Troy...

[hafital]

So, this movie, imo, wasn't really great. It wasn't terrible, but there was something missing for me. Generally, I found the dialogue to be OTT and 70% of the acting, also. There was a lot of telling going and very little showing, and judging by the outright laughter of the audience during most of the movie, everyone else thought so to. The film was very grand and very big, but something in its execution failed, imo. Too bad, although I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised.

Not to harp on a dead horse, but Orlando Bloom? Still not doing it for me. In fact, I liked him better in Pirates, but that could just be because Paris is such a dodo. I keep waiting for him to grow into his reputation, and so far it hasn't happened.

And I'm not going to go into all the inaccuracies in dress and scenery and property, because what would be the point? Although I *have* to say Agamemnon's hair (and everyone's hair, really) drove me CRAZY.

But there were several things I did like. I liked Brad Pitt, who always manages to win me over, and it's not just because he's pretty (although, that helps). Imo, he's a pretty good actor and I believe him when I watch him, which is key. I'm not an Achilles girl. I'm much more a Hector girl (*love* Hector), and I think Achilles is a big pouty mama's boy, but BP gave him a touch more depth and sincerity than I normally see, in either the Iliad or in other realized productions. The only part of the movie that really got me was the moment when Achilles cries over Hector's body. Doomed before they even knew it.

I liked the choices they made in terms of what parts of the story to tell. I'm glad they left out the gods, 'cause I find them tiresome.

I thought they used the Briseis character well. And, you know, the whole "captive slave at first fights back but then is seduced by the brutal but ultimately kind and gorgeous captor" -- um, that totally worked for me. (*pets Desert Prince*)

I though it was an interesting choice killing off Menelaus and Agamemnon like they did. It makes sense with their version, since they lacked the gods to pluck Paris from the fight and send him home. The whole time I was watching that scene I was totally wondering how they were going to do that. I didn't think they would kill Menelaus, but they did! And Agamemnon's death was pretty cool. Go Briseis! Although, the theatre nerd in me cried for the lost Orestia. LOL.

I could have done without them making Patroclus so much younger. I wanted the friends since birth thing. The shield brother thing. But what they did with the relationship was nice, I guess, and the young actor could have been worse. Actually, I did like him, but I thought he was a bit useless, which is a shame.

Hector! I love Hector. Eric Bana did a great job with somewhat sketchy dialogue. Hector continues to be the only character of the Iliad that I think has any real decency. *g* Achilles and Briseis won me over, but Hector holds my heart.

And last but not least, I thought Sean Bean as Odysseus was just great. :)

Comments

[cesperanza.livejournal.com]

There was a lot of telling going and very little showing,

See, intellectually, this is what interests me, because epic and drama are in these terms antithetical--epic is *all* about the telling, it's what epic *is*, and drama is about the showing. So Homer isn't, despite the great descriptions in the poem, *dramatic*, so to speak--it's essentially a mediated form, right? where an actor/speaker *tells* the audience of the action. To show Homer is, I think, to lose what's interesting about Homer in a weird way. To see a sword fight isn't the same as hearing about it in this case. So in an odd way, the telling you're describing is probably right, much like Olivier always stopped the camera and gave you nothing to look at during the really important soliloquies in whatever Shakes. film. He wants you to be told, hear the words, and not *watch action*.

[hafital.livejournal.com]

Yes, I see what you're saying, and I agree, but this was as much Homer's Iliad as Dracula was Bram Stoker's Dracula, if you get my drift. ;) More thought and less desire for a blockbuster would have produced a better retelling, imo.

I dunno, maybe you are right, and story of Troy will just never translate well into drama.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

Hey baybee! Enjoyed your comments very much. Sean Bean was totally the heart-stealer in this, I thought. Eric Bana is my new boyfriend, though. *g*

And I'm not going to go into all the inaccuracies in dress and scenery and property, because what would be the point? Although I *have* to say Agamemnon's hair (and everyone's hair, really) drove me CRAZY.

Okay, I'd actually love to know what your issues were. *g* I saw a few things that I knew were off, and a couple things I just didn't care for, but I'm actually really interested to know what you thought of the costumes and hairstyles and such. If you have time, will you tell me?

I can't help it -- incidental details and clunky dialogue aside, I found so much to like in this movie, I'm all enamored and such. I'm starting to think I'm alone in that, but I actually thought the screenplay was genius in some ways. It made sense out of things in the Iliad that never made sense to me, and I thought he did a tremendous job of balancing several key contradictory aspects of Greek values and culture, and making them make sense together. Oh, well. *g*

[hafital.livejournal.com]

Hi hon!

Okay, I'd actually love to know what your issues were. *g* I saw a few things that I knew were off, and a couple things I just didn't care for, but I'm actually really interested to know what you thought of the costumes and hairstyles and such. If you have time, will you tell me?

Oly's a better person to pick each element apart. :) I just noticed a few things, but part of what I mean by "what would be the point" is that this is theatre, right? This is a poem and a story that sort of above the actual historical time in which it takes place. I mean, the Iliad itself is historically inaccurate (of course, what do I know. Maybe it happened just like that!) So, it lends itself to a poetical approach to design, taking elements from more than one time period, more than one civilization. Helen's jewelry was a touch Sumerian. They used some 5th century designs, etc etc.

I would guess this is because there's a lot more evidence from other time periods. There isn't much archaeological evidence from the Trojan War, at least in comparison to other sites. The site of Troy has many layers because it was razed to the ground several times (that bit about it never being conquered is totally false *g*) The level that's thought to be during the time of the Trojan war was unfortunately mostly destroyed during the Schliemann dig. On the Greek side, it would fall during the rule of Mycenae, of which there is far less than later times. There is a Death Mask of Agamemnon (http://www.sikyon.com/Mykinai/Art/art_eg01.html), but of course no one knows if it's really his. They just called it that because it was big business back then to tie ancient legends with actual archaeological findings.

The hair did drive me crazy, because it was just too coiffed. I have no idea where the hairdresser got his research from, and in the Iliad everyone has lovely curls. Curls where definitely the style of choice back then, but I just don't see Agamemnon sitting pretty while someone does his hair like that, and it didn't fit Brian Cox, imo. And I don't know what was up with those beads. *g*

But, I really wasn't bothered by all of this, mind you. It's going to be the same for the King Arthur movie. There's very little evidence for that time period (like none. at all.) and so you just mix and match from anything that works, really.

I can't help it -- incidental details and clunky dialogue aside, I found so much to like in this movie, I'm all enamored and such. I'm starting to think I'm alone in that, but I actually thought the screenplay was genius in some ways. It made sense out of things in the Iliad that never made sense to me, and I thought he did a tremendous job of balancing several key contradictory aspects of Greek values and culture, and making them make sense together. Oh, well. *g

There was a lot I liked! I just wasn't swept away, which is too bad. Part of it is that I always forget how much I don't like the story of Iliad. I always get so excited, and then I'm "oh yeah, I hate this." LOL. My guy dies, and Achilles and Patroclus dies, and I get so irritated by the Greeks, and bah. So, I get cranky. :)

*smooch*

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

This is a poem and a story that sort of above the actual historical time in which it takes place. I mean, the Iliad itself is historically inaccurate (of course, what do I know. Maybe it happened just like that!)

See, what actually worked so wonderfully to me is that we don't have much to go on regarding this time period and this war. I viewed the whole thing as if it were sort of the real story upon which the legend was based, not as a theatrical drama. Things that were different from the poem didn't trouble me at all, because I thought the movie supported (in general) this concept -- for example, the scene where the soldiers come in and see Achilles shot through the heel, not realizing he's also been shot several more times. Also for example, the secret tunnel. If Paris did indeed escape, perhaps no one knew it, and hundreds of years later it was presumed he'd been killed. That kind of thing. I agree about the hair (especially didn't like Sean's hair, but Eric's bothered me too).

I didn't know about the city being razed -- that's interesting, and unfortunate that they made such a point about the walls never having been breached. Kind of strange, actually. But what I did love was the generational divide when it came to the role of the gods, and the way they used that to explain certain things (like why Priam brings the horse inside the city walls) as well as to make emotional sense out of why everybody makes the choices they do. I thought despite the awkwardness of the dialogue, the emotional heart of the script was really sound and well-motivated and man, did he have a tough task there.

Part of it is that I always forget how much I don't like the story of Iliad.

I never did really, either, which is why I was so impressed by what they made of it. I thought it was a pretty cool balancing act between making the characters comprehensible and sympathetic and making sense out of all the conflicting motivations and values in play. And I think the fact that I hated Gladiator so much and was so disappointed with it made a difference. I went in to this one not expecting much, and was pleasantly surprised.

Too bad about that dialogue... *g*

[hafital.livejournal.com]

See, what actually worked so wonderfully to me is that we don't have much to go on regarding this time period and this war. I viewed the whole thing as if it were sort of the real story upon which the legend was based, not as a theatrical drama. Things that were different from the poem didn't trouble me at all...

Oh, see, I liked all that. I had no problem with them changing the poem. Generally, I liked all the changes they made to the story. :) The biggest part that didn't work was the Paris and Helen storyline. I mean, I felt nada regarding these two. I was more attached to the Paris and Hellen of he TV movie Helen of Troy that was on last year (which wasn't half bad, very different, though, and they short-changed Achilles big time. That version totally made me like Paris, which is some feat. *g*). But all the rest, the changes, making Briseis a larger part, and the tunnel buisness -- all of that was good. I loved Agamemnon's death. I guess, for whatever reason, I couldn't get past the hokey bits. They just kept throwing me out of the story.

I totally loved Gladiator... I guess we had to differ in opinion eventually. LOL *mwah*

Btw, did you ever read Firebrand by Marion Zimmer Bradley? I can't remember if I asked you this before.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

I missed the TV Helen of Troy cause it was on when we were moving, I think. I did like Paris and Helen in this one quite a bit. I mean, they were not necessarily noble characters, but I felt for them and I have to say I thought the actress playing Helen was lovely. Now, the actress playing Andromache annoyed the crap out of me. But yes, I can see where not sympathizing with Paris or Helen could kinda drag you down. *g*

I think I'm just out of step with the world when it comes to these big blockbuster things. A big part of my dislike of Gladiator was the excruciating migraine I got from the extremes of lighting in the film and the camera work (I almost couldn't walk out of the theater) and from Joachim Phoenix, but I think the migraine was really the source of my hatred. *g* I've tried to watch it at home since, but it had the same effect. I just can't take that blue cast in contrast to the white glare. Doesn't really say much about the story, but if I ever see Ridley Scott on the street, I may stab a big stick through his eye just for the hell of it.

I couldn't help thinking that Troy is what we got instead of Endurance, so I'm glad that at least I enjoyed it. (Maybe if Joachim Phoenix had been as stunning as Brad Pitt, I would have been more forgiving of his accent. :-D)

No, have not read Firebrand. Should I? :-)