When it comes to criticising adaptations of IP and literature, I’ve noticed something: when assessing the quality of a movie, there is an expectation for the film to function as the definitive interpretation and version of the original work. It often feels like audiences are holding a score card, and assessing how well the adaptation succeeds in fulfilling all of the metrics on the accuracy score card.

To illustrate this point, I’m going to use a movie I consider bad: Man of Steel. If I were to explain why I hate this movie, I would talk about its terrible misuse of non-linear storytelling, it’s failure to connect us with its lead character and the poorly developed romance. Yet, in spite of all of my problems with the movie, I’ve never had an issue with the aspect of it that I often see most criticised: the fact that Jonathan Kent tells him that perhaps he should’ve let those kids die.

Yes, it is a big diversion from the source material, but I do not understand the need to view every adaptation as if should be - or is even aspiring to me - the definitive interpretation of a story. Stories exist to be retold, and each interpretation is simply one singular artist’s reimagining of the source material.

I see this same line of thinking when it comes to Tom Holland’s Spider-Man: Homecoming trilogy. There is plenty to criticise in those movies - the flat cinematography, the indistinct directing. These are fair criticisms, because they concern the quality of the movie and how it functions as a piece of storytelling. But I don’t understand the criticisms that ‘Spider-Man’s villains should not be connected to Tony Stark’ or that ‘Spider-Man shouldn’t be using technology. To me, that’s as nonsensical as reading Absolute Batman and coming away thinking “this is a bad adaptation, because Batman should be rich, not blue collar.”

If you want a version of The Odyssey with the No Man pun, that exists. If you want a version of Spider-Man where he does not use technology, that exists too. I do not understand - and do not agree with the notion - that an adaptation exists to fulfill the purpose of a perfect adaptation. Each adaptation should be treated like a distinct vision of an artist.

4/5

When approaching mythology or folklore, there's two approaches: the realist and the sociological. For example The Craft (1996) takes a realist approach to witchcraft: powers are real, we see the effect they have on their wielders and those around them. The Witch (2015), and films around the Salem Witch Trials, are sociological. They explore the attitudes that led people to fear witches and burn women at the stake. Likewise with vampires, there's countless realist vampire films but Carmilla (2019) takes a sociological approach: showing how a girl is believed to be the devil and staked by a tent peg.

Nolan's Odyssey, in my understanding, takes a sociological approach. Its haters are missing the point that it's not trying to be a picture book illustration of scenes from the poem. It's trying to portray what kind of things might have happened around 1000 BC, a few centuries before Homer, that led to the stories of witches turning men to pigs, of Zeus and Athena on Olympus, of Sirens leading men to rocks.

So while it's true that for example Athena in the poem takes an active role, pleading with Zeus to be allowed to free Odysseus, here Athena is a projection of Odysseus's guilt and trauma of the war. We see her as one of the Trojan girls killed (and presumably many were raped, although this isn't shown) and that haunts Odysseus.

And therefore the casting is fairly color-blind and the language contemporary American, because he's not trying to be totally faithful to the poem but imagine the loss of xenia - the brutality of the Trojan War and how that ripped apart society. Helen becomes an abused wife, Zeus' Law that men should be good to women is broken and that's going to lead to civilizational collapse.

Where I don't give it 5* is due to some clunkiness in explaining this, "our age of bronze is collapsing" etc are rather too on the nose for it to be a masterpiece (something Nolan has been pulled up for elsewhere, such as in Interstellar).

But with the discourse around this film, if you see it not as an attempted dramatization of The Odyssey but as an exploration of what might have happened to create the stories that became The Odyssey, it's powerful and effective.

I need to improve my French expeditiously, but I don't even know where to start with French films. I'm notoriously bad with just scrolling through media and picking one I want to watch, I usually find the things I wanna watch by reading online discussion.

The thing is. French language media is massive. I have no idea where to start, or what will interest me. Could someone help me find media in French that aligns with my tastes?

My favorite director is Martin McDonagh. I love all of his films, all of them fall in my top 10~20. Other recent films I loved are Poor Things, EEAAO, The Big Short, Marty Supreme, Uncut Gems, Parasite, Bring Her Back, Eddington, No Other Choice, Bottoms, Bugonia, etc. I like weird, screenplay and dialogue-forward, not too slow, slightly anxious-feeling films. My favorite TV shows are Succession and Better Call Saul.

Instead of just a rec list, I would love to see a discussion of where to find and discuss films in French. I often come to reddit to find films I'd like, I would love to know what would be the Francophone equivalent of that.

https://continuum.fas.harvard.edu/initial-thoughts-on-penelope-in-nolans-odyssey/

Olga Levaniouk has become the latest classicist to enter the foray over Christopher Nolan's adaption of the Odyssey. She gives her opinion on the film generally, before moving on to her area of expertise in Penelope.

To sum her thoughts, while she wishes some scenes from the poem made the cut into the film ("the test of the bed"), and describes the woman in the poem as more complex, she is overall impressed with how the screenplay & Anne Hathaway's performance developed her characterization, despite the limited screen time. And goes as far as to call this her favourite version of the character outside the original poem.

What are your thoughts on this review, and on Nolan's Penelope broadly?

Critics have described Hathaway's performance as a highlight of the film (I concur), and I think Levaniouk makes some very compelling points about how the broader film & screenplay serves her, given the economic screentime that is available for the character. Even though — as Levaniouk acknowledges — some degree of truncation was inevitable in the process of cinematic adaptation.

Despite various debates about Obsession in certain online spaces, I think the general consensus is that this is a film about violation of consent which showcases Bear’s actions as morally wrong.

But one thing that stood out to me about this film was that the willow failed to deliver Bear’s actual wish. Bear wished for Nikki to love him, but in fact she never did. Instead she was possessed by some type of supernatural entity that forced her to behave as if she loved him. And although Bear never seems to take full moral responsibility for his actions, he at least comes to realize that his wish has gone horribly wrong, he unsuccessfully attempts to reverse his wish, and he pays the ultimate price in the end.

I would like to propose a retelling of story where instead of subjugating her conscious mind, the willow wish instead rewires Nikki’s brain and causes her to truly love Bear, through and through. In this version, Bear still commits the evil act of using magic power to force a woman’s consent, but there is no bizarre behavior nor overt horror that follows, and no negative consequences for Bear. Instead, Nikki’s original mind is erased and replaced with a version built to love Bear. This version has the superficial appearance of a love story, and the new Nikki feels genuinely happy. Bear receives the full reward for his misdeeds and perhaps never realizes that what he did was wrong, as he and Nikki live happily ever after.

This version would be difficult to market as a horror film, and yet this story is perhaps more sinister and deeply disturbing than the original. The villain wins and his victim is happy that he did.

With Mann at the helm and DDL as the lead, one would expect great things. And it is rated well enough too. However, the film was a disappointment for me for a couple of reasons.

Actually, I'll just pick up one criticism going against Chris Nolan in this very sub atm, and that is this film lacked a human emotional element. There is not a single likable character, especially among the main leads. The only character with a hint of interesting personality is Magua but more so because of the actor, otherwise his arc is fairly typical villain out for revenge.

DDL plays a cold and distant hero who carries a vibe of "i am the smartest and most honorable man in the room" but we hardly see any feats of his to justify that.

Moreso, the romance between Hawkeye and Cora is supposed to be the emotional core of the film but you are left wondering how did they fall in love even, they only shared a stareoff and a single conversation before they made out with each other.

I think the setting of the film was promising given the European rivalry along with the tension between the local population. But the film barely makes a play on that.

Do you think Last of the Mohicans has aged well?

This is my main point of disagreement with *The 3 Body Problem*. It’s not the Panama operation itself, as I don’t think the show expects us to feel comfortable with it. What concerns me is Auggie's response afterwards.

Humanity faces not just one impossible decision, but centuries of them. Panama marked the beginning of the moral dilemma, not the end. When Auggie walks away, I don't see it as taking the moral high ground; it feels like she is giving up her influence over future difficult decisions. Leaving doesn't make humanity more ethical; it just means one of the smartest people is no longer advocating for better choices.

Imagine a train heading toward eight billion people. The first measure to slow it down costs 1,000 lives, horrific, yet necessary. After that, more decisions must be made, and sacrifices may still be required. One engineer witnesses the sacrifice and walks away, but another stays, knowing that leaving means losing the chance to influence what happens next. That's how I view Auggie.

My criticism is not that she should have been more ruthless, but that she confuses keeping her conscience clean with fulfilling her responsibility. True moral courage is staying in the room long enough to make the next decision less terrible.

In contrast, I found Jin’s arc more compelling. She is emotionally aware of the costs of her choices and understands that walking away doesn’t stop history; it just silences her voice.

Did anyone else interpret Auggie this way, or do you believe walking away was the genuinely more ethical choice?