This question will sound like an attack, but it’s a genuine question: did you see the movie yourself? I watched it yesterday and thought it was fantastic. Here’s the arc of my own watching-The-Odyssey-odyssey:
1. Heard about it and heard they were doing the diverse casting thing. Had no interest in seeing it. Did not follow any news about it.
2. Was invited to see it with a friend who shares my values and who was pretty gung ho about the movie.
3. Started to hear people whom I respect (e.g., Matt Fradd) say good things about it.
4. Went with an open mind. Loved it.
I’m absolutely convinced that Jonathan Pageau’s take is correct: this movie about the Trojan Horse is itself a Trojan Horse, but (contra your own use of that metaphor in this post), it’s full of Christian and Western stuff that couldn’t get into Hollywood any other way.
You mentioned Pageau in the post; if you have specific reasons for rejecting his claims, I’d be interested to hear them.
This a great comment, and totally justified. I'm responding, but don't take my response as a "defensive" posture. First, did you read the article in its entirety? Most of your questions are answered in the article.
I haven't seen the film, but my argument here does not rely on seeing the film. For example, a person can simply look back on the Hollywood industry that created "A Man for All Seasons" and, without ever seeing the film, read that it won multiple awards, and surmise that clearly the culture that produced that film was far more friendly to Christian films than the culture that produced "The Odyssey'
Regarding how you approached the film: going into the film blind is permissible, but that also means those individuals are the least qualified to make the judgment about the cultural significance of the film. They can only offer their opinion about the story and experience of the film, which is irrelevant to the conversation this article aims to have.
Fradd is great, but his saying this film is not woke is one of the most ignorant things he's said. He also believed that woke and cancel culture was basically dead. This is just objectively false. Dominican Nuns are currently fighting for their right to treat the poor without having to affirm pronouns and trans identities in a city where their Mayor is a muslim communist. Nolan's film is going to boost the morale of cultural Marxists who are weaponizing gender ideology against Catholics to get them to either submit to their delusions or get their ministries shut down.
I've presented a significant amount of evidence, most notably the leftist outlets celebrating the film as a Marxist/Woke triumph. If I say, "This movie is a win for the LGBT movement," and conservatives say, "How do you know that?" I should be able to simply point to the LGBT community and say, "Because they are celebrating the film as a win for their agenda." Whether I have seen it or not is a red herring, since my "review" is not a cinematic review, but a review of the controversial decisions that Nolan made from the perspective of cultural Marxists' strategies.
Pageau
The reason I reject Pageau's claims is for the following reasons:
1. Pageau does not even wrestle with the Left celebrating Nolan's film as a woke triumph -- at least not in. That alone should be enough to demonstrate that Fradd et al. are incorrect. The movie can be enjoyable and normalize Wokism.
2. Nolan himself admitted to making these decisions because he wanted to challenge "prejudices" about the ancient world. He even rewrote certain parts because, in his own words, they were too misogynistic.
3. Pageau's take is reading his own ideas into the film. He's not interpreting Nolan's decisions in light of the cultural momentum in which the film was birthed and clearly influenced Nolan's decisions. For example, no one needs to ask, "Why did Nolan make these casting decisions?" We actually know why he made these casting decisions because of our culture war. If he had made this film in the 2000s, we would have all been saying, "What's trangenderism and why did he cast this lady in a man's role?" These decisions are affirmed by Nolan himself, but even if they weren't, it's clear that Nolan's film is being celebrated by the cultural Marxists of our day.
As GK Chesterton wrote, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions." Those who are endorsing this film are proving Chesterton correct.
Thanks for this. I'm unpersuaded, but interested. Some thoughts in reply...
(i) It seems like you're assuming that if the Pageau Interpretation is correct, then the film's anti-woke message would be more or less immediately and pretty much universally identified and acknowledged. Thus the fact that the initial reaction from some on the far left has been positive is taken as strong evidence against the Pageau Interpretation and in favor of the Woke Interpretation.
I don't find this at all obvious, though. All of us are prone to see what we want to see, and I'm not convinced that many or most of those who are describing the film as a triumph for DEI and transgenderism have actually seen the movie itself -- whether they celebrate this fact or lament it. It feels akin to the ever-popular take that Frodo and Sam are gay. People say it, sure, and sometimes very loudly, but that doesn't mean they're right.
It seems to me that claims about the actual impact of the movie can't be warranted until it's been with us for a much longer time. I'd also be keen to know (though I confess that I lack the time or energy to look into it) whether there are Odyssey-viewers on the left who think the Pageau Interpretation is correct and simply aren't saying so or aren't saying it as loudly (or with as much amplification) as those who think (or say they think) the Woke Interpretation is correct. You say that the film "is being celebrated by the cultural Marxists of our day," and you've given evidence of that, but in light of my own experience seeing the movie, I am genuinely skeptical that this statement is true of all or even most cultural Marxists who've actually seen it, I'm skeptical that all of those who are celebrating it for being woke have themselves actually seen it, and I'm skeptical that they will still be celebrating it in six months or five years.
(ii) There's also the question of what normie audience members will take away from it. The True Believers on the left aren't going to abandon wokeism in light of The Odyssey, but they won't abandon wokeism in light of anything. It strains credulity to think that anyone who sees this film will interpret E. Page's role and performance as an affirmation of the goodness of transgenderism. Had I not known she was in it and seen a picture of her in advance, I wouldn't have had any idea that the actor was trans. And knowing who she is and that she's in the movie, I was struck by how weak and ineffectual her character is. If I was a pro-trans critic, I'd be pretty upset by how she was cast and how she was used.
(iii) I can't get on board with what seems like a very black-and-white, all-or-nothing approach to how Christians should engage with art and popular culture. Is your exhortation that we should refuse to see any film that could be interpreted as normalizing behaviors and ideas to which we are opposed? That's a possible position and a coherent one, but it's also radical and implausible.
Even trickier--and in this context, more important--is the *production* of art. On the Pageau Interpretation, Nolan has acknowledged the reality we face and attempted to engage the culture from within. The legitimacy and wisdom of doing so seems almost self-evident to me, even though I think there can *also* be room for an "external" critique that explicitly rejects the problematic aspects of the culture.
(iv) Closely related to the immediately preceding point, I can't help but think of St. Paul on Mars Hill in this context. It's easy to imagine a parody of your essay being written about Paul's decision to refer to the "many gods" of Athens and quote their poets back to them in order to create space to preach the Gospel... What a wishy-washy fool Paul was, acquiescing to the evils of polytheism and coming to the Greeks on their own terms! How sad to see a formerly trustworthy defender of the faith tolerate such evils. Those "gods" weren't real, and he knew it! Yet he let it slide. A man without convictions, indeed. (You can imagine how the parody would go.)
We've got to play the hand we've been dealt. Yes, it is unequivocally true that the Hollywood that made and celebrated A Man for All Seasons reflected a culture very different from ours in its values and orientation to reality. Well, if we want to make headway on moving the culture back in that direction, we need to find ways to have conversations and plant seeds that will bear healthy fruit. Using the trappings of contemporary Hollywood in order to make a film in which we are warned repeatedly against "breaking Zeus's law," in which marriage and family are celebrated as great goods, in which the absence of the husband/father/king is the fundamental problem that must be solved, and which ends with a monologue lamenting a civilizational collapse brought on by those who fail to remember and tell the old stories... that strikes me as a pretty promising strategy.
(v) It's interesting and--if I may be so bold--worrisome that you point to Nolan's comment about changing misogynistic aspects of the original story as evidence in support of your thesis. I saw someone quoting Matt Walsh to the same effect. This seems to me like an obvious place where faithful Christians can and should be on the same team as many who are on the cultural left. It's simply true that women have often been marginalized and treated horribly. The fact that Nolan chose to tell the story in such a way that women's perspectives are presented and taken seriously, and that he chose to omit the killing of the slave girls for sleeping with the suitors... we're supposed to *object* to those choices? And object because we are Christians?
You'll forgive me, I think, if I demur!
---
Welp. I did not mean to write this much. I trust this all comes across in the critical-but-friendly manner in which it is intended.
Suffice it to say: if you wind up watching the movie after all, I'll be curious to hear if the experience changes your mind. I suspect it would.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll respond to each point quickly, as Nolan's film will not be the last woke film to be produced. I'll respond to each point quickly. First, did you read my article? It seems like your response has some huge gaps.
Couple questions:
1. Why do you think Nolan cast Ellen Page in the role?
2. Do you think it would be ok for a man to play a woman in the next film Nolan makes?
3. Are you aware of the current social contagion among young girls identifying as trans?
i) Your argument here does not present any counterevidence. It's largely opinion. Re-interpreting something, like Sam and Frodo or David and Jonathan as gay, is not the same thing as hiring a delusional woman into a role that should have been given to a man. Reinterpreting something is not the same thing as a definitive action like hiring a woman to play a man's role because she's delusional.
ii) You're dodging the main point of my argument. Her performance has nothing to do with it. The Trans agenda has always been "affirm our delusion or else we will make you pay for it." The platforming page has nothing to do with her acting ability. You're conflating my argument about how the film was made with whether or not it was a masterpiece. Those are two different discussions.
iii) No, I'm not saying that people shouldn't go see the film. That was explicitly stated in the article. My argument is that ignoring the cultural impact, which tends to be what those who go see the film do, is an extremely imprudent thing to do. Second, this presumes that we are not in a culture war. Again, Pageau's read requires him to ignore the evidence and ignore all of Nolan's statements that contradict him. Pageau just is wrong, and Nolan has practically said that in interviews. Not to mention, the fact that Fulton Sheen was warning about these kinds of things well before Nolan was a director, and the Marxists have been writing about these kinds of strategies since at least the civil rights movement.
iv) No. This doesn't even rise to the level of analogy, and is one of the most nominalistic interpretations I've seen. There is a big difference between a conversation with someone, trying to find common ground, and casting a person with a psychological disorder into a role that will only affirm their disorder. Especially considering that St. Paul was extremely harsh on those who even entertained people in their homes who were in sexual sin.
v) I think you're misunderstanding this point. I never said people should not go see it because of this point. I argued that Nolan is woke because he talks like a woke person and hired a transgender actress into a role that should have been played by a man. Christians are more concerned about staying in the good graces of society than they are about being consistent in their convictions. Again, if someone wants to see this film. No problem. If someone enjoys this film, still no problem. But they must recognize that those who are trying to normalize sin the same way No-Fault Divorce normalized the destruction of the family are celebrating this film as a major triumph for their side.
I don't know when I'll have time to reply, but wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail. It seems that each of us thinks the other is missing something extremely important and fundamental -- we're talking past each other to one degree or another.
I'll reply when I have time to look more closely at your original post, because I don't know what it is that I evidently missed or misunderstood. It will surely be a few days, though! Grace and peace to you.
Great chatting!!! One thing is for sure, friendly discourse about such things is essential. But I think we can both agree that my take is the one that might get someone fired 😇, unless of course I work at the Daily Wire.
It has been interesting, these past 60 or 70 years, to watch how movies both reflect and influence American culture. The study of propaganda in the Hitler years is fascinating and it is also amazing to study how commercials sell produce and ideas.
Let me know what you thought of the film, this article, and our cultural moment.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to like ❤️ the post!
This question will sound like an attack, but it’s a genuine question: did you see the movie yourself? I watched it yesterday and thought it was fantastic. Here’s the arc of my own watching-The-Odyssey-odyssey:
1. Heard about it and heard they were doing the diverse casting thing. Had no interest in seeing it. Did not follow any news about it.
2. Was invited to see it with a friend who shares my values and who was pretty gung ho about the movie.
3. Started to hear people whom I respect (e.g., Matt Fradd) say good things about it.
4. Went with an open mind. Loved it.
I’m absolutely convinced that Jonathan Pageau’s take is correct: this movie about the Trojan Horse is itself a Trojan Horse, but (contra your own use of that metaphor in this post), it’s full of Christian and Western stuff that couldn’t get into Hollywood any other way.
You mentioned Pageau in the post; if you have specific reasons for rejecting his claims, I’d be interested to hear them.
This a great comment, and totally justified. I'm responding, but don't take my response as a "defensive" posture. First, did you read the article in its entirety? Most of your questions are answered in the article.
I haven't seen the film, but my argument here does not rely on seeing the film. For example, a person can simply look back on the Hollywood industry that created "A Man for All Seasons" and, without ever seeing the film, read that it won multiple awards, and surmise that clearly the culture that produced that film was far more friendly to Christian films than the culture that produced "The Odyssey'
Regarding how you approached the film: going into the film blind is permissible, but that also means those individuals are the least qualified to make the judgment about the cultural significance of the film. They can only offer their opinion about the story and experience of the film, which is irrelevant to the conversation this article aims to have.
Fradd is great, but his saying this film is not woke is one of the most ignorant things he's said. He also believed that woke and cancel culture was basically dead. This is just objectively false. Dominican Nuns are currently fighting for their right to treat the poor without having to affirm pronouns and trans identities in a city where their Mayor is a muslim communist. Nolan's film is going to boost the morale of cultural Marxists who are weaponizing gender ideology against Catholics to get them to either submit to their delusions or get their ministries shut down.
I've presented a significant amount of evidence, most notably the leftist outlets celebrating the film as a Marxist/Woke triumph. If I say, "This movie is a win for the LGBT movement," and conservatives say, "How do you know that?" I should be able to simply point to the LGBT community and say, "Because they are celebrating the film as a win for their agenda." Whether I have seen it or not is a red herring, since my "review" is not a cinematic review, but a review of the controversial decisions that Nolan made from the perspective of cultural Marxists' strategies.
Pageau
The reason I reject Pageau's claims is for the following reasons:
1. Pageau does not even wrestle with the Left celebrating Nolan's film as a woke triumph -- at least not in. That alone should be enough to demonstrate that Fradd et al. are incorrect. The movie can be enjoyable and normalize Wokism.
2. Nolan himself admitted to making these decisions because he wanted to challenge "prejudices" about the ancient world. He even rewrote certain parts because, in his own words, they were too misogynistic.
3. Pageau's take is reading his own ideas into the film. He's not interpreting Nolan's decisions in light of the cultural momentum in which the film was birthed and clearly influenced Nolan's decisions. For example, no one needs to ask, "Why did Nolan make these casting decisions?" We actually know why he made these casting decisions because of our culture war. If he had made this film in the 2000s, we would have all been saying, "What's trangenderism and why did he cast this lady in a man's role?" These decisions are affirmed by Nolan himself, but even if they weren't, it's clear that Nolan's film is being celebrated by the cultural Marxists of our day.
As GK Chesterton wrote, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions." Those who are endorsing this film are proving Chesterton correct.
Thanks for this. I'm unpersuaded, but interested. Some thoughts in reply...
(i) It seems like you're assuming that if the Pageau Interpretation is correct, then the film's anti-woke message would be more or less immediately and pretty much universally identified and acknowledged. Thus the fact that the initial reaction from some on the far left has been positive is taken as strong evidence against the Pageau Interpretation and in favor of the Woke Interpretation.
I don't find this at all obvious, though. All of us are prone to see what we want to see, and I'm not convinced that many or most of those who are describing the film as a triumph for DEI and transgenderism have actually seen the movie itself -- whether they celebrate this fact or lament it. It feels akin to the ever-popular take that Frodo and Sam are gay. People say it, sure, and sometimes very loudly, but that doesn't mean they're right.
It seems to me that claims about the actual impact of the movie can't be warranted until it's been with us for a much longer time. I'd also be keen to know (though I confess that I lack the time or energy to look into it) whether there are Odyssey-viewers on the left who think the Pageau Interpretation is correct and simply aren't saying so or aren't saying it as loudly (or with as much amplification) as those who think (or say they think) the Woke Interpretation is correct. You say that the film "is being celebrated by the cultural Marxists of our day," and you've given evidence of that, but in light of my own experience seeing the movie, I am genuinely skeptical that this statement is true of all or even most cultural Marxists who've actually seen it, I'm skeptical that all of those who are celebrating it for being woke have themselves actually seen it, and I'm skeptical that they will still be celebrating it in six months or five years.
(ii) There's also the question of what normie audience members will take away from it. The True Believers on the left aren't going to abandon wokeism in light of The Odyssey, but they won't abandon wokeism in light of anything. It strains credulity to think that anyone who sees this film will interpret E. Page's role and performance as an affirmation of the goodness of transgenderism. Had I not known she was in it and seen a picture of her in advance, I wouldn't have had any idea that the actor was trans. And knowing who she is and that she's in the movie, I was struck by how weak and ineffectual her character is. If I was a pro-trans critic, I'd be pretty upset by how she was cast and how she was used.
(iii) I can't get on board with what seems like a very black-and-white, all-or-nothing approach to how Christians should engage with art and popular culture. Is your exhortation that we should refuse to see any film that could be interpreted as normalizing behaviors and ideas to which we are opposed? That's a possible position and a coherent one, but it's also radical and implausible.
Even trickier--and in this context, more important--is the *production* of art. On the Pageau Interpretation, Nolan has acknowledged the reality we face and attempted to engage the culture from within. The legitimacy and wisdom of doing so seems almost self-evident to me, even though I think there can *also* be room for an "external" critique that explicitly rejects the problematic aspects of the culture.
(iv) Closely related to the immediately preceding point, I can't help but think of St. Paul on Mars Hill in this context. It's easy to imagine a parody of your essay being written about Paul's decision to refer to the "many gods" of Athens and quote their poets back to them in order to create space to preach the Gospel... What a wishy-washy fool Paul was, acquiescing to the evils of polytheism and coming to the Greeks on their own terms! How sad to see a formerly trustworthy defender of the faith tolerate such evils. Those "gods" weren't real, and he knew it! Yet he let it slide. A man without convictions, indeed. (You can imagine how the parody would go.)
We've got to play the hand we've been dealt. Yes, it is unequivocally true that the Hollywood that made and celebrated A Man for All Seasons reflected a culture very different from ours in its values and orientation to reality. Well, if we want to make headway on moving the culture back in that direction, we need to find ways to have conversations and plant seeds that will bear healthy fruit. Using the trappings of contemporary Hollywood in order to make a film in which we are warned repeatedly against "breaking Zeus's law," in which marriage and family are celebrated as great goods, in which the absence of the husband/father/king is the fundamental problem that must be solved, and which ends with a monologue lamenting a civilizational collapse brought on by those who fail to remember and tell the old stories... that strikes me as a pretty promising strategy.
(v) It's interesting and--if I may be so bold--worrisome that you point to Nolan's comment about changing misogynistic aspects of the original story as evidence in support of your thesis. I saw someone quoting Matt Walsh to the same effect. This seems to me like an obvious place where faithful Christians can and should be on the same team as many who are on the cultural left. It's simply true that women have often been marginalized and treated horribly. The fact that Nolan chose to tell the story in such a way that women's perspectives are presented and taken seriously, and that he chose to omit the killing of the slave girls for sleeping with the suitors... we're supposed to *object* to those choices? And object because we are Christians?
You'll forgive me, I think, if I demur!
---
Welp. I did not mean to write this much. I trust this all comes across in the critical-but-friendly manner in which it is intended.
Suffice it to say: if you wind up watching the movie after all, I'll be curious to hear if the experience changes your mind. I suspect it would.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll respond to each point quickly, as Nolan's film will not be the last woke film to be produced. I'll respond to each point quickly. First, did you read my article? It seems like your response has some huge gaps.
Couple questions:
1. Why do you think Nolan cast Ellen Page in the role?
2. Do you think it would be ok for a man to play a woman in the next film Nolan makes?
3. Are you aware of the current social contagion among young girls identifying as trans?
i) Your argument here does not present any counterevidence. It's largely opinion. Re-interpreting something, like Sam and Frodo or David and Jonathan as gay, is not the same thing as hiring a delusional woman into a role that should have been given to a man. Reinterpreting something is not the same thing as a definitive action like hiring a woman to play a man's role because she's delusional.
ii) You're dodging the main point of my argument. Her performance has nothing to do with it. The Trans agenda has always been "affirm our delusion or else we will make you pay for it." The platforming page has nothing to do with her acting ability. You're conflating my argument about how the film was made with whether or not it was a masterpiece. Those are two different discussions.
iii) No, I'm not saying that people shouldn't go see the film. That was explicitly stated in the article. My argument is that ignoring the cultural impact, which tends to be what those who go see the film do, is an extremely imprudent thing to do. Second, this presumes that we are not in a culture war. Again, Pageau's read requires him to ignore the evidence and ignore all of Nolan's statements that contradict him. Pageau just is wrong, and Nolan has practically said that in interviews. Not to mention, the fact that Fulton Sheen was warning about these kinds of things well before Nolan was a director, and the Marxists have been writing about these kinds of strategies since at least the civil rights movement.
iv) No. This doesn't even rise to the level of analogy, and is one of the most nominalistic interpretations I've seen. There is a big difference between a conversation with someone, trying to find common ground, and casting a person with a psychological disorder into a role that will only affirm their disorder. Especially considering that St. Paul was extremely harsh on those who even entertained people in their homes who were in sexual sin.
v) I think you're misunderstanding this point. I never said people should not go see it because of this point. I argued that Nolan is woke because he talks like a woke person and hired a transgender actress into a role that should have been played by a man. Christians are more concerned about staying in the good graces of society than they are about being consistent in their convictions. Again, if someone wants to see this film. No problem. If someone enjoys this film, still no problem. But they must recognize that those who are trying to normalize sin the same way No-Fault Divorce normalized the destruction of the family are celebrating this film as a major triumph for their side.
I don't know when I'll have time to reply, but wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail. It seems that each of us thinks the other is missing something extremely important and fundamental -- we're talking past each other to one degree or another.
I'll reply when I have time to look more closely at your original post, because I don't know what it is that I evidently missed or misunderstood. It will surely be a few days, though! Grace and peace to you.
Great chatting!!! One thing is for sure, friendly discourse about such things is essential. But I think we can both agree that my take is the one that might get someone fired 😇, unless of course I work at the Daily Wire.
It has been interesting, these past 60 or 70 years, to watch how movies both reflect and influence American culture. The study of propaganda in the Hitler years is fascinating and it is also amazing to study how commercials sell produce and ideas.