Bad, but not that bad

Rating: 5/10 (6 May 2005)

I watched this movie for the second time last night and I must say, I actually enjoyed it. First of all, though, let me say that I accept most if not all of the negative critique that has been directed at this film. As one reviewer rightly points out, the film claims to be based on Homer's Iliad but then includes the story of the Trojan horse which is, of course, taken from the much later Aeneid of Virgil. Incidentally, the same reviewer wonders about Achilles' girlfriend in the film. In fact, the character of Briseis is present in the Iliad and she is the reason for the stand-off between Achilles and Agamemnon - though not really for the reasons presented here. The demise of Agamemnon is also inaccurate and seems to have been added to provide a tidy Hollywood ending. In fact, the character of Agamemnon generally is somewhat mistreated in this presentation. He comes across as a far less pleasant character than the Agamemnon we find in the epic itself. Then there's the issue of the gods. Not only are they omitted from the story here but the characters (especially Achilles and, to an extent, Hector too) are irreverent in a way that would be incomprehensible to the Greeks themselves. Having said this, I wonder how the film could have been made otherwise. For example, in the battle between Paris and Menelaus, the Iliad tells us that before Menelaus can kill Paris, Aphrodite descends in a cloud and rescues the Trojan prince and whisks him away to the safety of his chambers. Could this be included in the filmed version? Would it have resonance to a contemporary audience? Probably not. Of course, I accept that a film like this is dangerous insofar as it gives the non-reading audience the sense that they now know the story while what is found here is a significantly altered (butchered?) version. But the point is that the real story requires the kind of suspension of disbelief (gods appearing and disappearing in the midst of battle, changing sides and the fact that the outcome has been determined by Zeus before the whole thing starts) that would make it difficult for a contemporary audience. This is not an excuse but a reason. As far as the good aspects of the film are concerned, I actually think that in spite of the aforementioned modernising features of the film, we do sometimes get a sense of more genuinely Homeric notions such as 'philotimia' or the love of honour. This was a crucial aspect of the sensibilities of the Homeric age and it is well represented here even if somewhat disjoined from any concomitant theological implications. As far as the performances are concerned, Peter O'Toole and Brendan Gleeson do well with the characters of Priam and Menelaus respectively. Eric Bana isn't bad though Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom are weak. And Brian Cox, notwithstanding the characterisation of Agamemnon is always enjoyable to watch. Overall, then, a bad re-telling of the Iliad if that is what it is supposed to be but, if one can bracket that kind of purist demand, an enjoyable action film with some great action sequences and good performances.