I reread The Odyssey last week before seeing the movie on Saturday, and two higher-order distinctions stood out to me.
The first is that the characters in the book were nicer than they were in the movie. They were calm, diplomatic, and rational. They put their emotions aside and chose the path they saw fit. In the movie, the characters were stern, snide, and reactionary. And I don’t mean to chide it for that reason. That’s show business baby. However, when I spent 10 hours with the book characters, I came away influenced to be more pensive and prayerful, not macho and warlike.
The second major feeling that permeated the book was that the gods were in control of almost every major plot point. Athena was disguised in almost every scene where the good guys needed a way forward, and by the end, you begin to expect her appearance. And Homer balanced a respect for free will with an acknowledgement of divine intervention. And coming out of the book, that theme stuck with me. I felt the interplay between my decisions and God’s will. In the movie, however, though they beat the Zeus’ Law drum, that feeling wasn’t woven into the story as much.
All that said, the movie obviously brought the story to life in a net-positive way. The book, though, as we often say, is better than the movie.
Klavan nails the real target: not individual artists adapting Homer or pushing personal visions, but the cartel that turns certain viewpoints into mandatory dogma and dissent into a firing offense. That distinction matters. Individual provocation is art’s business; coordinated institutional enforcement is propaganda with better lighting.
Where it softens is the claim that a work’s only duty is to “delight.” Delight is necessary. It is not sufficient. The best art also tells the truth about something that matters—love, power, death, God—and makes that truth felt. Beauty without any claim on reality tends toward empty spectacle; the current regime’s problem is that it demands both beauty and the approved lie.
I thought the movie “one battle after another” was the pilot movie for the epic franchise intended to out do the intellectually giant franchise “the fast & the very grumpy” or something something or other, anyways .
Oh yes I’ve remembered now , that was it “one battle after another”its sequel will naturally be “One damn stupid movie after another”
and then
“another damn stupid movie no one went to watch after the last one”
then the 3rd episode gets a twist in the title to reflect the franchise’s success, that’s right
“it bombed who could’ve guessed”
followed by the 4th instalment and my favourite
“straight to video coz it bombed again”
which will be remastered reheated to
“one effing bankruptcy after a freakin’ another” (title suggestion by George Soros) ………infinitum , so & so forth -
I feel sorry for Ben when he finds out he’s gonna be put up to review them all - Barbie’s gonna seem like a piece of cake !
Oh Klavan, just as Fauci is the “Science”: You are the “Art”.
On today’s art, I have to admit that I’ve been gravitating toward conservative, non-mainstream created-on-a-shoestring-budget features. Regarding the Odyssey: I have not seen it, nor do I plan to pass along my hard-earned money to Nolan’s cause, whatever it happens to be.
The movie I saw this summer was “Young Washington”, which I enjoyed immensely.
I will add the original written work Odyssey to my lengthy reading list in continuing to know and understand the past.
Almost no one writing about the arts anymore is capable of making me laugh... except you!
As a long-time sufferer of the mono-culture in Hollywood, I found the Alan Ritchson / Gina Carano bit particularly good. I one hundred percent endorse Ritchson's right to have any opinion he wants.... but I do wonder about the mental gymnastics required of him to play a character so glorified (and appreciated) for actions so far from "defund the police" and so clearly unlikely to share some of his opinions. And make a whole lot of money while doing it...
Klavan is getting close to Umberto Eco's thoughts on literature here. But Eco has the real audience, the ideal audience, the ideal writer (the authorial voice) and the real writer. With Homer this all messed up because we cannot even agree that there was a real writer. Instead we have a real type, the bard reciting the tale over long sessions to a real audience of early iron age listeners.
I reread The Odyssey last week before seeing the movie on Saturday, and two higher-order distinctions stood out to me.
The first is that the characters in the book were nicer than they were in the movie. They were calm, diplomatic, and rational. They put their emotions aside and chose the path they saw fit. In the movie, the characters were stern, snide, and reactionary. And I don’t mean to chide it for that reason. That’s show business baby. However, when I spent 10 hours with the book characters, I came away influenced to be more pensive and prayerful, not macho and warlike.
The second major feeling that permeated the book was that the gods were in control of almost every major plot point. Athena was disguised in almost every scene where the good guys needed a way forward, and by the end, you begin to expect her appearance. And Homer balanced a respect for free will with an acknowledgement of divine intervention. And coming out of the book, that theme stuck with me. I felt the interplay between my decisions and God’s will. In the movie, however, though they beat the Zeus’ Law drum, that feeling wasn’t woven into the story as much.
All that said, the movie obviously brought the story to life in a net-positive way. The book, though, as we often say, is better than the movie.
Klavan nails the real target: not individual artists adapting Homer or pushing personal visions, but the cartel that turns certain viewpoints into mandatory dogma and dissent into a firing offense. That distinction matters. Individual provocation is art’s business; coordinated institutional enforcement is propaganda with better lighting.
Where it softens is the claim that a work’s only duty is to “delight.” Delight is necessary. It is not sufficient. The best art also tells the truth about something that matters—love, power, death, God—and makes that truth felt. Beauty without any claim on reality tends toward empty spectacle; the current regime’s problem is that it demands both beauty and the approved lie.
This seems like ai
I assure you, I'm not an AI.
Seriously?
Yes actually haha
I thought the movie “one battle after another” was the pilot movie for the epic franchise intended to out do the intellectually giant franchise “the fast & the very grumpy” or something something or other, anyways .
Oh yes I’ve remembered now , that was it “one battle after another”its sequel will naturally be “One damn stupid movie after another”
and then
“another damn stupid movie no one went to watch after the last one”
then the 3rd episode gets a twist in the title to reflect the franchise’s success, that’s right
“it bombed who could’ve guessed”
followed by the 4th instalment and my favourite
“straight to video coz it bombed again”
which will be remastered reheated to
“one effing bankruptcy after a freakin’ another” (title suggestion by George Soros) ………infinitum , so & so forth -
I feel sorry for Ben when he finds out he’s gonna be put up to review them all - Barbie’s gonna seem like a piece of cake !
Oh Klavan, just as Fauci is the “Science”: You are the “Art”.
On today’s art, I have to admit that I’ve been gravitating toward conservative, non-mainstream created-on-a-shoestring-budget features. Regarding the Odyssey: I have not seen it, nor do I plan to pass along my hard-earned money to Nolan’s cause, whatever it happens to be.
The movie I saw this summer was “Young Washington”, which I enjoyed immensely.
I will add the original written work Odyssey to my lengthy reading list in continuing to know and understand the past.
Almost no one writing about the arts anymore is capable of making me laugh... except you!
As a long-time sufferer of the mono-culture in Hollywood, I found the Alan Ritchson / Gina Carano bit particularly good. I one hundred percent endorse Ritchson's right to have any opinion he wants.... but I do wonder about the mental gymnastics required of him to play a character so glorified (and appreciated) for actions so far from "defund the police" and so clearly unlikely to share some of his opinions. And make a whole lot of money while doing it...
Great post Mr. Klavan.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!! Love that movie.
Klavan is getting close to Umberto Eco's thoughts on literature here. But Eco has the real audience, the ideal audience, the ideal writer (the authorial voice) and the real writer. With Homer this all messed up because we cannot even agree that there was a real writer. Instead we have a real type, the bard reciting the tale over long sessions to a real audience of early iron age listeners.
Bugger off! Ha ha. No self respecting American uses the word bugger. I love it.