To all would-be critics - think before you yap!

Rating: Null/10 (26 February 2005)

One thing I find more loathsome than others is people who think that the world cannot do without their criticism. I realise that I, by criticising people who criticise, am placing myself in the same category. Nonetheless, I cannot refrain from doing so anyway, however, my critcism is directed at the critics of “Troy” by Wolfgang Petersen: Are all of you bright, super-intelligent critics who have supplied your comments, grandly supplying a list of the one hundred thousand things that did not correspond to either the “Iliad” or classical Greek mythology really so naive as to believe that the producers of the film were ignorant of the above? Here is logic for you: If I were going to produce a film on any subject, especially a classical one - and Homer's epic is THE literary work of art par excellence - I would spend ample time collecting material. I would also realise that, granted that the world is full of students of classical literature, there would be more scrutiny on the part of the public than in other cases. So why, for pity's sake, would you assume that Wolfgang Petersen would not have researched into the material prior to producing the film? That being the case, then, there must be another reason why the film is the way is and no different. Well - all I can say is that the producer took advantage of that thing known as artistic licence; also, the film is not titled “the Iliad” but “Troy”. Technically, of course, it’s the same subject since “Troia” and “Ilion” are two names for the same city (from Tros and Ilos, two of Priam’s ancestors, respectively), but still, by giving the film the name “Troy” it can be assumed that some amount of artistic licence is going to be taken. Regarding the comment by “Stephen Oestereicher” referring to “Brad Pitt” as being a “pretty boy”: If you read both the Iliad and the classical myths dealing with the pre-history of the War of Troy, you will find that Achilles was, indeed, a “pretty boy”! Due to the oracle stating that Achilles would lose his life in the War of Troy, his mother Thetis hid him on the isle of Skyros with King Lycomedes where he grew up with Lycomedes’ daughters. When, on the eve of the War, Odysseus came to summon Achilles, he had to use a ruse to distinguish Achilles from the girls. Does that tell you anything about the features of Achilles? So really, Brad Pitt gave a rather good rendering of Achilles, who combines in his person a number of opposites: He is both lofty AND emotional; he is both arrogant AND tender-hearted; he is both virile AND youthful - even child-like at times, with distinctly feminine features even (how else could he have been hidden unnoticed amongst girls?) – he is both “loved by the gods” AND a “mother’s boy” who runs to Mummy to be comforted. In short, the character of Achilles is indeed a perplexing one to analyse, but I think that Brad Pitt rendered it rather well. All right, so Brad Pitt’s Achilles was slightly more “golden haired” than is described in the Iliad, where Achilles has brown hair; but that’s really the only thing that did not correspond to the character of Achilles. There were, obviously, elements that were not mentioned in the film altogether, such as Achilles being entreated by a committee to return to battle, or his near drowning in the Scamander river (“Am I to drown like an imbecile?”) or his frequent running to his mother Thetis and crying his heart out to her, which constitutes part of the oddity of Achilles’ character; however, that which was brought across was not bad at all. As to the comparison with "Helen of Troy": Granted that Helen of Troy goes more into the pre-history of the Iliad, such as Theseus’ robbing Helen (which, actually, isn’t even elaborated on in the Epic Cycle but simply stated as a fact!) and telling her the truth behind her birth, or the origin of the vow of the Greek kings to support one another in battle if one of them was offended (although, according to the classics, it was Tyndareos himself who chose Menelaos as Helen’s husband), nevertheless, the latter part of the film is very much condensed due to lack of time, obviously because too much went into the beginning of the film. In short, where “Troy”, misrepresents certain items, “Helen of Troy” does the same with others. By the way: Briseis really WAS the lover of Achilles, so why do some of you insist that that shouldn't have been there? Feel free to contact me at Artemis.Lachanidou@gmx.net if you wish to argue more.