My Thoughts on "The Return"

A Reflection on the Newest Film Adaptation of Homer's "Odyssey" (SPOILERS)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

As an avid Homer fan, it was impossible for me to go into this movie without expectations. To be clear, my expectations were quite cynical. To specify, here were some of my despairing expectations and main concerns leading up to viewing.

1. The mysticism of the gods will be removed from the film to tell a more anthropological story. I know some folks like this. However, it is not my cup of tea.

2. The narrative will be subverted in some way unfaithful to the spirit of the story (I’m okay with details here and there altered for artistic license.)

3. I’m worried it’s not going to be bloody enough.

My one hopeful expectation was that Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, and should do a great job with Odysseus. He did in fact do an amazing job, which came as no surprise, but his performance exceeded my expectations, which did come as a pleasant surprise.

Regarding my concerns, one at a time…

1. The gods were in fact absent…for the most part.

I do not enjoy readings of the Iliad and Odyssey that render the gods as mere psychological phenomena or explanations of natural occurrence, because for me that just doesn’t seem like the intention at all, nor functionally explaining how the textual narrative can be cohesively understood. However, framings of certain natural and psychological phenomena can work to convey attention to recover some of the mysticism that is lost in our largely materialistic way of viewing the world today.

For example, the anger of Poseidon is absent, but there are many frames which convey the ocean in a way that the spirit of Poseidon is felt, while the god himself is not seen. It is as if, we the viewer, are Telemachus, with an untuned eye to perceive the divine, whereas the gods reveal themselves plainly to Odysseus. We but vicariously see them in his eyes.

The scenes depicting Penelope’s shroud are intentionally focused on the threads themselves, emphasizing the work of the Fates, and by the use of red thread, intimating that the spirit of Ares has followed Odysseus from Troy, and while we do not see him, he is quite literally everywhere Odysseus looks. He says as much in dialogue.

All I could make out of Athena was in the deliberating eyes of Penelope and Odysseus. In an effort to condense the narrative, Penelope calls for the ceasing of violence, similar to how Athena does in the end of the Odyssey. Beyond these Athena is absent, and Odysseus’ mystic disguise is nothing but being aged and dirtied from his journeys.

2. The narrative was beyond subverted, more than anything I would have expected, but the spirit of the story somehow remained absolutely intact.

Typically, artistic license is taken to condense the narrative, which would otherwise take too long to portray on screen. This was partly the case, but the majority of choices to differ from the text were not condensing the narrative, but subverting it entirely.

Examples of said subversion:

• The aforementioned anthropological subversion.

• Telemachus despises Odysseus for nearly the entire movie, and the only apparent reconciliation is that he eventually sees his father, in a utilitarian sense, as a means to help him get rid of the suitors.

• Telemachus spurs his mother to marry one of the suitors.

• Laertes dies, thus we are not given one of my favorite scene in the end when three generations stand together to fight.

Some of these subversions seem like pretty big changes, so why, you may ask, do I feel that the spirit of the story was not betrayed?

Well, there were certain minor textual details included in the story, such as Argos at the gate, Odysseus’ story of sneaking into Troy and seeing Helen, and a strange interpretation of the Homeric formula “the earth that feeds us all” which involves Odysseus eating the soil of Ithaca; these details demonstrated to me that the writers and directors had a true mastery of their subject material, thus rendering all license by my conceit to be intentionally crafting a poetic interpretation of the source text rather than than a mimetic copy of it. For example, since the story begins with Odysseus’ arrival to Ithaca, there is no true katabasis, but rather Odysseus visits Laertes in his tomb, which serves as a kind of katabasis in the film.

And I guess that’s the thing: you can’t go into this movie expecting the Odyssey, not at least the one sitting on your shelf. However, you can expect the Odyssey in so far as what you get in The Return is Uberto Pasolini’s contribution to the ongoing oral tradition of said story.

Myth is meant to change in content and form, and it does so based on who is telling the story. This is the story according to Uberto, and he has something to say to his audience—what that is exactly, I am still making sense of. It is such a subversion, but still so faithful at the same time.

3. In my humble opinion, it was not bloody enough.

In defense of the producers, budget constraints probably kept them from having the full muster of 108 suitors, but we also never saw the hanging of the maids, nor Odysseus’ arrow shot through Antinous’ throat as he raises a cup of wine. In fact, Antinous is the last suitor to die, and is beheaded by Telemachus.

In spite of this, the narrative is at least unapologetic regarding the violence which I suppose was the underlying concern all along: don’t take a story of great revenge and turn it into a hippy-dippy-sitting-under-the-mango-tree-singing-Kumbaya kind of story. This was not done, so I am thankful for that.

General Complaints:

-Unnecessary full frontal male nudity

-Not enough commentary on xenia (hospitality), especially in glossing over the beautiful scenes in the book of Eumaeus’ xenia towards Odysseus

-The subversion of Odysseus not wanting to return to Ithaca (This is so antithetical it was hard to stomach, but it made the grace of Penelope all the more felt.)

-Similar to Roland Barthes’s complaints in Mythologies about Hollywoods portrayal of Ancient Rome, where all the men have bowl cuts and British accents, the mix of Charlie Plummer’s British accent, Juliette Binoche’s French accent, and some scattered Greek and Italian accents, the story lacked at times a sense of solidity in terms of place. However, this is made up for in terms of the staging which is exquisite. What’s more I could see this as yet another artistic choice of Pasolini to show that this story is a human story, transcending cultures and times, a thing which the most ancient of stories do best.

Miscellaneous Praise:

-The subtlety of Penelope and Odysseus: the best way to show the tactfulness of a character is to observe them not by what they say and do, but what they do not say and what they refrain from. The subtext with Penelope and Odysseus, both individually and in their scenes together, is dense beyond imagination thanks to the lovely acting and cinematography employed. The way Penelope is portrayed to lead the suitors on is marvelous. Odysseus’ constant deliberation is easily seen in Fiennes’s face the entirety of his screen time. It is insane work by both actors and commendable.

-Ángela Molina’s portrayal of Eurycleia is perfect. She is the most true to the book character in terms of her plot presence and her character, and the fact that Molina can capture that given the small amount of screen time she has is worthy of much praise.

-If I had any reservations about recommending the film, they were all resolved in the last five minutes of the movie. Good Lord! the ending is good. If you are a purist and find yourself so frustrated with the subversion that you feel compelled to walk out of the theater, I implore you: do not! The resolution is so satisfying and perfectly captures the essence of Homer’s Odyssey.