromenos- now just which culture gave us those ideals, I wonder?