|
|
|
WARNING: This entry isn't naughty. The big head does the thinking for the little one for once. Don't worry. It's just a phase.
Had I had more time last night I'd have been able to finish that entry, although, since I was in rant mode, I probably would have only become more incoherent.
Chickpea left me a nice note about the movie, so I'll pick up from there. She reminded me that at the end, in the credits, it says it was "inspired by Homer's Iliad. For me, when I saw that, I felt better about some of the stuff. I wish the promoters had shared that. I went in expecting the Iliad. (Check out the page on imdb for example -- the writing credits in particular.)
My rant yesterday wasn't about not liking the movie. I thought the special effects were spectacular. The ships in particular. There were nice, authentic touches like the ships being dragged on shore rather than left out anchored along with some really weird material culture shit -- too many things to list. It wouldn't have cost very much at all to get a Classicist on board the project.
I read another review this morning that was fun. I didn't agree with all of it, but the first sentence was spot on: "The less familiar you are with Homer, the more you'll appreciate Wolfgang Petersen's Troy." So I know too much.
The story of the Iliad all by itself would have been good enough, but they chose to call it Troy. Chickpea, in her note, suggested it should have been titled Achilles. I'd agree wholeheartedly if it weren't for the sad fact that Iliad translated into English would be Troy. On top of that, Homer should have listened to Chickpea and called the Iliad the Achilleiad because that what the damn poem really is about, Achilles, not Troy!
Chickpea -- 1
Homer -- 0
OK. So it's not that I didn't like the movie. I did well enough. It wasn't easy to pull so much non-Homeric Troy legend into one movie. There's a buttload of stuff from Book 2 of Vergil's Aeneid in there too. Speaking of the Aeneid, I really appreciated the nod to Vergil near the end there when gurly-man Paris urges a sudden Aeneas character dragging his old father Anchises to lead the refuges in establishing a new home and build a new Troy. (As much as I appreciated it, I have bitches about it too, but I've gotten tedious enough already.)
Let me try yet again to get to my frigging point. Here's what chaps my ass:
1. Despite the jiffy 'inspired by' disclaimer in the credits, people are going to go away from this thinking that it was Homer's Iliad. For some reason this bugs me.
2. There is no reason why some things had to be misrepresented, like Menelaus and Agamemnon being killed. It throws a whole bunch of other cool literature out the window. (e.g. Aeschylus and Euripides for starters)
3. How come were the gods axed? It was their war. The people were pawns.
4. This is the big one. I really resented being beaten over the head with Brad Pitt's having to be portrayed as straight straight straight. The character's introduced naked in bed with not one, but TWO naked girls. He couldn't be a hero if he weren't super-stud straight guy, now could he? Could you imagine if they stuck to the story and had him introduced lying in bed naked with one naked Patroclus?! Then there's our being reminded nine times that Patroclus is his cousin and this whole Briseis becoming a main character. In Hollywood formula, the star has to have a girl.
Now, mind you, I'm not a professional homosexual. I don't have any rainbow anything. I don't belong to any 'gay pride' organizations or anything of the sort. I'm not in the closet either. I'm of the thought that anything can become an issue if you make it one.
Still, the clobbering in the movie in defiance of tradition was counter to 'the cause', and that pissed me off. It was over-reaction that became a tedious, defensive, and eventually methinks the lady doth protest too much. If they didn't want to deal with Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship, I'd much rather they'd have left all sexuality out of it (apart from Paris and Helen). For some reason I found it offensive. It advances that dangerous mindset that Harvey Fierstein illustrates in Torch Song Trilogy. There's a scene where his mother (Anne Bancroft (who is brilliant!)) chastises him for mourning his recently gay bash murdered lover and he blasts her yelling: "That's right, Ma. Queers are whores. Queers can't love. And if they get killed in the street for being queers they deserve what they get!"
Not an exact quote, but close enough.
Alright. All that said, I ought to address my St. Louie bud's question of this morning, namely textual stuff in the Iliad declaring that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers.
If you're looking for some passage like
and eagerly did bottom-boy Patroclus pick up the soap
for fair-pubed Achilles approached epic dick in hand
you won't find it. There is something worth mentioning, and I'll get to it in a sec.
For us moderns, the mere mention of the name 'Romeo' immediately conjures Juliette, and a love affair so profound and intense that they were ready and willing to give their lives for each other, would rather die than be separated. And in fact, according to the story EVERYONE knows, that's exactly what happened.
For the ancients, the mere mention of the name 'Patroclus' immediately conjured Achilles, and a love affair so profound and intense that they were ready and willing to give their lives for each other, would rather die than be separated. And in fact, according to the story EVERYONE knew, that's exactly what happened.
OK. Back to the text. If you turn in your hymnal to Book 23, lines 65-100, you'll find one of the most beautiful and romantic passages in literature. In it, Achilles is tuckered out from a long day of Hector dragging and crashes. The ghost of Patroclus comes to him. Patroclus begs him for a quick funeral and to save his ashes so that when Achilles dies their ashes can be mingled in the same urn and they can spend eternity locked in each other's embrace as of old and never be separated again. Achilles then begs him to come closer so they can lie in each other's arms again and mourn together. He reaches out, but Patroclus' ghost goes poof, as ghosts are wont to do.
Yeah, right. Sounds like cousins to me.
OH! Before I forget, I need to correct myself on translation recommendations. Lombardo really is the best (i.e. most approachable) read for moderns. He does away with 'rosy fingered dawn' and such. He has an Odyssey as well. The correction is that Richmond Lattimore's translation is the closest to Homer. Amazingly so!
As for Knox et al., let me say this and let you do the math. All the gay Hellenists I know are total, pathetic closet cases. The gay Romanists I know are out and don't give a rat's ass who knows it. Fascinating, eh?
Time for me to step off the soapbox, abandon the lectern, and get back to my dirty-minded old self.
Hector. Yum.
new | last
| next | archive
| profile | cast
email |
guestbook |
notes
| host | rings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have any comments you'd like to share?
[So far 0 smart ass remarks have been made.]
encroaching increase of darkness - 2008-11-02
Bones - 2008-09-20
random bitchings and musings - 2008-07-09
Man with Huge Cock - 2008-07-04
Eric and other crazy shit - 2008-06-29
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Thinkin' 'bout: S A L
Dog(s) keeping me company: work not done ... but wanna write a story!
Current read: 3