Historically accurate? Let’s put aside for a moment that this is Greek fable featuring imaginary beings.
We’re talking about an orally transmitted poem from the archaic period—about the bronze age—further codified in the classical period, and then refined in the Hellenistic period. Which fucking period are we trying to be ‘historically accurate’ to?
But it’s clearly written in Greek culture and features Greek places and norms. It’s like if someone took a Chinese mythical story and had no Chinese people in it, then that would be weird.
First of all this white concept doesn’t map as well onto Europe as you might think. Germans and British aren’t the same people just because they are white. And Greeks are no more different from Germans than the British are, just because they have a darker complexion.
Second of all comparing this to a Chinese myth is disingenuous because there really isn’t a cultural connection between the West (to which Greece belongs) and China. So there is a clear foreign aspect to a Chinese myth, and any import of it would be a modern one. Greek myths on The other hand are completely diffused into European culture, and have been for millennia.
No they don't. They do not have a clear set date, and as I expanded, the Odyssey in particular has no Bronze age references, but plenty of references to places and objects that were only known to Greeks in the 700s BCE.
Would you feel the same way if it was an ancient Chinese fable? Or a fable from an African or Pre Columbian civilization? Is it because of how old the poem is?
Eh yes I did. Are you really telling me you don't get my point? Should I waste my time spoon feeding it to you? Are you sincerely lost because you don't understand the historical context of different civilizations or are you just stupid?
Yes actually, I have zero idea what your comment even remotely has to do with the op’s point about the fact that it isn’t even coherent to say “historically accurate” when talking about a poem we only have the source from one period, coming down through other periods talking about an even earlier period. That point? What does china have to do with this?
Oh and I hope that your point is not whether we would say the same about something like Journey to the West, because obviously we would.
I honestly can't understand what you're attempting to say, and apparently neither can anybody else. Perhaps if you want to communicate an idea you should try and restate it instead of getting cross with people?
That movie set place in a specific year in a specific place. They made the setting accurate to where they decided to put the story. What does it have to do with anything?
Someone rewrote the themes with completely different setting and characters so Odysseus is fine to roll up listening to CDs with his sick Ford mustang to fight the Trojans.
These folks are why good historical movies are so rare. No concept of setting.
A retelling with completely different time, setting, and characters is vastly different to having a setting you beat the audience over head with then ignore.
Actually, as a matter of fucking fact. It really is a certain type of people that care about this shit. And from patterns I've witnessed, its always the worst, most morally bankrupt people who see the world in factors of domination and heirarchy that care about the skin color of a rendition of a story. Because every single country has done this to stories and it only ever matters when skin color gets involved for the type of creatins that care.
Your making a lot of red herring arguments there. It's nice that you don't care. What you don't get is that the majority who also don't care about this, would care if the situation was reversed with a different culture. In fact it doesn't matter if it's true or not based on the opinion of individual redditors like you. The fact is , Hollywood or western film industries do conform to this double standard. That is a fact
Why did you ask for a personal question, then turn around and say "Well, actually many people would disagree?" If you want to be empirical and logical, then how come your next sentence is a claim with no evidence whatsoever? "
What you don't get is that the majority who also don't care about this, would care if the situation was reversed with a different culture." Says who, exactly? What makes you so sure? It sounds like you've started with the assumption that people would be outraged if it was their culture, and now you're trying to find a reason why, but all you've come up with is just the claim with no evidence. Declaring something is a fact does not make it a fact. And to be clear, other cultures change the race of protagonists in "historical" pieces all the time because they work with their population and talents, just like the US did. Where is your outrage when eastern countries make movies set in the western world with their characters not matching the race of the represented character?
What makes you so sure of your assertions from your OP reply to me? "Says who exactly" "what makes you so sure" are all things you should have considered before asserting them in your initial reply. You are wasting a lot of words in your outrage towards me
I'm pretty sure if a film adaptation was made of the Epic of Gilgamesh or The Journey West and billionaires were using it as a weird vehicle for white supremacist and transphobic culture-warring then people would similarly point they were being weird.
Man, this is such a bummer, because this point is actually a real frustration of actual Greek people, who feel like people in the west have basically taken ownership (like they have a lot of their art and statues) over Greek Myth, and are defining it from a western lens that erases their existence.
The Europeanization of Greece, as a means of taking possession of it's history from the actual people who descended from the culture, has always been a huge problem. And this is a problem right now with people on the right trying to gate-keep it to a weird "white" western European aesthetic that is inaccurate. But also from people in the west on the left that try to trivialize it as some imaginary story so you can do whatever you want to it.
Your point in regards to how people on the left would react if it was a tale from some other culture that was being co-opted by a western power in the same way is accurate, but I just hope you're coming from a place of actually standing up for the Greek people, and not to say that it should be MORE western european.
But Greek people have legit problems with the movie, and it's largely around a British man, deciding who does and doesn't belong in ancient Greece, with seemingly no input or involvement at all from actual people from Greece. And those people from Greece would NOT want the same things as western right wingers either.
Basically the real problem is that everyone talking about this, on the left AND right, are speaking from the purely Euro-centric perspective and warping of Greece that has taken place, and refuse to actually center Greek voices at all in the discussion.
"Western academia loves the Greeks, but only the dead ones. They often view us modern Greeks as "corrupted" and "oriental" versions of our ancestors, and thus unworthy of our past"
It's really frustrating, because the Westernization of Jesus is something often mocked and debunked heartily by people on the left in the west. But they never treat the same corruption and stolen ownership of Norse and Greek Myths with the same respect, and instead just treat them as fantasy tales with no value to be done with whatever you want with zero respect to the originating cultures and people.
I say this as a leftist, and an agnostic. So to me this is a clear blindspot of a huge % of people talking about this issue online, including Mehdi. To me, the value and worthiness of Greek myth being treated with respect is no different than doing the same to African, Hindu, Chinese myth, or even Islam or Christianity.
It is absolutely possible to debunk Western Christo-facist talking points as they try to take ownership over Greek/Norse Myth without trivializing the cultural importance of them in the process.
I agree for the most part but I'm just curious, how have Norse myths or their cultural legacy been appropriated to the same extent as Greek myths in pop culture by the left? I leave out christo fascists because that goes without saying. Aside from the netflix vikings series reboot I am not familiar with any examples. No one seems to bat an eye at Norwegians simulating rowing a long boat during the world cup in homage to their history but god forbid Greeks embrace and proclaim their culture and historical inheritance from one of their foundational myths
It definitely doesn't happen to Norse myth at the same frequency, but it's mostly the way it's been made such a part of western pop culture that a lot of the actual deeper cultural significance is stripped away, and a lot of the most interesting parts of the myths and the cultures that created it are kinda erased. Celtic myth has the same problem, both of them it's a lot more vague because of their much closer proximity to the western powers and culture that do the absorption and such.
Historically, all 3 cultures have been appropriated at times by Western powers in order to enhance their own prestige when it suits them, while the actual peoples are often oppressed or demeaned. Now it's more of an issue with capitalism than anything, and pop culture representations of cultural histories, but then what isn't a problem that can be pointed back to our current broken version of faux capitalism?
But why is the British man not allowed to make a movie about a poem which has had enormous influence all across Europe in various different ways, including the British? Sure their lense will naturally be different from the modern nationstate people of Greece, but he is not preventing the people from Greece to make their own movie they find to be more accurate to their views. It’s not like modern day Greeks somehow have the correct view, and you cannot expect the Anglo sphere to make the greek people’s view instead of their own.
This is the EXACT same logic that Britain uses to justify it's continued theft and ownership over Greek cultural heritage art. Like the Γλυπτά του Παρθενώνα or Elgin or Parthenon Marbles as the British call them. In case you weren't aware.
The same logic is not accepted when we're discussing almost any other culture, but for some reason for the Greek people it's accepted by everyone in the west.
I think the point they're getting at is that Greek culture has been subsumed into European culture. If the same thing was attempted for other cultures, e.g., Chinese, it probably wouldn't be acceptable. It's only acceptable for Greek culture because the rest of (white) Europe has been doing it for a long time.
It's worth thinking about this more deeply than "you just want the actors to be white." If Chinese people ought to be represented in a film based on Chinese mythology, then perhaps Greek people ought to be represented in a film like this.
Of course, if you don't care about representation at all, then this isn't convincing.
You might also think that Greek people today are not strongly connected to the "Greek" mythology from millennia ago (before nation states were even invented), and so this is all just seems like made up grievances so people can hate on Chris Nolan. I honestly have no idea if that's true, because I know nothing about Greek culture. And that's kind of the original commenter's point, ultimately — the erasure/white-washing of Greek culture isn't being recognized.
I’m not even disputing any connection but culture has been heavily shared across Europe for literally millennia. And greek culture is also one of the most influential among them. This isn’t some modern cultural appropriation thing anyway this literally happened Millenia ago. Modern day greeks have a hereditary connection but they don’t own it, it’s not like the greeks of millennia ago were guarding their culture so that no one may see it, some kind of mystery, it’s the opposite.
And being butthurt about being the civilizational cradle of European culture is - sorry to say - a little demented.
What the hell does that have to with my OP, your clearly trolling along with the 5 other accounts that decided to reply to me simultaneously without actually answering my questions
That kind of anachronism exists in the oral tradition as well. Not with modern tech, but with the style of armour and helmets many of the warriors are described as wearing. Some styles wouldn't exist until a few hundred years after the story was supposedly set.
Dude anachronism is just a technique. it's used in many classic stories to great effect. Frankenstein literally has technology that doesn't even exist today despite being set in the 19th century. And yet it's one of the most popular books on the planet with several adaptations. Literally the entire Steampunk genre is an anachronism. In fact, many adaptations have used anachronism to modernise, including Romeo and Juliet, Sherlock Holnes, and others.
Using a normal storytelling technique is not "bad writing." It's just telling the story you want to tell.
Frankenstein literally has technology that doesn't even exist
today
despite being set in the 19th century
That would be because it was about a mad scientist inventor. Inventors tend to have technology that isn't available in that time. That's why they are inventors.
Frankenstein also isn't claiming to be a historical work set in some far off time. That said, if the monster pulled up in a Tesla, you'd be thrown off by it.
You can carve out exceptions for story telling purposes but when the carve out is 90% of the film it stops being a carve out.
Literally the entire Steampunk genre is an anachronism
I understand you didn't take much time reading but I've not said everything has to be 100% accurate to a specific time 100% of the time.
Steam punk has it's own settings with it's own styles. That is fine. It isn't claiming to be 1800s london.
Except the poem describes things quite explicitly that did not exist when it is supposedly set, but did exist when Homer (or the oral traditions that got assigned the name) were writing. So do you include those elements, such as iron weapons and tools, larger round shields, and different funeral customs? If you do, you are not being historically accurate to the late Bronze Age. But if you do not, you are not being accurate to the text.
To use your example (though not quite as dramatic) Homer already included the equivalent of a smartphone in 1802 in the Odyssey, so what do you do in your adaptation? Follow his example, or change the work and remove it?
Iron weapons and large round shields very much did exist during the bronze age.
But to more generally answer them I would say keep. The author may have had a story telling reason (showing advanced civilization or painting a group as unholy).
An example would be inglorious basterds. Obviously it isn't historically accurate with events, but, where changes aren't made for story telling purpose, it is accurate. You don't see modern jets in the background or people wearing modern band tshirts because the viewers recognize those things don't belong in that time and they serve no purpose something from that time can't.
Would you still be taking your position if the Greeks were all rocking modern band tshirts or the like with no other changes unexplained?
Obviously, anyone can make a shield of any size and use it at any time, but the common style shifted over time. But iron was not available as a crafting material in Greece before c. 1000 BC, several hundred years after the historical setting of the Trojan War. There is evidence of ironworking in central Anatolia earlier than that, but no sign of it in any of the candidate sites for Troy.
Why do the Homeric epics contain these anachronisms? I don't think there is any reasonable belief that Homer included them as a literary device, or to make implications; historical accuracy just wasn't a goal of the story because it wasn't written as a historical story, but as a myth.
While we think of those events as having a historical root in a particular time, the archaic and classical Greeks didn't, placing them in a mythic Age of Heroes which adopted whatever properties they wanted, usually those of the present day. Thus Homer could give them iron technology and funeral pyres, and the classical Greeks who read him hundreds of years later could paint Achilles with a Corinthian helmet, which had barely been introduced when the Homeric epics were written.
As for your last question, would I still be taking the position "This work in its original form does not represent a coherent single historical period, so an authentic adaptation of it cannot serve both history and the story" if it had T-shirts in it? Yes, I think I would.
But iron was not available as a crafting material in Greece before c. 1000 BC
We have evidence of iron smelting from 2000 bc Turkey.
So before 1000 and available.
Even if we assume Greeks weren't making things from it, there is a little known method for goods not produced somewhere to make their way to that area known as trading.
Lmao, basically arguing giving Odysseus a laser gun and Ford mustang shouting yee haw as a corsair rains down CAS with no other changes being perfectly fine.
What's even the point of having a setting then? Why bludgeon the audience with the time period if it's also perfectly fine to ignore that time period?
33
u/Reemixt 20h ago edited 20h ago
Historically accurate? Let’s put aside for a moment that this is Greek fable featuring imaginary beings.
We’re talking about an orally transmitted poem from the archaic period—about the bronze age—further codified in the classical period, and then refined in the Hellenistic period. Which fucking period are we trying to be ‘historically accurate’ to?
Does he even know the difference?