"Odyssey" — about Christopher Nolan's most important film

"Odyssey" — About Christopher Nolan's Most Important Film

I have finally watched "Odyssey". The impressions are immense. Although Christopher Nolan's latest film earned billions of dollars shortly after its release, it cannot be unequivocally called a work that everyone likes equally. This can also be seen from the debates, criticisms, and praises on social networks. For this reason, as I write about the film below, I have only set forth the things I understood and my own conclusions. That is, in reality, someone might get completely different impressions and conclusions from the movie, and perhaps the director himself put forward a different idea in certain points. But none of this can prevent expressing a subjective opinion about "Odyssey". For there are two different views regarding the dependence of any work on the author's idea.

According to the first category, any work is not independent of the author's idea. Whatever the author precisely wants to say through a specific scene, melody, or image is the true and only meaning, and all other interpretations are considered groundless. The other view rejects this — a work can have multiple interpretations free from the author's idea. Imagine we found a painting painted several thousand years ago; we know neither its author nor what they wanted to say with this work. But we can analyze it, we can give it various new meanings. That is, according to the second category, understanding any work is subjective.

Only, there must not be points in the work that contradict our interpretation. For example, we are understanding and interpreting a film in our own way and evaluated one of the characters not as real, but as a product of another character's imagination. If that character, whom we did not consider real, also enters into communication with other characters during the film, or exerts a physical impact in some scene, naturally, our conclusion turns out to be wrong. Because there are open contradictions in the work itself. As long as such contradictions are not found, all subjective evaluations regarding this film are considered to have a right to exist. I think you understand.

Christopher Nolan himself, in my opinion, belongs to the second category, for there are very many scenes that can be interpreted differently and open endings in the director's work. For example, debates still continue about the ending of the film "Inception", where Leonardo DiCaprio played the main role. At the end of the film, did Cobb achieve his goal or are the final scenes also taking place in a dream? No clear answer is given, and interestingly, even Nolan himself has not put an end to these debates so far. This means Nolan is not against even the works he created having different interpretations — this very factor gives me freedom in watching and understanding "Odyssey" as well.

First of all, the marketing of the film is worthy of admiration. Firstly, the name of Christopher Nolan itself is already a big move, for this director has currently reached such a level that the whole world looks forward to any of his works with anticipation. We have witnessed almost the same situation with the director's previous works as well. The selected actors, the footage that appeared before the premiere, and the film trailer brought the discussions to an unprecedented peak. To the majority who compare the characters of "Odyssey" with the film "Troy", an intellectual class was also added, who have indeed read Homer and are more ready to protect the pure state of the work as their own. It was not "I haven't seen it, but I will criticize it"; a slight lifting of the curtain was enough to notice the differences with Homer. The selected actors, the atmosphere of the world of "Odyssey", from the decorations and clothes to the legendary creatures, are different — is Christopher Nolan not trampling on one of our sanctities in literature?

But if you depart from various formed stereotypes, and without forgetting that in reality there were enough differences in the famous film "Troy" as well, start watching Nolan's film as a separate work, a story, I think you will like it. And you will be convinced that a slightly simpler Odysseus, a black Helen, or other "eye-catching" aspects are not the product of some marketing policy, a new trend in the film industry, or other external influences, but rather you will realize that they are a piece in the director's general idea.

Among various reflections on cinema, I liked one thought — Nolan is also the Homer of our time. More precisely, Homer was also actually the "Nolan" of his time, and this epic was also the blockbuster of its era. Indeed, in the survival of works narrating an era of three thousand years ago down to us, the service of storytellers like Homer and Nolan is undoubtedly incomparable. In fact, Homer himself also narrates events in the "Odyssey" from three to four hundred years before his time. Looking from today, bring the 16th-17th centuries before your eyes — how much do we know about this? Again, in the 8th century BC, when there were no volumes of historical and fiction books, no internet and ChatGPTs, how accurately could Homer narrate the Bronze Age?

That is, in his time, Homer also did the work that Nolan is doing today, narrating the legend in a form suitable and interesting to his contemporaries. Would closeness to historical knowledge and the real epic of "Odyssey" indeed make Nolan's film more interesting? No, in my opinion. Meanwhile, films like the one Andrey Konchalovsky made in the late 90s, or "The Return of Odysseus" in 2024 starring Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, are very close to the Greek legend in every way, but they passed by so unnoticed for us.

Uzbek cinema has adapted Qodiriy's novel "Bygone Days" for the screen twice. Interestingly, the people remembered more and watch more the old version, and not the second film from the 90s, which was maximally brought closer to the book, with dialogues, language, and clothes closer to the real "Bygone Days", and even supplemented with some scenes. The reason is that adapting the events to the time and the language of the story were precisely more successful in the first one; this cannot be denied. In general, in the work remaining a part of our folklore to this day, and in the love of Otabek and Kumush being familiar to young and old, naturally, not only the book but also the cinema is of great importance.

Nolan, as the director of "Odyssey", does precisely this work. He narrates the work not as it originally was, but precisely to the person of our time. An Odysseus who dresses more like us than the Odysseus in Homer, characters who speak English with an American accent, the characters of Robert Pattinson, Tom Holland, and Charlize Theron, who remind us of the people of our era from their hairstyle to their style, help us understand and feel not Homer, but this very film, Nolan's story. There is a black person, an Indian, and a Chinese person in Odysseus's crew — this is also not a mistake. No matter how old the decorations are, we do not perceive the film's characters as strangers from three thousand years ago who have already died. It must be said that the director achieved his goal too — the point is not in the gathered billions of dollars, but in the fact that today, from young people to adults, they have returned to "Odyssey" again, and this story has once again become a blockbuster. Someone searched for information about this legend, someone looked for Homer's work to read, another watched other directors' movies on this topic, hundreds of podcasts and memes appeared in various languages in the internet world, and in general, this topic has once again become a common cult.

Now, the important aspect is that Christopher Nolan's intention is certainly not to make "Odyssey" famous again. I would not understand it as if this legend had settled in Nolan's heart since childhood, and suffering from the world forgetting the work, he finally revived it. Undoubtedly, it is not so. Nolan's "Odyssey" is also an auteur film, and the director puts forward his main idea by narrating this event. And the idea of "Odyssey" is primarily about war, its consequences, and the trace it leaves in people's lives.

The story is briefly like this: the Greeks besiege "Troy" and cannot capture it for decades. Then Odysseus devises a trick. A large horse is built, and several skilled warriors are placed inside it, while the rest hide further away. The Trojans, understanding the horse as a gift from the gods and a symbol of victory, bring it inside the city. In the evening, the warriors who came out of the horse open the gates, and the city is captured. Along with the Greeks who put the rival warriors and the city's inhabitants to the sword, Odysseus also takes his army and returns by ship to his homeland, to his wife Penelope. But on the way, he encounters various adventures, loses his companions, and the return is prolonged for many more years.

Nolan has preserved Homer's main story, and the main idea is also close — the post-war period, the impact of war on human psychology, returning to oneself, and so on. But Nolan exaggerates the contrast between war and peace even more. This is also very important, for in ancient times war was an integral part of life, a means of survival and livelihood; naturally, for the person of today, it is not so. At the same time, the director also warns — as long as humanity resorts to wars again, as long as it normalizes them again, it will not be able to escape the consequences either. That is why, while Homer's Odysseus was proud of having devised the "Trojan Horse" and became the main hero of the victory under the conditions of that time, Nolan's Odysseus, on the contrary, begins to blame himself from that day on. We know this from the fact that Homer's character continued deceptions, for example, the events related to the Cyclops, even after the Trojan War, while Nolan, as if rewriting Odysseus, does not show his cunning and tricks in scenes other than the Troy event. Nolan's Odysseus therefore has a heavier attitude towards death, and because of this, is to a great extent also remorseful.

It is very well thought out and the most important point that Nolan abandoned the main aspect characteristic of history and historical films — the romance of war. You probably remember the famous film "Troy". The film narrates the period before the events in "Odyssey", the ten-year war. For the role of Achilles, one of the main characters, Brad Pitt, the most handsome actor of that time, was recruited. Pitt trained for several months to be even more suited to a hero like Achilles, bringing his physique to a perfect level. And his fight scene with Hector, in my opinion, is one of the aesthetically most beautiful fights in cinema history. The role of Helen was played by the beautiful Diane Kruger, indeed beautiful.

In Nolan's film, we do not see Achilles. In general, there are almost none of the heroes we are used to seeing in historical films like "Troy" or "Gladiator"; Odysseus and his companions are a crew that is always running away from something in fear, always dying. Even remember the scenes of Odysseus shooting a bow at the suitors in his final battle — extremely awkward, ugly...

Through this, Nolan shows that there is no beauty in war and death. Even the line of the beautiful Helen is different. The point is not even that the selected actress is black, no, just like Kumush, I know that every reader has their own Helen. We know well that if Nolan wants to present one of his characters as beautiful, he can manage it. But he deliberately does not do so, because "the face of Helen that launched a thousand ships" would have partially justified the war. After all, thousands of men giving their lives for one beauty, although actually wrong, is a romantic process. The director does not want this either. By choosing Lupita Nyong'o for the character of Helen, Nolan does not say Helen was beautiful or ugly, he simply wants to say that who Helen was and what she was like is completely irrelevant. Agamemnon or Helen's husband Menelaus actually needed Troy, not Helen. And Helen was an excuse, which means what her face or figure was like is completely irrelevant.

I don't know if it is in Homer's work or not, but the film speaks of the "Sea Peoples". They were a band of pirates sailing the sea and attacking islands, and in Odysseus's homeland, Ithaca, they lived in fear of this danger. Odysseus, who returns to Ithaca at the end, tells Penelope: "perhaps, we ourselves have turned into the sea peoples." We do not see these pirates in the movie; perhaps indeed Odysseus's crew sailing from island to island was passed down from mouth to mouth, or considering that Odysseus stayed on Calypso's island for seven years, the pirates are completely different people. Nolan does not clarify this either, for in reality it makes no difference; Odysseus and his companions, who carried out massacres in Troy, dealt a blow to civilization, broke the order that had always worked, and caused the beginning of a new, chaotic era. Through this, Nolan warns that wherever war is, even at a distance of twenty years, its consequences and wind will reach your home too — although Odysseus fought in Troy, the consequences and danger of this war reached Ithaca as "suitors" or "sea peoples". Who knows how many more "victims" and "victors" of the Trojan War are wandering in their ships? We do not know how many more lives the great battles, which reached us through high-flown songs, shattered, killing the bodies of the defeated and the souls of the victors. The hints about the consequences of war will undoubtedly also remind one of the works of Remarque or Hemingway.

Although Odysseus's journey is preserved in form as in Homer, through some added or removed details and emphases, we see that Nolan does not distract from the general idea of his work. While in Homer Odysseus's journey is an adventure, an interesting depiction of the hardship of returning to Penelope, every scene of Nolan's serves the general idea.

For example, let's take the fights with the Cyclops. In Homer, Odysseus communicates with the Cyclops, uses a trick. But they find out about the film's Cyclops speaking only at the very end.

- Oh, he speaks, maybe we should try talking, what does he need?

- It's too late now.

Indeed, several soldiers had already been killed, and the Cyclops's eye had been blinded. This is a hint that any conflict can be resolved through negotiation and talking, but once weapons are taken up, after a certain time it will be too late. After both sides suffer casualties and irreversible losses, coming around one table becomes even more difficult. Now, in addition to interests, issues like revenge and pride also get involved, making it impossible to find a point where every side agrees. No wonder if the events in Ukraine or Palestine were hinted at.

Or remember the events on the island of the giant armored people. In Homer, there are no armors; Nolan increases the dread by putting battle clothes even on their child. Odysseus sees before him a category that is stronger than himself, armed, and views the opposing side only as an enemy to be crushed. In some aspect, this reminds one of the Greeks entering Troy, that is, Odysseus himself. Not seeing other people as a human being like oneself, the lack of empathy, turns a person into such a savage tribe.

Odysseus's ship ends up near a huge mountain passage and a whirlpool next to it. The whirlpool, if the ship approaches, is capable of swallowing it with all its people, but if it is somehow bypassed, that is, if they go between the two mountains, there is a monster there, and it is inevitable that it will kill several soldiers. Odysseus is aware of these two dangers, but he says nothing to his companions about the monster on top of the mountain. He had to choose one of two evils. In the film, through this choice process, there is again a hint at war — there are no victors in war, you either lose a lot or even more.

In fact, although the laws of Zeus included not only hospitality and guest relations, but also justice, not committing oppression, not telling lies, and in general very many moral norms, in the film, emphasis is placed precisely more on the issue of hospitality; these laws are mentioned over and over again most of all, as if there were no other topic besides this, and that era consisted only of hosting. But here too, is the guest drawing attention to today's topical issue — the issue of sovereignty, which was sanctified after the Second World War and is now being forgotten?

In general, in terms of idea and structure, "Odyssey" actually reminds one of Nolan's previous movie "Oppenheimer". In both films, the hero invents something to end the war; although both inventions play a major role in ending the current war, both Odysseus and Oppenheimer ponder — "does this invention open the door to a better era or on the contrary?". While Oppenheimer continuously comes face to face with his conscience, Nolan's Odysseus is just the same — although the film is enriched with adventures, the emphasis is placed on the hero's experiences. The film being presented not in chronological form, but as flashback parts, also seems to be used for this — at the center is Odysseus's loneliness with his own conscience.

Especially, the most beautiful part of the movie and the wonderful trick done at the end is related to the "image of Athena". The character played by Zendaya always accompanies Odysseus, expresses an opinion on his decisions, and directs him in a certain way. The viewer who knows the story from Homer also perceives her as Athena throughout the whole movie. At the end of the film, when Odysseus is narrating the Trojan War with all its horror, it becomes known that in reality, at the moment when the Greek soldiers are cutting off the head of the statue of Athena in Troy, before Odysseus's eyes, another group of soldiers deprives an innocent girl of her head as well. The character of that girl was also played by Zendaya. That is, can it also be understood that the girl who always accompanies Odysseus is not Athena, but a hallucination, the burden of that innocent girl's death? In these massacres of the army that entered the city with the "Trojan Horse" trick, in particular, in the death of that girl, Odysseus blamed himself, could not escape this torment, and throughout the entire journey, it was not Athena, but precisely that girl who haunted Odysseus?

This time too, Nolan remained loyal to his tradition — the ending is slightly open. Odysseus could not go unpunished, return and continue his rule. This would again be a continuation of that new-old era. The director uses a different method — a scene as if Odysseus is dying in Penelope's arms from a bullet wound. Then suddenly we see him boarding a ship and setting off with Penelope towards the sunset, which is his dream. Is this indeed reality, or is Odysseus narrating that dream to his wife again before his death? It is difficult to say clearly. Nolan does not say this clearly either, and the direction Odysseus's ship is going at the end of the film is west — in Greek legends, it represents death. Personally, Odysseus's death seemed like a logical ending to me; someone else might understand it differently, Nolan leaves a basis for both interpretations.

It is difficult to imagine Homer's work without the participation of the Greek "gods". Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, and others are active participants in the event just like Odysseus, Penelope, and Achilles. And since Nolan's weapon in storytelling is parallels to today's era, today's language, these characters have been completely abandoned. Since Nolan's goal is not to restore the legend of "Odyssey", but, as said above, to appeal to the person of today through this story, it was very important to bring the characters and events as close as possible to today's era. At the same time, the director does not reject the gods or their participation either, just like the person of today — the gods exist in the characters' belief.

For example, after Odysseus wounds the Cyclops with a spear, his companions tell him — "he is the son of Poseidon, the god of the seas, now he will oppose us, we won't be able to go home." After this, we see the wind and waves hindering Odysseus's ship. Nolan does not say this is simply a natural process, and at the same time, he does not say either that precisely Poseidon is doing these things. For those who believe in Poseidon, let it be Poseidon, it is not important in the film. But at the same time, it cannot be said either that the "gods", who were an integral part of the Greeks' lives and legends in those times, are completely pushed aside in Nolan's work. We hear both Zeus and other "gods" a lot in the characters' words. Naturally, in decisions, at the center of the characters' actions, their place is also big. For example, "some god punished us for this deed of ours, some god did not like this deed of ours" — people escaping instant punishments seems natural in Homer's world. Nolan, however, poses the question differently: did you betray Zeus or a human?

In the film, the thought "if one treats a beggar or a guest badly, they might be a god who came in this appearance..." is repeated several times. This also reminds one of the legends about Khidr, which we grew up hearing since childhood. There are also very many fairy tales about doing good to someone, and then that person turning out to be Khidr and fulfilling many wishes. This encourages people to do good to everyone as much as possible. Goodness returning in an instant form as a greater reward calls on people to view every person like themselves as Khidr. It sanctifies human consent, and increases the price of oppression committed against them.

Nolan continued this very idea in "Odyssey". Do not oppress people, perhaps that person is "Khidr" in human form... Do not kill a human, perhaps they are "Athena" in human form?