Film Review: "The Odyssey"

Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” is a gutsy, inventive reimagining of Homer’s epic poems. His shaggy god story also samples Virgil’s tales of brave Ulysses. You’ll see the Cyclops, the Trojan Horse, Circe, Scylla and Charybdis. Scary monsters! Angry gods! Sweaty Greeks! Step right up! 

There's a lot to see here. But Nolan’s movie isn’t a clip show of Homer’s greatest hits. Odysseus’ return voyage to Ithaca fuses the episodes into a story. Homecoming was the spine of Homer's original story, natch. In Nolan’s retelling, the story builds. It's now character-based storytelling. And not just Odysseus’ character. 

The movie’s crowded with unique, well-drawn individuals. They all change, not always for the better. Odysseus changes most of all. He’s not just coming home and taking back what’s his. He’s reclaiming his own humanity after perpetrating war crimes. See what the director/screenwriter did there? 

Nolan’s pulled a clever bait-and-switch.

“The Odyssey” starts out as a homecoming saga.

Presto-chango! 

It's an anti-war parable. 

“Zeus Law” is the secret of Nolan's switcheroo. It’s based on “xenia” — the sacred hospitality that ancient Greeks owed to strangers in a strange land. A good host should welcome them, feed them, clothe them, and above all, don’t kill them. They might be gods in disguise. The flip side? Guests shouldn’t pig out, abuse their welcome, double-dip, or kill their hosts. 

That's a valid Homeric concept. Zeus was the protector of strangers and guests. So, it’s his law. Nolan just gave it a name — and hoped the audience would miss his sleight of hand.

Magic aside, the movie’s themes are simple:

Be kind to strangers in your homeland.

Don’t kill strangers in their homelands.

These are Nolan’s themes, not Homer and Virgil’s. It's not his only change.

Homeric culture wasn’t Woodstock. It was a warrior culture. Hierachical, patriarchial, sexist, violent, nasty, poor, brutish and short. Genocide was something to sing about. Peace love and understanding wasn’t the Greek way. 

"Zeus' Law"  was fine print. "Kill them all, let the gods sort it out" was the main commandment. Homer’s Odysseus was a cocky, boastful bastard from start to finish. He's the better killer — and proud of it. Nolan's Odysseus repents. The sack of Troy fills him with guilt. Unlike Homer's hero, he learns his lesson. Fine by me.

Nolan’s “Odyssey” is multicultural. So what? Peter Brook’s "Mahabharata," was too. I’m cool with that. And all his other changes.

Homer's epic is bulletproof. It survives endless reinvention. It's a sacred homecoming story — and it launched a thousand stories. James Joyce's "Ulysees" made it the tale of a cuckolded Jewish ad salesman. The Coen Brothers' "O Brother Where Art Thou?" turned it into a redneck odyssey. Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" blasted it into outer space, infinity and beyond. Nolan's earthbound "Odyssey" makes a lot of strange changes. That's not my beef.

The movie's just too damn long. It's just that simple.

Nolan's film clocks in at 2 hours and 52 minutes. The whiz-bang scenes are spectacular. But they go on and on and on. The pacing drags. The flashbacks have flashbacks. The story wanders, meanders, goes off course. Enough already! Get on with it!

Don't get me wrong ...

Nolan's "Odyssey" is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius.  His long, strange trip is well worth taking. 

But it's just too damn long.

Review: "The Last Temptation of Christ"

Today’s lesson: “The Gospel According to Martin Scorsese.” Jaysus, where do I begin? Let’s start with the writer ….

Nikos Katzanzakis (NK) wrote the novel — but he was more like an ecstatic prophet than a writer. His white-hot words wrestled with opposing visions. NK was a mystic electrified by the power of the living God. He was also a nihilist facing the absolute emptiness of life, the universe and everything. Beautiful writing — that often sounds like a madman’s ravings. NK's God-drunk Jesus was the maddest of all.

“When I say ‘I,’ I do not speak of this body — which is dust; I do not speak of the son of Mary — he too is dust, with just a tiny, tiny spark of fire. ‘I’ from my mouth … means God.”

That’s a mild example. NK’s Jesus dials it up to 11. He’s a full-on mad prophet at all times. How the hell do you have a movie out of that?

Martin Scorsese seems like the ideal director. Just make Jesus as intense as De Niro in “Raging Bull” or “Mean Streets.” But Scorsese didn’t. The film’s Jesus (Willem Dafoe) is a mild-mannered carpenter. Who speaks in the low tones of a soporific NPR announcer. Dafoe’s blow-dried blonde haircut makes you think Jon Peters was the film’s uncredited hairdresser. His Malibu Jesus isn't scary at all. 

So, why’d Scorsese pull his punches? My hunch: The unholy reaction to “The Life of Brian” made him flinch. He wanted to be faithful to the book — without pissing off any religious fanatics. To do that, Scorsese diluted the novel's terrifying, holy madness. The result wasn’t faithful to anybody.

To be fair, it's a hard book to adapt. (Duh.) In Kazantzakis’ novel, Jesus’ spiritual struggle was mainly an inner struggle. His human self wrestled with an incomprehensible, unpredictable Divine Other that relentlessly tried to possess him. In NK’s novel, Jesus kept that struggle to himself — aside from a few cryptic utterances. (The Biblical Jesus did that, too.) If Jesus spoke his thoughts and made his inner life public, it would cheapen it. Implying Jesus’ Divine Madness was the only way to do it. Mush-mouth equivocation was not. But that's a matter of direction and delivery, not the script.

Paul Schrader* wrote the screenplay. Not a man to pull punches, eh? The film’s fault is in its stars — and a director who (uncharacteristically) played it safe. (Blame mean nuns with metal rulers. But I speculate.) I'll cut to the chase ...

After an hour of mumbling and misdirection, the film finds its spine (and balls) in Jesus’ arrest, trial, crucifixion, and crisis of faith. David Bowie’s Pontius Pilate is a polite, upper-class British prig who’d rather not nail this silly sod up — but wastes no time arguing with a backwater lunatic who thinks it’s his destiny.

Spoiler alert: The Romans crucify Jesus. He hangs on the cross. The devil appears to him as an Angel of Light. Or a cute young chick. This luminous lady de-crucifies him. Jesus lives out a normal human life. He marries Mary Magdelene, has kids, the whole nine yards. That’s the last temptation, get it? But the world is out of joint. Jesus knows it. And know what he must do. He gets back to work, gets back on the cross, and dies for our sins. 

That’s the heart of Kazantzakis’ book and the heart of Scorsese’s movie. It was weak tea before — and strong wine now. Scorsese should’ve stuck with that — and ditched the set-up. Whatever my caveats and kvetches, I admire his iron balls making this movie in the first place.

If the film had skipped the set-up and jumped to Jesus’ "last temptation" on the cross, it might have worked. (Spoiler alert: Satan tempts Jesus with a normal human life — which he lives in an eyeblink like Picard in “The Inner Light.” At the last possible second, Jesus returns to the cross and gets the job done.)

Scorsese got the job done — but this doesn’t feel like a Scorsese movie.

As an added sin, this film echoes the revived anti-Semitic tropes of 2026. (Jews throwing stones, Jews haggling about money, etc.) That wasn’t on Scorsese’s radar in 1988.

It’s a cross he’ll have to bear

*Were there world enough and money, I’d compare NK's novel to Schrader’s screenplay line by line. But there isn’t — so I won't. Sorry.

 

Atlas Barfed

In Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” America’s billionaires go on strike. Their creative minds are the motor that runs the world. But the evil, incompetent socialist government taxes them and tells them what to do with their stuff. So, they all join forces with John Galt in his super-secret redoubt in Colorado. The corrupt capitalists everybody blames for everything are finally gone! Yay! In less than a year, the shit hits the fan. The pinko second-raters and takers can’t America work. (Seems they need those corrupt capitalists after all.)  So trains derail, electricity fails, it’s anarchy, total collapse, the end of civilization! Almost. The billionaires wait it out. One character sits in his cabin and rewrites the United States constitution …

“He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade...’”

Then, when everything goes to hell, the billionaires at last emerge.

“They could not see the world beyond the mountains, there was only a void of darkness and rock, but the darkness was hiding the ruins of a continent: the roofless homes, the rusting tractors, the lightless streets, the abandoned rail. But far in the distance, on the edge of the earth, a small flame was waving in the wind, the defiantly stubborn flame of Wyatt's Torch, twisting, being torn and regaining its hold, not to be uprooted or extinguished. It seemed to be calling and waiting for the words John Galt was now to pronounce.

"The road is cleared," said Galt. "We are going back to the world."

He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar.”

I think “Atlas Shrugged” is the game plan for America’s oligarchs. To speed up the destruction, they’ve installed idiots in charge of the United States government. Thanks to this hand-picked wrecking crew, a Greater Depression will likely result — and possibly WWIII. After that, the oligarchs will kick off any remaining taxes or legal restraints.

The bullies don’t want any coaches on the playing field.

Interesting times, huh?

Tweedledumb and Tweedledamned

I think there’s a freaking tank of comatose psychics in Russia a la “Minority Report.” They’re broadcasting thoughts to America’s weak-mind liberals and leftists: "Don’t vote for Harris. Israel bad. Harris bad. I am a good person. I won’t vote for Harris." Their sleepy-headed targets mumble this call-to-action in hypnagogic half-sleep. "I am a good person. I won't vote for Harris."

Why not?

Here’s the reason the psychics project …

"Trump and Harris are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Equivalents. Two evil sides of the same evil coin."

And that’s bullshit.

The truth is …

If Trump wins, the Iron Heel will stomp us all in the face. He’ll pack the Supreme Court (and federal judiciary) beyond any hope of future balance. Democratic victory won’t matter anymore. Liberal/progressive political philosophy will be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will probably roll back previous decisions affirming LGBTQ rights. After that ...

 

Trump will pay back the people, organizations, cities and states that didn’t kiss his ass. McCarthy-era show trials will be the height of fashion. Along with blacklists and deportations. He’ll turn the Justice Department into the President’s blindly loyal squad. He’ll gut or eliminate the FBI and CIA — or turn them into his personal Gestapo. He’ll fire non-political government employees who might say “no” and replace them with pre-selected blind loyalists. He’ll build that freaking wall at the Mexican border at a cost that could probably create a domed city on Mars. For a few dollars more, he’ll build concentration camps to house undocumented immigrants — in a brief unpleasant stay, before kicking them out. He’ll wipe out any shred of independence in the educational system, kill liberal arts programs, and reduce American universities to trade schools. He’ll kill the Education Department and gut or kill the EPA. He’ll institute libel, treason and sedition laws that’ll silence annoying critics in the no-longer free press. He’ll give John Galt-style supermen like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos the legal right to control, censor, own, and manipulate the flow of ideas. He’ll amp up extra-legal militias and death squads. He’ll legitimize the whack-job conspiracy theorists of Q-Anon. He’ll withdraw from NATO and other global alliances. He’ll stand by while Russia brutally absorbs Ukraine, and China does a fiery blitzkrieg on Taiwan. The Supreme Court will reverse its decisions on LGBTQ rights. No more gay marriages or trans people in bathrooms. They’ll revert to an absolutist state’s rights theory, including the elitist idea that state legislators and run elections (or select electors) any way they want. He’ll kill the independence of the Federal Reserve, cut all the taxes (for rich folks) he can, and kill all those pesky laws preventing America’s hard working entrepreneurs from working employees to death, selling deadly products, and pumping poisons in the air and water. The American economy will go down the toilet faster than you can say “Herbert Hoover.” He’ll attack the problem with the default authoritarian solution. We’ll go to war with somebody, probably Iran. Or maybe Samoa. Who the hell knows?

That’s the awful truth.

The Trump/Harris equivalency meme is disinformation.

It’s a lie. 

Otherwise known as bullshit.

Marty Fugate Critic Seminar Q+A

What’s the function of a critic?

On the level of the university or national publications, that’d be someone who analyzes the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work ­— or, for that matter, a fad, philosophy or social movement. In terms of popular media, you’re more like a professional poison taster. “’Avatar II’ sucks … aggghh! Don’t see it!” But most real critics (even that late Roger Ebert) hate that part of the job --- and only begrudgingly do it when they have to. Thumbs up, thumbs down. Pfft! I’m not the Emperor Nero.

What education should a competent critic have?

If you’re an English major or have a degree in journalism, if can’t hurt – but it doesn’t make you a critic. It’s not like the Wizard of Oz gives you a critic certificate. Plenty of writers without specialized degrees were (and still are) great critics. Plenty of credentialled critics don’t know what they’re talking about.

 A critic can make or break a show or an exhibit. Is that right?

That’s not been my experience, at least on the local level.

 Has criticism changed over the years? How?

The primary change is economic. If you’re considering a professional career in the 21st century, blacksmithing or buggy-whip manufacturing would be much more lucrative. From the standpoint of pure ideas, it’s gotten harder to confine yourself to the realm of pure ideas. Political gatekeepers have crashed the party – including PC gatekeepers on the left, and right-wing gatekeepers on the right. What you say CAN hurt you now … and that’s all I’m going to say on the subject.

Do personal biases interfere with a critic’s job?

I’d say they’re part of the job description … at least for now. Silicon Valley has created AI systems that generate amazing art. AI critics are probably on the horizon in the not-too-distant future. Until then critics are not robots. Critics are human and, by definition, not objective. I appreciate certain critics because of their unique points of view.

Should the critic of an opening take their time writing their review — to allow the performance to settle-in? Maybe even attend later performances?

Not usually. Your initial response is your most authentic response, Second-guessing yourself is a bad intellectual habit.

Some critics are also arts reporters. Does your arts coverage inform your reviews?

It can. The more you know, the better you write. Art reporting never hurts art criticism. On the other hand, going beyond the demands of a legitimate article — you can research something to death – to the point where it’s next to impossible to have a genuine response to what’s on stage or in the gallery. You already know the consensus of opinion on the show and the talent behind it. You know so much you’ve already written the review in your mind before you even see the show! When you get to that point, you’re just rehashing groupthink, not offering your unbiased opinion. That’s lazy, dishonest and the opposite of real criticism.

 Who are some critics whom you respect, and why?

Here are a few of the usual suspects from a very long list ,,, Dorothy Parker. Harlan Ellison. Roger Ebert, Robert Hughes, Joan Altabe, John Lahr, Frank Rich, Anthony Lane. My father. Su Byron. Kevin Dean. And everyone here, of course.

Without doing a specific breakdown, I’d say experience, knowledge, honesty, passion and curiosity makes each critic special. That said, it doesn’t mean they’re always right!. Just because I respect a critic, that doesn’t mean I always agree with them. Dorothy Parker hated “Winnie the Pooh.” Harlan Ellison hated “2001.” Pauline Kael hated “A Clockwork Orange.” I still respect those critics. I still love those books and movies.

Thanks to social media, everyone really is a critic. What impact does that have on contemporary criticism?

Free criticism kills the market for professional criticism. Who wants to buy a cow when they can get the milk for free? Few do. Increasingly, they’re at a national level. 

Is the whole concept of criticism outdated?

As an intellectual discipline, never. As a career? I’d need a time machine to answer that question.

Some random thoughts on Dune's latest film incarnation ...

Director Denis Villeneuve is a visionary — in a literal sense. When I saw the film's rendition of an Ornithopter, I thought, “Yes! That’s exactly what it should look like!” Same reaction to the Worm. This is the way it’s done. 

Frank Herbert’s SF novel, “Dune,” has an incredibly dense backstory. How can you explain it all in a film adaptation — without choking your movie with exposition? (c.f. David Lynch) Denis Villeneuve & Co. solved the problem by leaving out a ton of the exposition. There’s no explanation of the Mentats, the Butlerian Jihad. He doesn’t shoehorn in a scene where the Navigators explain how they fold space. He just drops you into the story, first from the oppressed Chani’s POV, then from Paul’s POV. He trusts you’re smart enough to figure it out as you go along.

In both David Lynch's adaptation and the TV miniseries

The screenwriters stick very close to the novel. They distill it, but change very little. The changes they make are smart and give the story more power. 

A few changes airbursh some of the novels un-PC blemishes. So, the “jihad”: becomes a”holy war.” “Mood is a thing for cattle and women,” gets clipped, too. 

Unlike the film or TV series adaptations, this film version doesn’t down play the precognitive horror of the holy war Paul’s going to ignite. In Frank Herbert’s world, Messiahs and their cults of personality get a lot of people killed. The other adaptations totally missed that. And pretty much sold Paul as Mr. White Savior Jesus from Space.

Pau’s trippy flash-forwards also keep the story moving. It’s also clear they’re glimpses of possible futures. (The other adaptations missed that, too.)

Drive-by Review: “James Cameron’s Story of Science Fiction.”

James Cameron has earned some grudging respect in the SF community. The man knows his SF. More importantly, he knows from whom to steal. Just ask Harlan Ellison, Ursula K. LeGuinn, Roger Dean … ah, but I digress.

Cameron has this online series. It’s packaged under the humble title, “James Cameron’s Story of Science Fiction.” Yeah. Slick as greased snot, but worth watching. 

And I get to the second ep. AKA … “Season 1, Ep. 2 Space.”

About 23 minutes in, James Cameron (in ass-kissing, I-defer-to-the-prophet’s-ego mode) is interviewing George Lucas …

James Cameron: You single-handedly revolutionized science-fiction and pop culture with “Star Wars” in 1977. ‘Cause it had been three decades of downer stuff — dystopian stuff, apocalyptic stuff — and science fiction was making less and less and less money every year, and all of a sudden, you came along with another vision. One of wonder and hope and empowerment — and boom!

George Lucas: “Star Wars” is a space opera. It’s not science fiction. 

OK, Lucas is (rightfully) self-deprecating and not claiming to have revolutionized a genre he has no claim too. Cameron on the other hand …

Grrrr. Argghh.

[Insert scene of projectile-vomiting here.]

OK, right. Let me get this straight …

Cameron, after offering a suck-up, tribute to George Lucas (the living filmgod!), dismissively pisses on “A Clockwork Orange,” “La Jetée,” “Quartermass and the Pit,” “Colossus: The Forbin Project,” "La Planète Sauvage,” “The Planet of the Apes,” “Dark Star,” "The Stepford Wives,” "Westworld,” “Silent Running,” “Zardoz,” “Soylent Green,” “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (both versions), and (hardy-har) “THX-1138” …? Why? Because it’s “… downer stuff, dystopian stuff, apocalyptic stuff.” And even worse? Bad box office numbers! Said SF “was making less and less and less money every year!” 

[Insert scene of projectile-vomiting here.]

On top of his vicious disrespect to the dangerous visionaries of the 1960s and ’70s, Cameron is a hypocrite to boot. “The Terminator” was no shot of “wonder, hope and empowerment.” It was a grim, punk-rock, slap in the face. Downer stuff, dystopian stuff, apocalyptic stuff, one might say. The kind of thing Harlan Ellison, might write, you know? “Aliens” was just as alienating. My point …

[Insert scene of projectile-vomiting here.]

… just a visceral, Pavlovian revulsion to Cameron’s lack of class. I might mention Harlan Ellison’s “Luke Skywalker is a nerd and Darth Vader sucks runny eggs,” but that would seem classless on my part. Lucas never lied about his sources. Or pissed on other artists, either.