ButlerianJihad
today at 8:53 PM
> rather than read the original work.
Look, given that the so-called "original work" is in ancient Greek, I don't think any ordinary American today is going to take the time and effort to actually "read the original work".
Even if you were to learn the Greek language well enough to "understand" the original book, you wouldn't really understand it, would you? Because it makes so many intertwined culture references, to the landscape, to the gods and myths of the period. So, what is better: for people to sit down and try to grind through the book, or to make a living production as a modern adaptation, for modern audiences to enjoy?
Furthermore, the Odyssey would have been performed by a singer or poet in its time. People in Greece wouldn't have been reading it on paper! That would be absurd even then! So, it would already be a performance, an interpretation, and it would surely be adapted by those performers to the place-and-time. There is surely a lot of space between the oral tradition that Homer originated to the written word.
Personally, I have immensely enjoyed O Brother, Where Art Thou? as a modern adaptation to Americana. I cannot pretend to understand the original, or the intricacies of the Coen Brothers' adaptation, but I love the performances, the singalong songs, and the production values of the modern film, and it gives me more insight and appreciation for the ancient epic as it was.
The language is not the problem here, I also cannot understand ancient greek. Let aside the casting, it impose a modern morality instead of the original moral arguments. The movie portrays Odysseus in a completely different manner. Homer's Odysseus is intelligent, deceitful, resilient, cruel... While in the movie Nolan's "modern" themes served rather than Homer's original.
I don't know if I am the only one, but it feels like trying to rewrite a historical epic with someone's own themes. I don't say one is better or worse, but it just doesn't feel right.