knoxnotes

by RP

RP
The dream is to become as schizophrenic as possible but in a fun, kind of chic way
SG
rubbin an rubbin on my yellow leg

7.20.26 - The Odyssey + Culture Wars + My Girlfriend's Cat

I watched the Odyssey last week and I absolutely loved it. Here are my thoughts.

First, I read the Odyssey in college. But read is a strong way to put it. I skimmed it for a class. I didn't have extremely strong opinions on how it should be presented. So I'm coming in as a relative normie. I had a rough recollection of what the story was about. Next to no knowledge of the history or the time period. I just knew the basic arc of a guy coming back home from war, having some adventures on the way, and then trying to kill the people who tried to fuck his wife. I remembered there were nymphs, and a cyclops, and all that stuff. But not much else.

  1. The Cast and Acting and Culture Wars

I thought the Odyssey was really well cast. I liked everyone in the movie. I thought the discourse/controversy on race bending was really stupid for much the same reasons I think getting mad about whitewashing/brownface/etc. in old movies is stupid. It's a movie, its a depiction. They're actors. And in this case, what's being depicted is much more of a myth than a real episode in history. Also, practically speaking, how many qualified ethnically greek/mediterranean actors could you possibly source for a movie of this scale? This is a big budget hollywood production. It is plausible they could do the casting call model, which I know many think is an underused tool these days. I think it would have been cool to cast a bunch of greek unknowns. But that's not really the Nolan way is it, and I respect his approach because his movies are quite good. He has his "troupe" that he runs with. It works for him. Also, I don't know the ethnic history of the greeks, but I suspect that the people at the time of Odyssey were probably a genetic group that basically doesn't exist anymore. There's been enough churn that no population on earth today is really those guys. It's been fucking six thousand or more years. So, this is all to say I found a lot of the whining about the diverse cast really stupid to hear. I don't think we would have heard it if the cast was all white. I think that Nolan is updating the myth for the civilization that has inherited it, Western Civilization after Christianity--which is fundamentally alien to the world of the Odyssey. Western Civilization after Christianity is multiracial. Once you see the movie as one civilization depicting the myth of a civilization it regards as its predocessor, it all feels very natural.

Anyways, the races of the cast are the least intersting about theme, but its the most talked about, so I wanted to get that out of the way. I don't fucking care! What I thought was interesting was how they played the whole thing very contemporary, and didn't try to act like it was "the past." This makes sense on many levels. First, the world of the Odyssey is just so goddamned different. I took a classical western political theory class where the Professor took great pains to impart to us how different the pagan world of the greeks was, how alien their value system was. They are really really separate from us in a lot of ways. I don't think aiming for historical accuracy in how they would have really behaved like/emoted would have been successful, relatable, or beffiting a summer popcorn flick. And what would have probably ended up happening is the actors trying to do something that felt vaguely transatlantic or old school british. Because that's what we think of as "old" as far as movies. And that would have been equally anachronistic as the contemporary, american inflected style Nolan opted for. It just makes sense now. I remember that in Percy Jackson, theres the idea that America (specifically, New York) now bears the torch of Western Civilizatoin. That's correct. So it makes sense that American English should become the default dialect for depictions of the Western canon. We've taken over from the Old World. And it's cool that Nolan and a bunch of the English actors essentially accepted that.

So, for foundations, the race of the cast, which is representative of American demographics, and the choice for a contemporary, American dialect all make sense to me. And it felt very natural. I'm not just saying that. I've often felt that casting has felt wonky in recent years and overtly racial in its intent that it takes me out of whatever's being presented. I can't think of anything right now, but maybe like...the SNL cast. Is Bowen Yang that funny? No, but it feels like maybe they felt it was overdue to have an asian in the rotation. It feels obvious to me that a white man with the same schtick doesn't land that. Sorry, that feels mean spirited, but it's one of those micro decisions where you can "feel" woke and how it influences the margins of talent scouting. Bowen Yang is fine. SNL material? I don't know man. My main point is, nothing felt like that in The Odyssey. These are all A listers, everyone there is because they're the best of the best. And by god, we're in a stage of film history where that's a pretty diverse set of people. Compromises didn't have to be made. It's all Eddie Murphies. No Bowen Yangs.

I feel I've talked about the diversity issue for too long. But really because the hate the cast got by some factions really really bothered me. For a time I was sympathetic to factions who decried wokeness in entertainment. But this has essentially devolved into pure racism.

While we're at it, we should address Elliott Page. Lets just get all the culture war stuff out of the way so we can talk about the movie. I feel the need to. I'll say this. Page did a great job in the film, and was a standout performance. Does Page read as a male, greek soldier? Maybe not entirely. Even if you have issues with the whole gender ideology stuff that Page believes in, I don't think that matters to the movie at all. For what it's worth, gender bending in productions is actually very lindy, very trad. Men have played women for a long long time. Women weren't allowed to perform on stage during Shakespeare's time! People were fine with that.

I made the mistake of going on twitter to see reactions after I had seen the movie, and I was just so deeply saddened by how much people were talking about the race stuff, the Elliott Page stuff. Like how miserable do you have to be for that to be the lens through which you see art? I used to feel the same way about my lib/lefty friends. Like, I had a friend that said Forrest Gump was just soaked in White Privilege, or something to that effect. And I had another classmate of a friend who, when I asked her if she had seen the Godfather (she was studying FILM) said "I don't care about seeing movies made by striaght white men." And I had another very feministy friend who said she didn't like Ferris Bueller's day off because Ferris was just a bully. American Psycho was "problematic." I mean the list goes on and on on and on. These people didn't fucking like anything. And sure, many times, I agreed with some of their cultural diagnoses. I could see how Forrest Gump couldn't plausibly feature a black male lead where everything just "work out" for them. That's a fair, somewhat interesting point. But god, what a miserable way to experience a film. I feel the same way--but much less sympathetic--for my friends on the right. Sure, there's a debate about what healthy...ideas...about gender are. That's just part of our cultural conversation right now. But you're going to hate on a movie, let it color your whole opinion, hate the ACTOR, because they're trans? What is wrong withn you!

The politicization of everything has made everything miserable. At first, I really saw this as a left-wing phenonmena. But now its symmetrical. The most miserable, neurotic people on earth now have these little theories of everything which subsumes everything that enters their sensory perception. Everything in their world is filtered through ideology. It's a very, very, very insane and miserable way to live.

I mean it when I say that were it not for the "discourse" I unfortunately expose myself to, the race and gender identity of cast members wouldn't have even been on my mind watching this. Nor would any other culture way issue. I am cursed by the knowledge that OTHER people care about such things and am compelled to respond.

As an aside, when I felt the same way about the Superbowl Halftime show with Bad Bunny. What a tremendous performance! What an amazing show! And what beautiful gestures throughout--Lady Gaga doing a latin rendition of Die With A Smile (there was so much JOY in that performance, I get tears in my eyes watching it again)? Ricky Martin? The message was so clear...I know some of you at home don't like this, but hey, you can't help but love this right? Somewhere in middle America, I know there was an angry white dad watching the halftime show, and when Ricky Martin came on he was like, "damnit I really do like Ricky Martin, fuck." And his wife was like "oh I love Lady Gaga."

Again, for a long time, I was very sympethatic to the "anti-woke" side of the culture war (I really hate these terms but they're useful shorthands). But I think when the superbowl halftime show happened and I saw the breakdown of who was mad about what, I was like come the fuck on! One side is just cartoonishly on the side of hate and misery and tackiness. The other side is on the side of like, art, the future, love! When I saw the Billboard at the end behind Bad Bunny that said "The Only Thing More Powerful Than Hate is Love" I was like fuck yeah man. The feeling was pure joy and optimism. That's what it's all about. I was watching the Superbowl with friends who are best described as right-wing normies and they all agreed it was awesome. At that moment I knew that anti-woke had just completely lost. We're in the middle of a modest "market correction" right now but the future is and should be closer to Star Trek multiculturalism than to whatever Stephen Miller and those retards are trying to build.

Anyways, now that all that culture war nonsense is out of the way, I want to talk about the actual casting and acting--and not about immutable characteristics (which are usually the least intersting things about people!)

Nolan does an amazing job at putting together an ensemble. And I think it's because he loves actors, and he loves the audience, and he loves people. It's why he's a great director. He's not "above it all" and above making something commercially successful with broad appeal to the masses. He's not too cool to just grab the A-listers everyone likes and cramming them into a movie. It's something that, maybe done by a lesser director, would feel a bit tacky. BUt when he does it, feels really special.

The best way I can put it is, the difference between when Kanye West does a big collab Album versus when like DJ Khaled does one. When Khaled gets the megastars of hip hop and pop together for his collabs the products are fun, but very commercial, almost key-jangling. Yes, I like them, I like "I'm the One." Justin Bieber, Quavo, Khaled, Chance, Lil Wayne together is cool. But like, it's just done for starpower itself it feels. Its made to make a radio smash. So it feels corny.

When Kanye puts together the gang for like, Cruel Summer, it's a luxury product. Donda as well. It's a mass market, luxury product. Which is not an easy feat. Usually there's a big tradeoff there. Nolan is one of the few artists who can pull it off. Mass market luxury.

I think what is funny about how Nolan puts together ensembles, however, is that he mixes pretty obvious typecasting with a few wildcards. That seems a recurrent pattern.

Like, OK, Matt Daemon is the action here whose gotta make it home. We've seen that before (I saw the Martian earlier in the month with my girlfriend actually, and it was genuinly one of the best movies I've ever seen. I'll embed a mini review here: way funnier than I imagined, and a love letter to the human spirit. It's a weirdly comforting movie about our ability to persevere, and solve problems. Very Obama-era coded. I love love loved it.) Tom Holland as the BOY. Yes. Very good. Anne Hatheway as a HOT LADY with a lot of emotional range and grief. Yes, good. Zendaya as someone young and beautiful. Yes, very good. Joe Bernthal as a retarded, gruff, war veteran. We've seen it, good! Charlize Theron as a hot lady with quiet confidence and a secret that is slowly unfolded (I'm sorry if I'm giving the ladies short shrif in how I'm shorthanding the characterization, but Zendaya is literally an Athena with no dialogue and Charlize plays literally a hot lady). By and large, the casting slots people in roles that are natural fits that the audience is already primed for.

But then, there are these surprises. I haven't watched a lot of Pattinson films. But I don't think I've seen him play a genuinly slimy guy yet. So that was new! And of course, Elliott Page's character was a brand new thing. I've only really seen Page's prior, pre-transition performance in Interstellar and that didn't have a lot of overlap with what was done her. Speaking of Page again, before I laud their performance, I think it says a lot about Nolan, as a man, that he gave this young actor that he's worked with before a role that he KNEW they would appreciate, and that others may not give them. I think it betrays the genuine warmth, and almost paternal approach Nolan takes to filmmaking and the industry. I've seen this pattern by him in other films. Like when he hired Harry Styles for Dunkirk. Or Josh Peck for Oppenheimer. It's almost like "because of XYZ (you're a music star, you were in a sitcom, you're trans, whatever) people may have not taken you seriously or given you a fair shot. But I see you. And I want to give you a shot. How would you like to be in something genuinely good, doing something others wouldn't expect of you?" He does this and gets genuinly great performances in every instance. I just think that's really special. To me, it's a lot like when Kanye takes Lil Yachty, so I wager people don't take too seriously, and gives him this really fucking hard verse on "OK OK" on Donda. In what other context was he given that kind of opportunity? Who sees Lil yachty and thinks, yeah THIS is the song he belongs on?

So yes, the casting is a fun blend of expected and expected as far as role assignments. And it works, from a meta level, at creating a sense of ambition and scale to the film, and creating a real draw for the general audience. So like, A+ for Nolan on casting. Greatest ensemble since Oppenheimer.

Now as for the individual performances. They were all amazing. But I can only say that so many ways. So this will hew critical and analytical. But the most accurate thing to say is that they were all just amazing.

Matt Daemon. Something I found interesting about Daemon's performance is that the cockiness of Odysseus popped up in a more lowkey way, more intermittently. He wasn't a very swaggering, larger than life guy. I think this basically accord with Nolan's style. For better or for worse (the way I see it, it just IS), Nolan doesn't generally like very LARGE or whimsical personalities on his screen. This holds pretty consistently. Nolan has a dedication to a certain KIND of realism--which to my eye, isn't actually "realistic" but has a cinematic quality to it in that it has a way, I guess, not making you keenly aware you're watching a performance. FOr instance, if you watch Jack Nicholson's joker, it's a great performance, and you're very aware that this is an astounding Jack Nicholson performance. Heath Ledger's joker feels very very real. And it's because he never really starts "performing" even in the context of the story. Now, the reason I don't think this is actually "realistic" is that people perform in real life all the time. But people don't perform for each other within the confines of a Nolan movie. There aren't characters who are trying to be larger than life and brash and funny, even if sometimes people like that exist! And Odysseus, as I understand it, is meant to be a cocky, large personality. Anyways, this is more of an observation of the confines of NOlan's style. A more swaggering, brash, humorous Odysseus doesn't fit in the tone he's set for himself. And I think that tone is sometimes mislabled as realism. But it's really a very specific kind of cinematic sensibility. Real life is full of LARPers. The fictional, cinematic world is full of people being authentic and grounded in their emotions. Matt Daemon plays a cinematic Odysseus.

Something I really liked about his performance was how earned the payoff at the end felt, which I'll talk about a bit later. Basically, at the end, he gives a little shpeel to Penelope which kind of retroactively explains why it took him longer than makes sense to get home, and also explains a lot of reckless behavior--that part of him wasn't ready to come home because of the guilt of his, I guess war crimes at Troy. Now, this whole shpeel really carries the gut punch thesis of the film and Nolan's radical reinterpretation/refashioning of the myth, but it doesn't feel hokey. Somehow. And it really did feel like it recontextualized Odyssesus's behavior and affect throughout the film. Understanding the man as someone carrying guilt, shame, fear, added so much to the performance. I thought this alone was a magic trick. You go through the movie with this guy, and it's fun, but you kind of can't get a beat on him. He just does shit and makes decisions that seem a little silly at times. But it all feels like it makes sense by the end. He gives the character a real arc.

Also, Matt Daemon is just someone I find very likeable. He has a good face. A good natured face. He has intelligence behind his eyes (probably beause he is very intelligent). And I think that the ending shpeel would have felt really hokey coming from a dumber actor. It's essentially a thesis on how a war crime (the use of the fucking trojan horse) led to the collapse of the bronze age by changing the norms of international relations (or its equivalent at this time) and unleashing chaos between peoples. It really works and doesn't feel hamfisted because I think it's the kind of argument that Matt Daemon kind of got in his mind and knew how to deliver. You needed a smart actor for this role. I'm not hating on any actor, but most of them aren't like intellectual powerhouses. I don't think its really possible for a dumb person to play a really smart person. If they could simulate a smart person's mind they would be smart. So you need an actually smart actor to say smart things that would be thought of a smart character. Matt Daemon was able to do that really effectively. He delivered the ending.

Tom Holland. Less to say on him. He does a good job. He plays Telemachus a bit young and boyish for my taste, when I think that he'd probably be a bit more angsty and angry. But the sort of good-natured, boyish quality Tom Holland brings to the character makes him instantly sympathetic, makes you care about the situation with him and Penelope, and also makes the moments where he breaks the boyish mold and fights back against the suitors hit way harder. Nothing insane. He just brings his effortless handomseness and likeability which is more than enough to carry this part. He feels like a Prince. And I cared about him. That's all he really needed to do.

Anne Hatheaway. She really might be the best in the movie. Firstly, because she is just a very talented actress. BUt also because she has a lot to work with this character. There is a good deal of ambiguity and tensions with Penelope. She's tired of waiting for Odysseus, she still loves him, but she wants his son to have the throne rather than the suitors, but she would also want to have the throne because she's older and better, but she's also probably lonely and wants a man, but also she wants Odysseus, but also Odysseus told her he wanted her to remarry! And if he's declared dead her son would get the throne, which is a relief in some ways. But if it's ambigious, she can still hope, which is good, but also painful. Whoot! That's a lot! That's a lot of feelings! And she conveys every bend and nuance and movement between them so compellingly. She allows the character to feel all of it and allows the audience to really feel all those things with her. It's not as simple as, oh she misses Odysseus and is holding out for him. Yes, that's the core. But everything else is there too. And you know, it's an easy trap for a female actress portraying those other emotions which are less, lets say sympathetic, and lose the audience. Because we're rooting for Odysseus. If Hathaway played Penelope as too frustrated, losing too much hope, or too open to the suitors, then she would lose us. Especially the male audience that could easily read that as betrayal (as they'd naturally put themselves in Odysseus's shoes). I mean, look at how audiences have responded to other mistreated wives in bad positions in fiction. Skyler White anyone? But Hataway gets to these edges without ever crossing the line that would lose the audience's sympathy. There's this scene with Pattinson trying to seduce her where it's pretty clear parts of her just wants to give in, and let the whole thing go. She let's the character feel that. But she doesn't lose us. I cannot stress how perfectly she threads this needle. A+++++.

Robert Pattinson. Also very good. Very evil. But extremely enjoyable to wath. Not much to say. He is the villain you love to watch. He's having the most fun throughout the movie. He's somewhere between Villain and comic relief. His advances on Penelope really create a sense of urgency. I wanted Matt Daemon to get home to stop him from fucking her! Under no circumstances was this slimeball going to fuck Anne Hatheaway!

Himesh Patel. Who is Odysseus's #2, was a newer face that I really enjoyed watching. Very natural screen presence. Very handsome. Felt very grounded. Serves as almost an audience stand in as we see Odysseus through his eyes.

Elliott Page. Okay, said a lot about them so far. Not a lot of screen time. But their scenes are the pivotal ones and they are done very well. Anchors the story very well.

Charlize Theron. Nice. I think, however, this is where a performance felt reallyyyy contemporary. Charlize Theron has an especially modern looking face and affect. They all do. But her especially. Wasn't bad, but it took me out of the setting more than other people's performances. It's not about what she did but who she IS. It's a little bit like that John Mulaney joke about how funny it must have been for people in '99 to see Samuel L. Jackson in Star Wars ("Is that, is that Samuel L. Jackson?"). Now it's a funny comparison, because as a kid Samuel L. Jackson didn't take me out of Episode I at ALL. Because to me, Samuel L. Jackson is just Mace Windu, everything else I saw him in was after. So I'd bet to a younger person Charlize Theron feels like everyone else in the movie. But in my mind she's just sooo, model/girlboss/modernwoman coded that seeing her was bizarre.

Jon Leguizamo. Is a standout performance as Eumaeus. It really felt like he was the heart of the story. He's a real emotional anchor.

I can't think of specific thoughts of other cast members. They were all good. The only negative piece of feedback I have, and I hate giving it because I mostly like people and actors, is that Samantha Morton's performance felt just a little off. She's been singled out for praise it seems. I think she did a good job, like the scene with Circe was well done. But again, something about her delivery felt a little bit weird. Something I'm noticing is that really moden feeling dialogue and performances by the ladies tended to take me out of this mythological setting more than the men. Maybe there's just a really strong set of expectations of how female performances are supposed to look and feel in these kinds of settings that the subversion was more jarring. Anne Hatheaway and Lupita Nyong felt very natural in this setting--they didn't have this efect. Charlize Theron and Samantha Morton didn't feel as timeless.

If someone doesn't know what I'm talking about, I'm sort of talking about the "iPhone face" phenomenon. Where some poeple look out of place in historical settings because they have a face that seems like it has seen an iPhone. This is sort of analagous. Other characters, the contemporary delivery and dialogue felt aligned with the world Nolan had built and was more timeless than explicitly 2026. Right? Tom Holland and Zendaya have iPhone face, but they didn't feel out of place in this mythology. Samantha Morton, and to a far lesser degree Charlize Theron just did. These people know what TVs and phones and Matcha lattes are and you can read it in their face. So it didn't feel as timeless or mythological.

Why do I sense it with these two performances but not the others. No clue. These were still really well done performances. Just a weeeee bit off.

It feels unfair that I'm saying this about these two but not like, Travis Scott. I don't know! Travis Scott didn't take me out of it. Felt fine.

Anyways, casting was superb. And choosing to do the movie in an American contemporary style was bold, innovative, and obvious.

  1. The Look

Something I want to talk about was how beautiful the movie was. I saw it projected in 70mm. It was shot on IMAX. There's been a lot of marketing around this. So let me report what I saw. Yes, a film shot and projected on celluloid has a unique look relative to what movies are like today. It is absolutely stunning. But I cannot say it was particularly "sharp" or immersive in terms of resolution. Often, Nolan talks about the advantages of film in terms of picture quality. But a movie shot and projected on film has a good deal more grain and softness than digital. And a good deal of shots felt actually out of focus. Looking online, it seems that the problem was that IMAX has a very shallow depth of field, so it's hard to keep focus. So that means some scenes with dialogue or a moving subject lose focus here and there. Landscapes, however, looked tremendous.

What was really striking to me was that the picture had a sense of depth and immersiveness that could not be described in terms of picture quality alone. Mainly, it was the color and dynamic range, which film is simply superior at because it's an analog technology. The sea, sand, flames, skin, it all looked tangible. Light and shadow and how the environment bend and diffused light--whether its a cave entrance or sea fog--all felt so real. Wathing a movie shot on film, on location is an uncommon treat in this day and age.

A note on authenticity, something I was struck by how much of the hype of the movie centered around authenticity. This was especially true at my showing at the AFI in Silver Spring, MD. Before the movie, the actual projectionist (a very nice, theater kid coded 20 something year old lady) came down and explained to us the whole process. What was interesting to me was that she, and presumably all of us, were getting really excited at the manual nature of the film projection, and how this format offered opportunities to see the "seams." Something she clued the audience in in on before the movie was that they would be able to see the little cigarette burns in the top right corner if they paid attention, and those were cues for her to change reels and switch over to the other projector. She played out how she had to squat, lift, place, and thread the reels in detail, and how the whole process was extremely involved. She told us about how the multiple reels process compared to the platter process, and why she preffred the former BECAUSE it was more involved. It was very endearing. And while I was watching the movie, I did in fact notice the cigarette burns and actually caught some of the transitions between reels--which felt a little bit more like a crossfade then a normal cut. It was neat! But I also thought it was interesting because in the past, I'd imagine the magic was in HIDING the seams. Now we want to see all of it, we want to see a REMINDER that a human is doing this, a human is HERE. And that's in the marketing of the movie as well--on tour, all the actors really play up that you're seeing location shoots, that they're really THERE. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the culture will head in the age of generative AI.

We are humans, and we will always be at the center of our own story. And a lot of what we do in the world isn't about the end product, but about acquiring and signalling status--which is acquired by doing things that are hard. We would rather see something imperfect that was hard to make, and confer status on those doing a hard imperfect craft, then watch something that is perfect but easy to make--because we refuse to confer status on people who do things that are easy. We confer mroe status on the young projectionist who has to manually switch reels and time changes than one who uses a single platter. Right now, this is very obvious in the arts. But it will become obvious all over the place soon. We'll see it in writing. In professional services. There could be a future where we pay a premium for "artisinal" lawyers and CPAs who do everything raw just like we want a handmade knife or pay for a film projected version of a movie. When you've taken difficulty and friction out of things, you've taken out the opportunity for that thing to confer status on another human. So we just don't care. Because everything is about status. We don't really care about a visually interesting piece of AI art because who will get the status?

This doesn't perfectly extend to purely instrumental goods, like a gun or something where you want to kill someone. I don't care if that's handmade or manufactured by robots. Its main point is to kill. But when you think about it long enough, very very very very few things are purely instrumental.

There is a spectrum here. On one hand, you have art. On the other end, you have like a toothpick. Art is a relational good primarily. Toothpicks are mostly instrumental. But we can still imagine a world where we're rich enough and high enough on maslow's pyramid that we can afford to care whether a toothpick was "handmade" and maybe pay a premium for it. Automation will make us rich. It will probably make us rich enough to pay a premium for humans doing things, even just the knowledge that a human is doing things.

I personally think I would pay a little bit more for a movie projected with reels and a manually invovled projectionsit than I would for one projected via platter. Because I want to confer status on someone! I want to recognize someone's abilities! That's what human beings are all about--that's what our minds, our societies, are built around.

So anyways, I think that this movie is an early signal for the emergence of an anti-slop, authenticity culture. We don't want things to be physical just because it looks better. But because its hard and uncommon. And that confers status.

I have a lot of essays and transcripts on this I'll unload later.

One closing criticisem about the look, however, for good measure. The movie suffers from the same problem as Nolan's others--scale without density. Just like in Dunkirk and Oppenheimer there is a sparseness to the set pieces and the movie is more intimate than grand. Even the siege of Troy somehow doesn't feel larger than life. No location feels really part of a larger civilization. Each island/stopping point feels mostly uninhabited. The only things we see in Ithaca, for example, are the castle and the surrounding grounds as I remember it. What the hell is Odysseus the King OF? The movie makes it feel like mayb 5 dozen people. Just like how in Dunkirk, it felt like maybe dozens of people were left behind on the beaches. There are scenes with a lot of people on screen at once. But it never feels like, say, the army led by Peter O Toole in Lawrence of Arabia. Things never feel that BIG. Come to think of it, the only time I really remember Nolan achieving that sense of scale might have been the ending battle of The Dark Knight Rises. This qualm aside, the more generous way to put it is that this movie has an extraordinarily large scale for a play, or a standard movie, but is just on the lower end for a historical action epic. You get the sense that the Bronze Age just had a whole lot less people. Which it did, technically. But it's weird the movie feels that way.

  1. Some Sequences

So turning to a specific sequence that stood out to me. The cyclops sequence. Holy shit, that was really good. First and foremost, it felt extremely real. Second, the characterization of the cyclops was somewhere between deeply alien and utterly sympathetic. A hard trick to pull off. Really one of the best movie monsters I've ever seen. And the sound design for his scream when he's stabbed in the eye was one of the most insane things I've ever heard in my life, one of the most uncanny, unnerving sounds ever put on film. And I think the sequence really helps with Odysseus's characterization, shows his major flaws, and is maybe the first time you feel like this guy isn't great. At some point in the sequence, you realize that our heroes are really just bad dudes. Home intruders who just came into the Cyclops' cave, fucked his shit up, left, and then shot him in the eye again. It's kind of like Goldilocks and the three bears. At some point as a kid I remember reading it, and feeling really uneasy by how blatant her transgressions of the social order were (which I think was the point). Speaking of fairy tales, Goldilocks and Humpty Dumpty are stories that I have very clear memories of they made me FEEL. Goldilocks gave me a feeling of, I suppose second-hand embarassment. My pre-linguistic interior monologue was essentially saying "girl, what is you doing??" Whereas Humpty Dumpy made me feel this very big empty and made me reflect on what it means for things to be really over, irreversible. I sat with Humpty Dumpty for a long time, making a head canon where they actually did put him back together at some point after the book. But this was not satisfying to me. Because I've seen eggs break, and I thought, damn, these things really couldn't be put back together again. The idea of Humpty Dumpty just broken, in front of the wall, for eterntiy, deeply disturbed me.

Come to think of it, I have no idea what edition of Humpty Dumpty I read or where I read it. But I remember it being a black and white picture book of sorts. I bet they changed the ending since then, because of woke.

Anyways, the point is, I imagine that the Odyssey was as foundational for ancient audiences and children. I'd bet that this sequence was meant to impart a similar feeling as Goldilock's.

Finally, I want to talk about the action. This is one of the best action films I've ever seen in recent years. The scene where Odysseus stops the bad guys from ambushing Tom Holland starts off a really great closing act. Everyone cheered as soon as Matt Daemon started fucking people up. And after two and a half hours, it feels extremely earned. None of the action before the ending feels like this. It feels like discrete little episodes and adventures. But the ending action sequence where he kills all the suitors makes up for all of it. Real summer blockbuster shit. Guy coming home to kill EVERYONE who tried to fuck his wife. There was a lot of clapping and cheering in my theater, it was like a Marvel movie.

Speaking of which, this is something marvel movies have gotten down to a science--editing for the theater. And it's one of the things that I feel Nolan has unapolegetically incorporated in his movies since at least The Dark Knight rises. You see, early MCU movies (or actually any movie before 2010 that I've seen) don't really have this. But a some point in like, 2011, big blockmuster movies started having these really perfectly edited timings that seemed lab designed to evoke audience response. I can think of a few:

The general formula is build up a lot of tension (edge the audience) then release it, then quickly get into something fast paced. It's a very identifiable rhythm. And what's funny is that when you see it on home video, it gets really obvious because it doesn't work quite as well. MCU movies are especially bad about this. No Way Home is maybe the worst offender. But it's fun when you see it in theaters.

The main point is, Nolan started using some of these techniques I think since The Dark Knight Rises. You can even see it in Oppenheimer just a wee bit. Not in terms of action or tension, but kind of how characters/actors get introduced. It's almost like when, in an MCU movie, there's a unexpected big cameo, and they hold frame for a second to give the audience a moment to register it. Sometimes character introductions felt like that ("is that Rami fucking Malek?").

In The Odyssey, I noticed this kind of cutting a little bit in the last action sequences and I thought it was great. Film editing to audience reaction is a perfected technology. Now, I may be completely wrong in my theory that this has only existed since 2011 or there's about. But I don't remember it being as acute before then. And when I see old action films I don't see this kind of cutting as obviously.

This would make sense, because what I think probably happens is that they do test screenings and adjust timings ever so slightly in response. When editing was done mostly on film, this wasn't an option, and they jsut did it in the editing bay with people who have seen the film A LOT, tried it out, and if it worked it worked. I don't think they would go back and change physical cuts by a second or two to stretch out audience laughter or cheers with those kind of technological constraints. Now, even with movies shot on film, editing can be done digitally because they have software that maps the cuts of a digital copy of the movie and duplicates them onto the real film roll. I also suspect distribution having to be done earlier (because regardlesso of shooting method, almost all movies were projected on film until the early 2010s meant there was less time to do precision-editing revisions.

Who knows, I don't. All I know is that movie editing timing feels different since the 2010s and much more intention for audience response.

That's all I have to say about The Odyssey and other matters.

Part 2: My Girlfriend's Cat

My girlfriend has a cat, and at first the cat was very skittish of me, and very standoffish in general. Affectionate. But in a cat way. She has to come to you. Very independent.

It took her a long time to warm up to me, and for a while I would just let her approach me when she wanted to. She didn't much like being handles, as much as other cats I've played with, and is very squirmy when you pick her up. So I respected her boundaries.

But over time, because I am a bastard, I very much began violating this cat's boundaries and picking her up and giving her kisses and play-fighting with her more. I would also chase her and then pick her up and she would squirm and then I would let her go. At first, it seemed that she did not like this, and I was doing it because I did not care and just liked playing with her. But I would lay off because I am not that much of a bastard. But over time, I noticed that sometimes that cat would come close to me and be almost waiting for me to do osmething. Like she'd be in front of me, and then look up at me. So I would chase her and try and pick her up. As before, she would squirm and paw at me and then I would eventually let her go. But this has kept happening. And more obviously. I have learned that the cat wants to me to fuck with her a little bit. So I play fight with her a lot and poke her and she scratches me and stuff back. Since then, the cat has only been more affectionate and around me more, and often makes soft requests for attention. But, still, whenever I do handle her, she does not submit.

It appears that, sometimes animals will signal hard boundaries but also enjoy their violation at the same time. I now understand why cats are generally understood to be "feminine" because a lot of times girls are the same way.

Cheers,

knxnts