posted
I have problems with the way Achilles is portrayed in Troy. I tried to deny it, I tried to say I didn't care, but you know what? I do. I don't have a problem with them removing the gods, because personally I find the mortal characters to be the most intruiging aspect of the story. However, changing the character of Achilles essentially changed the theme of the the story, since the Iliad is all about Achilles. The more and more I think about it, and the more people I talk to who have seen the movie, the more it bothers me.
I perceived Achilles as someone who proved that the concept of greatness is morally flat. Here was a man who did great things, and was great in himself, yet his actions were ignorant, conceited, and childish. Thousands of people were killed because his ego wasn't sated. Troy tried to make Achilles tortured and three dimensional, but, from what I remember, there are some serious discrepancies (sp? who cares.).
1. When Briseis is offered back to Achilles, he refuses her. So he doesn't have a deep romantic love affair with her showing to the audience that he does, indeed, have depth and sensitivity, and secretly longs to be rid of his life of war. 2. His armor is not stolen by Patrolcus, but is freely given to him by Achilles, and his death could be said to be Achilles's responsibility. His reaction, therefore, in wanting Hector's blood, could be said to be childish and naive. 3. He drags the corpse of Hector around for much longer than the movie depicts; three days if I remember. I don't have a problem with the movie shortening this, but I do think they needed to stress the damage done to the body and the utter lack of respect Achilles showed towards Hector, a deeper and better man than him. (I was shocked to talk to several people and hear them say that Hector was "one-sided" and "uninteresting," and that Achilles was superior.)
First of all, to those who have studied the Iliad more intensely than I or at least remember it better, am I right in those three assumptions? Also, does anyone else here disagree with Peterson's interpretation of Achilles:
Reporter: When did you first read Homer? Petersen: When I was in school in Hamburg. I have been taught Greek for six years. I found them boring and I was suffering, and then all of a sudden came Achilles! And he seemed to me like Marlon Brando, a rebel, a man who doesn't submit to others' authority, so powerful, so beautiful...Achilles' germ has been haunting me since that time...
I came off distinctly NOT liking Achilles from the Iliad. Did anyone else get that? I thought Achilles was vain, arrogant, and unforgivable in his actions, but he did have some depth to him, as shown in his confrontation with Priam. I didn't see him as a noble rebel, or as someone to be admired. He was a man who let his ego and his arrogance get in the way of reality. To me, the ideal person in the Iliad is Odysseus, who is wiser than Achilles and more perceptual. He sees and understands and then acts.
[ May 26, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He definitely drags the body around for like twelve days, or something crazy like that. He drags it in circles around a fire, or something, and everybody parties.
I do, however, seem to recall somebody's armor getting stolen somewhere. I don't quite remember, though.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Achilles may be the central character, but Hector is the hero of the Iliad and, to my mind, the more attractive and sympathetic character.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My reaction to the reviews I heard of the movie were much the same. Achilles never came across as admirable to me in the Illiad, whereas Hector did.
And the bodily mutilation had cultural significance far beyond what most people can appreciate today. It was considered the worst deed in all the story.
You're right about Achilles giving him the armor, too:
Patrocles: "If however you are kept back through knowledge of some oracle, or if your mother Thetis has told you something from the mouth of Jove, at least send me and the Myrmidons with me, if I may bring deliverance to the Danaans. Let me moreover wear your armour; the Trojans may thus mistake me for you and quit the field, so that the hard-pressed sons of the Achaeans may have breathing time- which while they are fighting may hardly be. We who are fresh might soon drive tired men back from our ships and tents to their own city."
Achilles: "now gird my armour about your shoulders, and lead the Myrmidons to battle, for the dark cloud of Trojans has burst furiously over our fleet"
posted
See, I didn't mind them changing some bits of LOTR as long as they stayed true to the characters, which they did fantastically. I like this a lot less.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I didn't mind them changing some bits of LOTR as long as they stayed true to the characters, which they did fantastically. I like this a lot less.
Funny, I had the opposite reaction. I thought Jackson did a very poor job of representing many important characters and it had the effect of tearing the soul out of the story, for me. Meanwhile, Peterson's changes to The Iliad, while more sweeping in scope than Jackson's changes to Lord of the Rings, seemed a little more acceptable to me because I think the number of audience members that would be able to relate to the story of the Trojan War in the same way that the ancient Greeks did was much smaller than the number of people that would be able to relate to Tolkien's story in the same way as people around the time LotR was published.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say who cares, imo, if the masses "got it". How will we raise our culture if we keep pandering to the lowest common denominator? I say make stuff that makes people think!
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I can't help on the movie. I decided not to watch it when I found out the they are pronouncing the man's name wrong (like most of the population). I hate movies that don't do the research.
The name is not pronounced "Uhh Kill ease"
It is pronounced "Ahh Shill"
(check with any university literature prof and they will verify this).
P.S. I'll bet most people thought this thread had to do with the bad guy in the Bean/Ender novels.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a question of the original text being too dense for the common man to understand it. It's a question of culture. The Greeks in the time of Homer had a vastly different culture and value system than we do today. We read Iliad and see the Trojans as the tragic heros of the story, but the ancient Greeks didn't see it that way. To them, the fall of Troy was a proud victory, something to be celebrated. So it's not a question of intellect. The question is, does the story work in our culture? And I think that, as written, it doesn't. So your choices are either to present a story that no one can connect to, not to present the story at all, or to change the story.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We read Iliad and see the Trojans as the tragic heros of the story, but the ancient Greeks didn't see it that way. To them, the fall of Troy was a proud victory, something to be celebrated.
Yes and no. A careful reading of the Iliad shows that Homer's presentation of the Trojans is too sympathetic for us to assume it was an "us-vs.-them" affair.
The Greeks and Trojans speak the same language, worship the same gods, share a similar culture. The home scene with Hector, Andromache and Astyanax is obviously meant to tug at the heart-strings of listeners. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the Iliad is the first anti-war tract; I wouldn't go that far, but I think it's safe to say that the poem deals with some pretty complex issues in a complex and nuanced way.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure it was spelled "αχιλλεοσ" in the Greek alphabet, which is definitely not pronounced "Ah-shill." Can anyone verify that?
In case the characters don't display properly, that's alpha-chi-iota-lambda-lambda-epsilon-omicron-sigma.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
No, not too much, but I guess I was just saying that I don't think you have to "change" the story of Troy in order to make it applicable to a modern audience.
And yes, in (romanized) Greek it's "Achilleus" (alpha, chi, iota, lambda, lambda, epsilon, upsilon, sigma), in Latin "Achilles:" thus, usually anglicized in pronunciation to "uh-kill-eez."
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is most DEFINITELY not pronounced "ah-sheel." The only people who think so are those who don't understand that the pronunciation given by Card in his recent books is in fact only the French one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm a little curious about why you enclosed the word "change" in quotation marks. But anyway, I think that it would be very difficult to pull off an unchanged version of the Iliad as an American film. I think a large part of the complexity is derived from the fact that the intended audience were Hellenes. An American audience wouldn't be invested in the Greek victory, so a lot would be lost.
One possibility would be to base a movie on the original story, but have it be set, say, in World War II. That might work.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really dislike the way the "acting Pitt" played Achilles. What I also disliked was them leaving out Diomedes and the Palladium, and then allowing Achilles to be part of the trojan horse.
posted
Pronounced in Greek, it's "ach-hee-LAY-oos", but to get the proper sound you'd have to hear it. At least that's what we did when translating...
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I just love when pronunciation comes up. English speakers never seem to get the right one for anything foreign - nor do the French for that matter
posted
After seeing Carrie's post, I tend to think that the "e" being followed by a "o" might be pronounced as she said. And it's sounds pretty Greek to me that way Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to say I completely agree with the whole Achilles-was-not-that-deep-or-three-dimensional vibe. It bothered me that they made him into more of a hero, a tragic hero at that. He was as selfish, vain and arrogant as they got. Meanwhile, Agamemnon is apparently greed and evil incarnate or something... And another loss with Achilles-the-hero is his use as a foil to Hector.
To be honest, the pronunciation that really aggravated me was 'Menelaus'. I'm not sure what the official word on that is (anyone?) but I've always heard it pronounced Men-ah-lay-us. Got on my nerves...
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Just enjoy the story. Don't analyze it to the "nth" degree.
If I wanted to see the "real" thing, I'd go to live theatre reciting the epic poem itself. Greek drama is not Hollywood - they had a fine sense of what should and should not be portrayed for audiences. You would not be seeing the "reality" version.
Hollywood is Hollywood - flash, dash, glory, pomp, blood, guts . . . money.
So the director had a different take on the whole story. Who among us hasn't pondered what a story would be like if this plot twist changed to something else, if this character became more like this, that or the other, and wished/hoped/prayed for an opportunity to bring our own interpretations to light?
Jeesh.
That being said - I kept waiting for Zena to take over Briseis. OR maybe she already did . . . Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be honest, the pronunciation that really aggravated me was 'Menelaus'. I'm not sure what the official word on that is (anyone?) but I've always heard it pronounced Men-ah-lay-us. Got on my nerves...
For once, they had it correct, if you follow either modern or customary ancient Greek pronunciation. "me-ne-LAH-oos" would be accurate.
I think it was Fagles who said something like the latinized versions of the names sound better, where the more faithful versions sound like a cat coughing up a hairball. I completely agree.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not having seen the movie I just want to say that I didn't hate Achilles at all from the book. It was Agamemnon whom I thought was a selfish egotistical creep. The one who sacrificed his daughter, like. And then who petulantly stole Achilles' slave girl when his own had to go back to the slave girl factory.
I thought Achilles was totally justified in his wrath. I wonder what would have happened if he'd slain Agamemnon on the field right at the start of the story when he wanted to. It might have turned out far better in the end.
Hector was of course my favorite. But I didn't dislike Achilles. It was Agamemnon I thought was the bad guy of the story.
[ May 27, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Achilles didn't drag the body for days, just like three times aroud the city.
Book: They stripped Patroklus of Achilles armor. The Achilles gets new armor forged by Hephaestus.
I think Achilles isn't so much childish as he is proud. He was publicly insulted by being robbed of his "spoils". He also had a valid grievance. He was the cornerstone of the Greeks yet Agammemnot got most of the treasure.
[ May 27, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh.. Not knowing all that much about the whole story and everything, and seeing this movie, I gained a new role model in my life- I love Achilles character and personality- though I think a few of his decisions were rather foolish, I think the pros outweigh the cons in that area.. But if you want to see a really good movie, go see Shrek 2.. it's hillarious.
posted
See, that's what really worries me coming away from this movie. Achilles isn't a rebel hero, he's one of two extremely vain men fighting on the side of the Greeks.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you grind up sesame seeds and chickpeas, add some lemon juice and garlic, and then face the choice between serving it on pita or cucumber slices, two equally desirable by ultimately incompatible goods.
It used to be that "Humus with Tahina" was a particular variant of humus. It seems to have taken over almost completely of late. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Hummus was what you did when you forgot the words to the song. I hummus well as the next guy.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, while I agree that Rivka's Primary Rule of Transliteration applies in many cases, there are plenty of cases where non-English words become part of the English language through usage, and so their spellings become standardized.
Anyway, Merriam-Webster only lists one definition for "humus," and it's not something you dip pita into. Unless you have pica, maybe. They do, however, have an entry for "hummus." (Not to say that Merriam-Webster is the sole authority on spelling.)
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And another loss with Achilles-the-hero is his use as a foil to Hector. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Y'know, that was not on the menu for Shabbos this week. 
