RSS 2.0
As one of the several sword and sandal-movies to hit the screen the coming period, Wolfgang Petersen’s Troy is one of true epic scale. This story from Greek mythology is famous for it’s universal themes of love, war, heroism and tragedy. What is most remarkable, is that Petersen chose to disregard the divine elements of polytheistic Greece, to solely focus on the human story. The Greek gods, however, play an essential part in the original story, manipulating the lives of the mortals by putting them through all kinds of ordeals. Although it makes the story less fantastic and more historical, it’s a missed opportunity.
Petersen has thoroughly maimed the original story to quite an extent and depicts mainly the war of Greece against Troy. By leaving out the divine aspects of Homer’s tales, the universal themes are preserved, but the gods and their whims are an integral part of the story. Originally, the war was incited by the gods and Paris was tricked into taking Helene away from Sparta. Throughout the rest of the Homeric tale, the gods continue to play an important role, sometimes taking on the form of mortals to manipulate the events. By leaving them out completely, the story is robed of the main motives and the mystique of that era that was part of peoples’ lives. It was then all the more confusing to see that gods and religion were mentioned as an important element, by having plenty of (vague) references to deity. As far as the humans go: the characters show a realistic duality of good and evil, but they remain caricatures to paint the story. More annoying is the role of the women in this movie; they are solely depicted as the root of all conflict, very naive and dependent of men. To my knowledge, Greek mythology was full of strong and powerful women.
As far as acting goes, there is little cause for complaint except for one: Orlando Bloom. He brings nothing more to the story than his boyish looks and some lethargic acting (which is quite annoying since he plays a pivotal role in the movie). Eric Bana is quite good, but his character is so irritatingly noble that it holds back his performance. Brad Pitt portraying the defiant Achilles has some interesting angles, but with the divine aspect left out (he is a demi-god), his inner struggle is not well-explained.
The important part of this movie was of course to convincingly shoot the immense mass-scenes and battle sequences. Petersen succeeded brilliantly in this, spending the huge 200 million dollar budget over massive battle fields, hordes of extras and impressive set design. Slight drawback are the huge battles where the fighting becomes sometimes blurry and frenetic to the eye. Also, the movie was a bit long for the amount of story told. It comes to show again that it is not easy to adapt great epic tales for film whilst keeping the essence and story intact. Peter Jackson succeeded much better in this when he took on Tolkien’s universe. This movie could have done much better, since all the material was already there.
paco (89 posts)Certified movie phreak and conspiracy theorist.
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
great review Paco and I agree with most parts…
What I was most amazed about is the rather bad job the casting directors did on this one. Pitt as Achilles is so so, Orlando still has to prove to me he has actually acting capacities, Sean Bean’s part as Odysseus could have been more elaborate, Peter O’Toole, though good wasn’t the right actor for the job and teh girl who played Briseis stank big time…
The movie is visually stunning, but Petersen has clearly tried to combine action with a good story and the problem is: that is not what the audience wants… they want action…
I did find Brian Cox very convincing and so was the actor who played his brother… This is a movie you have to see on the big screen, and it was entertaining. As far as I’m concerned that is all it was: entertaining…
there are a few Blockbusters left this year that shoudl impress more than the ones we had so far (Van Helsing, Troy) did… my hopes are on The Day After Tomorrow (I spoke to someone who had already seen it in a US press screening and he said it was amazing), Spider-Man 2 and Harry Potter 3…
Comment by arjan — Mon May 17, 2004 @ 17:25Yeah, me and the missus have repeatedly been blown away by the trailers for Day After Tomorrow
. A must-see as far as I’m considered.
Brian Cox was quite good, but I almost felt kinda sorry for Peter ‘O Toole; he looked so fragile and old…
The biggest critique on Pitt was that he looked more like a surf dude than a Greek hero and although he was very fit (and doesn’t seem to age!) I cannot remeber having seen a lot of natural clear-blondes in Greece. Could’ve done with a colour.
By the way, the trailer for The Prisoner Of Azkaban looked quite nice…
Comment by Paco — Mon May 17, 2004 @ 20:01yes… the book is very good from Azkaban and this is going to be a very dark chapter… it is also about Harry maturing and stuff…
very much looking forward to this one…
Comment by arjan — Mon May 17, 2004 @ 23:21Hi,
Not one single comment as to how the Trojan War began? Nope? Anyone know?
Well OK – it began when Eris- goddess of Strife was not invited to a wedding feast as there were only 12 silver platters, so she was left out. She appeared and spitefully threw a golden apple onto the table for the most beautiful women..Paris was asked to choose and he chose Aphrodite who in turn gave Paris Helen, but the fly in the apple was Helen was married to the King of Troy – King Menelaus who wanted her back.
The moral of the story is ..stay away from apples..they have caused trouble since day one…and you never know where just one may take you.
Also those who have seen this movie now know just why we should Beware of Greeks Bearing gifts.If someone dumps a large wooden horse in your front yard call 000 at once – dont attack it as it may be dangerous.
Julie K
Comment by Julie k — Sat May 22, 2004 @ 3:06Knew that, Julie
That is in fact my main critique: leaving out the manipulation of the gods. Same goes for the killing of Achilles by the bow of Paris. It is in fact the god Apollo who guided Paris’ hand (or took his shape) and shot Achilles in the one place that could hurt him: his heel.
The more strange is when you realise that in the movie it is shown that Achilles defies Apollo by desecrating his temple and decapitating his statue. Apollo has his revenge, eventually.
Also the ploy with the horse is not explained and why the Trojans accept the gift so easily (Neptune was god of the horses).
Comment by Paco — Sat May 22, 2004 @ 15:23Hi Paco,
Good man you know all that – I was disappointed the myth was so unexplained by the movie – I know you cant fit it all in but the forwords were not sufficient in my book.
Neptune was said to have created the horse and was was patron of race horses.
Where the heck did the Greeks collect all that wood come from to build the huge wooden horse which they said was an offering to Minerva. The prophet Calchas fortold that if the Trojans took possession of the wooden horse then Troy would triumph – two serpents appeard from the sea and this was seen as a convincing omen – so while some accepted the horse willingly others were not so happy to.
Well you know why it was Achilles heel that was his weak spot and why?
I liked Eric Bana but Orlando Bloom was too pretty and poofey I thought as Paris.
Blondes – well amongst all the dark sultry Greecians Helen would have stood out as extremely ‘fair’.
Julie K
Comment by Julie K — Wed May 26, 2004 @ 7:37I saw this last night, and I was utterly dissappointed. It’s nothing more than 2.5 hours of pompous dialog with not-at-all-exciting fights inbetween. The fight between Achilles and the giant was the best one, and that was something like 5 minutes into the movie!
Only worth seeing imho if you want to see Orlanda Bloom getting a good beating. That was fun! (for crying out loud, he wore dresses throughout half the movie…)
I was barely awake at the ending. Nice touch with the whole Achilles / heel thing though…
** (out of 5) at most for me…
Comment by weefselkweekje — Wed May 26, 2004 @ 16:41@Julie: I’d have to brush up on my Greek mythology, but I seem to remember that Achilles was made invunerable by his (godess) mother. She put him in fire to burn off his human nature.
Talk about some tough love..
A bit like the hero from the Ring of the Nibelungen, Siegfried, who washes himself in dragon’s blood after which no weapon can harm him. But he missed a spot…
Comment by Anonymous — Thu May 27, 2004 @ 23:52i heard that the heel was Achilles weak spot because he was dipped into a river/pool/sea (vast amount of water substance) when he is a baby so that he’s immune to weapon; but he was dipped upside down, the person who dipped him into the pool is holding baby Achilles by one ankle so that the water does not wash over and protect that area.
so i think it’s similar to what is said above on Sigfried.
Comment by isyana — Fri May 28, 2004 @ 17:12Then my guess is that the river is the river Styx; a river of fire that is the boundary of the Netherworld. It’s where Charon the ferryman helps the doomed souls to cross over.
See what great stuff Greek mythology is!? Petersen missed out on all that stuff.
Comment by Paco — Sat May 29, 2004 @ 0:31Achilles mom Thetis did turn him upside down and dipped him in the river Styx koz the waters held magic powers and he would not be vulnerable. But she forgot about his heel – guess she was a busy mom? Later she heard he would die by a wound to his heel but it was all too late….he did!
That old nasty ferry man – Charon was so mean if the dead souls did not have the fare ready for him he made them wait for 100 years on the river bank.So the coins on the eyes of the dead are not really to keep their eyes closed at all.
I wonder if this is where we got our ideas on public transport?
Julie K
Comment by Julie K — Sat May 29, 2004 @ 2:06Ok here we go. I really enjoyed this film.
I actually liked the way they got rid of all the mythology but gave reference to it. I admired the way they tried to recreate such a fantastical myth in a more realistic/humanist manner.
I’ll probably annoy you lot even more when I say that I actually thought Orlando Bloom played Paris well. He pouts his lip like the spoilt child he actually is. Impetuous, self righteous and ultimately foolish, I thought they moulded his character well. He’s just a kid, who fell in love with someone he shouldn’t and, whilst feeling he’s man enough to face whatever anybody throws at him he often finds himself out of his depth.
Eric Bana annoyed me more to start with, but by the time he faced Achilles man to man I felt for him, which can only be the sign of a decent actor as far as I’m concerned.
To be honest I’m glad they got rid of Golden apples, Mount Olympus and meddling Gods because to be honest, whilst it’s all entertaining stuff to read – on screen you’re always left with that camp, Clash of the Titans feel. Let’s face it – Hercules in new York has tainted the view of Mount Olympus for ever!
Comment by damian — Wed June 23, 2004 @ 11:04I liked the references to it. The Gods are still portrayed as a powerful force in the minds, views, and politics of the world the film lives in.
In the film Achilles is simply the greatest warrior, adored and worshipped by the Greeks because he has never been bettered. It’s easy to see how the Greeks could see him as immortal, simply because he’s a great fighter. Again, I thought the film referenced his immortality in a subtle but rewarding manner. I’d rather think of Achilles as a great leader of men, than a man with armour for skin and a little weak spot at the heel. He signs his death warrant with the desecration of Apollo’s temple and his downfall is brought on by his love for the Briseis, former Priestess of the temple fo Apollo.
For fans of the original Iliad I thought there were enough references to recognise, and I enjoyed the way they were entered into the film.
The film works well for those that won’t recognise them, for those who’ve never studied them – but I think the film allows those more familiar with the story to see reference points to it – rather than playing it out as Homer did.
I commend them for this. They wanted to paint a realistic portrayal of the siege of Troy and to place it in a context that most people could understand. The portrayal of Agamemnon and the other kings is well laid out. In the Iliad, all the politics of the story rest with the God’s and the humans are manipulated into playing their part. In teh film, the politics are handled by the men on Earth, but their faith and worship of the God’s brings on their doom.
I thought Peter O’Toole played a marvellous part – using all the power and dignity he has shown for many years, whilst looking entirely frail.
Julie K – you asked the question where did the Greeks get all the wood from. I thought the film showed quite convincingly that the horse was made from the wood of the ships they sailed to Troy in.
Remember they sailed in 1000 – they could afford to spare a few after so many men had fallen. This also helped the film to show, with a bit of portentous dialogue to be sure, that the Horse was seen as a gift to the Gods and the priests encouraged the king to drag the horse to the Temple inside the Walls of Troy.
Again, the film uses the Gods in a distant manner – but the influence is there and ultimately, as in Homer’s tale, the God’s can be seen to be responsible for the downfall of almost every character.
Overall I thought Troy succeeded very well. but I’m not sure if the woman who played Helen could launch a couple fo cross channel ferries never mind a thousand ships. It’s true that the women in the story are given precious little to work with – apart from the woman singing on the score – who has to have the most annoying voice I’ve heard since Celine Dion! She keeps popping up at every somber moment in the film and she really got on my nerves.
Go wash your mouth, Clash of the Titans rocks!
Comment by Paco — Wed June 23, 2004 @ 13:52Indeed it does – but I’m glad we didn’t see God’s playing chess in Troy.
Comment by damian — Wed June 23, 2004 @ 14:04I have to agree with everyone else here…I rather have the greek mythology version. To hear the story without it, well honestly, it was dry. I would have much rather had watched it thru homer’s version than the director’s “humanizing” making “realistic” version of the tale. Taking a tale that is steeply intertwined with “Gods” and their influence on men and their decissions and making them foot notes, to me, made it fall flat on its face. If I understand correctly we go to school for history lessons and to the movies for entertainment…but hey, who am I?
Comment by Davante — Thu September 2, 2004 @ 7:11On American actors in Brit accents mostly: Pitt has done his best to neutralize his American accent but some of his words are not comprehendible when he tried to make the change subtlely … the dialogues were lost on me. Diana Kruger poor thing, good looks for the Helen she’s playing yes, but had to do the Brit thing and is less impressive in dialogue delivery than even Pitt. But you have to feel for them both because few can get perfect like Rene Zelwegger in Bridget Jones Diary. That too an estuary or similar deviant from RP accent, even more difficult for a non Brit to imitate.
Moving away from diction, it would have also been a good idea to launch a fresh actor for the Achilles role for more myth effect in a period movie. Brad – we’ve seen too much of him dashing modern roles. involving cars and subways.
Comment by Vikram — Mon November 7, 2005 @ 13:35