That’s an amazing observation! I had not considered that the word “apparent” can mean both absence and presence. It’s very likely intentional. The more I think on the film, the more I think everything is a deception of some kind, including a word with a double meaning. I think that is the brilliance of the film. Just when you think you’ve figured it out, there is something more to it. You’ve given me a lot to think about! Now I want to go watch it again lol.
I'll be very curious to see how it holds up on a second watch for either of you. I think for me, some of my initial nitpicks (which were minimal to be clear) were reduced on the second viewing. Looking forward to more texts and phone calls in the coming months on this one.
Great writeup! Of course, I have my disagreements, which I look forward to discussing with you at length the next time we meet!
I've only seen it once, so I can't completely defend this perspective, and it might change! For now, though, I'll say maybe it's not that things beyond humanity are absent in the film, but that—ironically, just like Odysseus—you missed the signs. To me, those signs were incredibly clear, they just weren't rigidly defined as this or that. There are a few great moments where Odysseus makes the kind of noises you say Nolan does with the film as a whole, but then Athena contradicts those by saying, in effect, "It's all around you. How could you not see it?"
I think that's much more powerful, and a much more interesting way to depict that fundamental reality—that we don't really *know* what's out there, but *feel* it—in a way that aligns more with the experience of those walking around in that time.
Personally, I don't think Athena is a figment of Odysseus' imagination. I think she either manifested herself as that girl because she was a priestess of her temple and it struck Odysseus in that moment OR that beheading we *apparently* saw was Odysseus watching *the real Athena* get beheaded *because* her statue was being desecrated that way. The desecration of the god's avatar to Earth in statue form hurts the god in reality. Odysseus saw the affront to the gods in that moment as literal because of his dawning recognition of what he had done at Troy (a recontextualization which I love, and actually has a literary basis not just in The Odyssey itself but other texts like the Aeneid and others, so it's not totally invented by Nolan).
I think those are plausible interpretations, and in fact more plausible than the idea that Athena wasn't real *at all*. The scene on the beaches of Ithaca towards the end to me seal that deal, but also the fact that we are shown a cyclops and giants and witches and magic lotus flowers and sea monsters and Hades itself, teeming with the dead, without a wink or a chuckle. It's given to us mostly in flashbacks, sure, but it's given to us straight nonetheless. There is no indication the movie gives us that we shouldn't believe what we're seeing.
As for the ending, and the *apparent* message it communicates, well, I see it differently. Even though I *do* happen to agree that the hope for humanity lies within humanity itself (because I have no reason to believe in any god or gods), and that Nolan shows this hope throughout the story just as much as he shows humanity's problems (through beautiful moments of empathy, like with Circe, and love, like with Argus, etc.), I don't think that's all Nolan says with this interpretation or retelling.
Through the act of Odysseus and Penelope setting sail, leaving Ithaca after all that struggle and venturing out into the unknown to find the future, to find what's out there, I think Nolan is telling us the exact opposite of what you think he is. Human is all we are, but humanity is not all we have. There's more out there for humanity to find, and to use to make the world and humanity itself better. We have to look around and see it.
The more I reflect on Nolan’s Odyssey, the more I see the film as a deception at every level. Nothing is as it seems, and everything and everyone can be interpreted in different ways. In true Greek fashion, the only thing we can know is that we know nothing. For example, another commenter observed that “apparent” has a double meaning in the title card, which is true and irresolvable. You make some very interesting and compelling points, especially your understanding of Athena’s character, and I do not disagree with them. I think your interpretation is valid, but I would not disregard other interpretations of that scene with Athena. I think it is very possible that the gods are present but hidden. I also think it is very possible that the gods are entirely absent. I don’t see anything in the film that contradicts either of these interpretations, and I think that is the point. The film is intentionally ambiguous. I do not think there is a clear interpretation to be derived because that is the object of Nolan’s enterprise. By creating a film that is designed to deceive us, which is not a surprising thing to encounter in his filmography and consistent with the character of Odysseus, Nolan has laid traps and Trojan horses for all of us to reveal our assumptions, unexamined beliefs, and perhaps self-deceptions. It’s pareidolia; it’s a social experiment. That’s part of my problem with the film. Is there anything we can believe to be true or derive from the film with any sense of certainty? While entertaining and admirably thoughtful in its levels of deception, it is nothing more than a mirror, an inviting projection of our own understanding of ourselves and reality. It doesn’t say anything about who we ought to be, it simply shows us who we are, which is timely but not timeless like the great stories I believe Nolan sincerely respects and tried to adapt for our time and place. Telemachus is taught to win fights by deceiving opponents. He is encouraged to intentionally open his guard to lure a strike that can be countered and dealt with a deadly blow. Nolan is doing something similar with the film to each of us, but I struggle with that approach to storytelling because the only conclusion is skepticism. At the most, I do think it is reasonable to assume Nolan communicates his ultimate hope and faith in humanity through the Odyssey, not because I think it is intrinsically consistent within the film itself, but because it coheres with the trajectory of his filmography. Nolan’s film reveals something about me because I think that hope and faith, while not entirely baseless, is ultimately misplaced. To finish the quote of Dr. Robert Ford, with some added liberties, “The only thing your story tells me, Mr. Eduardo, is who you are.”
I am sure that you’re correct about all of that, but I don’t share your more negative view of it. I think the best art is a mirror, because art is perhaps the highest form of reflection.
When discussing Nolan's approach to the gods in the film, she writes, "Nolan’s vision of the world is not quite big enough to include either real gods or real people who might be different from us." She clearly and succinctly captures my own sentiment.
I guess, but it's all about what his intention is. I think he wanted to say something about us, today, with this story from yestermillennia. I think that's cool, and he's far from the first to do it.
I haven't seen the movie, but both the article and this comment make me absolutely want to, if only to understand how it sparked such different interpretations. I'm so fascinated by the phrase "apparent magic," what it means in the context of the movie, and whether the movie implies anything in particular about humanity or God(s).
Maybe what I'm really trying to say is ... I miss debating these sorts of things at staff retreats! :)
With all due respect, it seems to me that you’re giving way more credit to the film than it probably deserves. In my opinion, Nolan intentionally made the symbolism in the film opaque in order to have his cake and eat it too, and convince (most) people that it is deeper than it purports to be. That’s how I see it, at least.
Yes, I think that's spot on. Those were the exact words Tyler and I used after seeing the film for the first time. Nolan wants to have his cake and eat it too. If Nolan had committed to taking the symbolism in a particular direction, the film would have been more consistent and effective.
You think Christopher Nolan intentionally filled his movie with shallow symbolism so that people would think it's deeper than it actually is even though he never intended it to be? Why would he waste time doing that instead of just saying what he wants to say with the movie and making it as deep as he wants it to be?
I don't think the symbolism is opaque at all. In fact, Nolan is often criticized for being too ham-handed with the thematic point he's trying to make. If anything, he makes it too obvious. But, as with Inception and other films of his, there are still people who seem to completely miss it. I find this fascinating.
Of course I can be wrong, but to me it's pretty clear what's going on in the film, and the idea that Nolan is attempting to be thematically noncommital makes no sense.
I won't claim to know what Nolan intended. That's hard, if not impossible, to say. Whether it was intentional or not, I think we are given shallow symbolism nonetheless. I think Nolan is so focused on the film's deceptions that it dilutes the inception of the idea(s) he is trying to communicate. Pun intended. If Nolan and the film were perspicuous, as you say, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
What thematic point do you think Nolan is clearly making? I have lost the thread on that point lol.
Depends what aspect of it you're asking about, but my initial response probably covers it.
If he had made it absolutely explicit that the gods are real, for example, it would have taken away from the sense we get that these are people trying their best to understand and navigate a world that is bigger than them. The ambiguity reflects reality there, and I think that's very interesting and cool. I don't think that's him trying to eat his cake and have it too.
Rather, I think it's him trying to show how much is unknown and unknowable in the world—which makes the world bigger and more frightening as a result. And in turn, it makes the consequences of breaking those civilizational bonds much more devastating.
One thing that makes Odysseus' journey so harrowing is that those civilizational structures don't exist in those places where he landed. They can't count on Zeus' law with the cyclops. Circe is a woman struggling with the absence of such a law and acting accordingly to protect herself from the savages that arrive on her island. The Laestrygonians couldn't give two shits about whether Odysseus and his men come in peace. The world is terrifying, huge, and hostile. Civilization is what we created to help us survive it—and Odysseus spit in civilization's face.
That's all pretty clearly there to me and I only saw the film once.
Yes, I largely agree with you and see the point Nolan is trying to make. The point is clear, but there is a contradiction because of the ambiguous way Nolan presents the gods and the realities of the world he creates.
Nolan wants us to believe that Zeus' law is crucially important, which is essential for understanding the weight of Odysseus' violations against it and the consequences that follow for the world at large as the film unfolds, yet he simultaneously makes us, as the audience, not just the characters in the film, question the existence of the gods through his ambiguity.
This is one of many issues Emily Wilson had with the film. She writes, "It’s a challenge to represent deities on film without veering into Clash of the Titans silliness, so Nolan may have been sensible to leave them out. Even Zendaya’s underwritten Athena turns out to be a vulnerable victim of war, or perhaps a projection of Odysseus’ conscience – not a scheming and bloodthirsty war goddess. Other goddesses appear in cameo – Calypso, the seal-lady Sirens, Circe, Scylla and Charybdis – but there is no sign that we are supposed to realise they are goddesses. Poseidon, Hermes and Helius do not appear in person, although there are some scary storms and shipwrecks. One of my favourite moments was when Zendaya assures Damon that gods are not hard for mortals to understand: ‘Who doesn’t understand thunder? Fire?’ But the film wants to have it both ways. There are no gods, and yet shipwrecks and death are presented as the inevitable consequence of blinding the son of Poseidon and devouring the Cattle of the Sun. Zeus’ law is portrayed as being crucially important, and yet there is no Zeus."
The distinction between what we, the audience, are meant to believe and the beliefs of the characters is important to recognize. Because of the ambiguity Nolan bakes into the film, there isn't a way to resolve the contradiction surrounding the clear, central point he is trying to make to us as the audience about the importance of Zeus' law and the implications of violating it. I think the issues with his ambiguity permeate other aspects of the film and ultimately undermine the point(s) he is trying to communicate to us.
I don't really see a conflict between Zeus' law, and the people of that time's strict adherence to and reverence for it, and the ambiguity surrounding whether or not the gods actually exist. That's how we operate right now.
I think Emily Wilson has a chip on her shoulder and seems not to enjoy or understand movies very much. From what I've seen on her review, it seems excessive and grumpy and largely incorrect when there are facts to back up her opinions.
You're assuming "there are no gods" in this film, and as a result you think there's a contradiction. I think "we don't see the gods," and why would we? We are mortals. In reference to the cyclops and why it didn't try to talk to Odysseus and his men, Odysseus says "Would you try to talk to an ant?" Ok, so why expect a god to do it if even a cyclops wouldn't?
Zeus' law is important regardless of whether there is a Zeus, because Zeus' law isn't about the gods. It's about us. That's the point Nolan is making in my view.
A well written article but I think you're selling the movie a little short. I think Nolan's choice to portray the gods at a remove from humanity doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist in the story. At the beginning Odysseus challenges Athena and she responds that the gods do talk to humanity, they just do it through nature. While there are moral and natural explanations for the events of the movie (assuming a bit if folk magic) I think it also supports and even encourages the reading that these actions are the result of divine law. I think even the titular epigraph can be read either way: apparent can mean not actually there, but it can absolutely mean the complete opposite of *actually visible*.
(I also cannot verify this because I missed it the first time, but I've heard it said that after Odysseus washes up in Ithaca and talks to Athena he's later seen wearing her cloak?)
An incredibly insightful read on the movie. The double entendres of “apparent” is an angle I hadn’t considered. Thank you. You’ve given us much to think of.
That’s an amazing observation! I had not considered that the word “apparent” can mean both absence and presence. It’s very likely intentional. The more I think on the film, the more I think everything is a deception of some kind, including a word with a double meaning. I think that is the brilliance of the film. Just when you think you’ve figured it out, there is something more to it. You’ve given me a lot to think about! Now I want to go watch it again lol.
I'll be very curious to see how it holds up on a second watch for either of you. I think for me, some of my initial nitpicks (which were minimal to be clear) were reduced on the second viewing. Looking forward to more texts and phone calls in the coming months on this one.
Great writeup! Of course, I have my disagreements, which I look forward to discussing with you at length the next time we meet!
I've only seen it once, so I can't completely defend this perspective, and it might change! For now, though, I'll say maybe it's not that things beyond humanity are absent in the film, but that—ironically, just like Odysseus—you missed the signs. To me, those signs were incredibly clear, they just weren't rigidly defined as this or that. There are a few great moments where Odysseus makes the kind of noises you say Nolan does with the film as a whole, but then Athena contradicts those by saying, in effect, "It's all around you. How could you not see it?"
I think that's much more powerful, and a much more interesting way to depict that fundamental reality—that we don't really *know* what's out there, but *feel* it—in a way that aligns more with the experience of those walking around in that time.
Personally, I don't think Athena is a figment of Odysseus' imagination. I think she either manifested herself as that girl because she was a priestess of her temple and it struck Odysseus in that moment OR that beheading we *apparently* saw was Odysseus watching *the real Athena* get beheaded *because* her statue was being desecrated that way. The desecration of the god's avatar to Earth in statue form hurts the god in reality. Odysseus saw the affront to the gods in that moment as literal because of his dawning recognition of what he had done at Troy (a recontextualization which I love, and actually has a literary basis not just in The Odyssey itself but other texts like the Aeneid and others, so it's not totally invented by Nolan).
I think those are plausible interpretations, and in fact more plausible than the idea that Athena wasn't real *at all*. The scene on the beaches of Ithaca towards the end to me seal that deal, but also the fact that we are shown a cyclops and giants and witches and magic lotus flowers and sea monsters and Hades itself, teeming with the dead, without a wink or a chuckle. It's given to us mostly in flashbacks, sure, but it's given to us straight nonetheless. There is no indication the movie gives us that we shouldn't believe what we're seeing.
As for the ending, and the *apparent* message it communicates, well, I see it differently. Even though I *do* happen to agree that the hope for humanity lies within humanity itself (because I have no reason to believe in any god or gods), and that Nolan shows this hope throughout the story just as much as he shows humanity's problems (through beautiful moments of empathy, like with Circe, and love, like with Argus, etc.), I don't think that's all Nolan says with this interpretation or retelling.
Through the act of Odysseus and Penelope setting sail, leaving Ithaca after all that struggle and venturing out into the unknown to find the future, to find what's out there, I think Nolan is telling us the exact opposite of what you think he is. Human is all we are, but humanity is not all we have. There's more out there for humanity to find, and to use to make the world and humanity itself better. We have to look around and see it.
It's all around you. How can you not see it?
The more I reflect on Nolan’s Odyssey, the more I see the film as a deception at every level. Nothing is as it seems, and everything and everyone can be interpreted in different ways. In true Greek fashion, the only thing we can know is that we know nothing. For example, another commenter observed that “apparent” has a double meaning in the title card, which is true and irresolvable. You make some very interesting and compelling points, especially your understanding of Athena’s character, and I do not disagree with them. I think your interpretation is valid, but I would not disregard other interpretations of that scene with Athena. I think it is very possible that the gods are present but hidden. I also think it is very possible that the gods are entirely absent. I don’t see anything in the film that contradicts either of these interpretations, and I think that is the point. The film is intentionally ambiguous. I do not think there is a clear interpretation to be derived because that is the object of Nolan’s enterprise. By creating a film that is designed to deceive us, which is not a surprising thing to encounter in his filmography and consistent with the character of Odysseus, Nolan has laid traps and Trojan horses for all of us to reveal our assumptions, unexamined beliefs, and perhaps self-deceptions. It’s pareidolia; it’s a social experiment. That’s part of my problem with the film. Is there anything we can believe to be true or derive from the film with any sense of certainty? While entertaining and admirably thoughtful in its levels of deception, it is nothing more than a mirror, an inviting projection of our own understanding of ourselves and reality. It doesn’t say anything about who we ought to be, it simply shows us who we are, which is timely but not timeless like the great stories I believe Nolan sincerely respects and tried to adapt for our time and place. Telemachus is taught to win fights by deceiving opponents. He is encouraged to intentionally open his guard to lure a strike that can be countered and dealt with a deadly blow. Nolan is doing something similar with the film to each of us, but I struggle with that approach to storytelling because the only conclusion is skepticism. At the most, I do think it is reasonable to assume Nolan communicates his ultimate hope and faith in humanity through the Odyssey, not because I think it is intrinsically consistent within the film itself, but because it coheres with the trajectory of his filmography. Nolan’s film reveals something about me because I think that hope and faith, while not entirely baseless, is ultimately misplaced. To finish the quote of Dr. Robert Ford, with some added liberties, “The only thing your story tells me, Mr. Eduardo, is who you are.”
I am sure that you’re correct about all of that, but I don’t share your more negative view of it. I think the best art is a mirror, because art is perhaps the highest form of reflection.
Certainly! I couldn't agree more, but mirrors differ in kind and quality. I think Nolan's mirror offers a poor reflection.
Emily Wilson's very recent review makes similar critiques: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man
When discussing Nolan's approach to the gods in the film, she writes, "Nolan’s vision of the world is not quite big enough to include either real gods or real people who might be different from us." She clearly and succinctly captures my own sentiment.
I guess, but it's all about what his intention is. I think he wanted to say something about us, today, with this story from yestermillennia. I think that's cool, and he's far from the first to do it.
I haven't seen the movie, but both the article and this comment make me absolutely want to, if only to understand how it sparked such different interpretations. I'm so fascinated by the phrase "apparent magic," what it means in the context of the movie, and whether the movie implies anything in particular about humanity or God(s).
Maybe what I'm really trying to say is ... I miss debating these sorts of things at staff retreats! :)
Yes, go see the film! Then come back and tell us what you think. Join in and settle this debate for us lol
hahahhah challenge accepted
We miss you Talia!
With all due respect, it seems to me that you’re giving way more credit to the film than it probably deserves. In my opinion, Nolan intentionally made the symbolism in the film opaque in order to have his cake and eat it too, and convince (most) people that it is deeper than it purports to be. That’s how I see it, at least.
Yes, I think that's spot on. Those were the exact words Tyler and I used after seeing the film for the first time. Nolan wants to have his cake and eat it too. If Nolan had committed to taking the symbolism in a particular direction, the film would have been more consistent and effective.
You think Christopher Nolan intentionally filled his movie with shallow symbolism so that people would think it's deeper than it actually is even though he never intended it to be? Why would he waste time doing that instead of just saying what he wants to say with the movie and making it as deep as he wants it to be?
I don't think the symbolism is opaque at all. In fact, Nolan is often criticized for being too ham-handed with the thematic point he's trying to make. If anything, he makes it too obvious. But, as with Inception and other films of his, there are still people who seem to completely miss it. I find this fascinating.
Of course I can be wrong, but to me it's pretty clear what's going on in the film, and the idea that Nolan is attempting to be thematically noncommital makes no sense.
I won't claim to know what Nolan intended. That's hard, if not impossible, to say. Whether it was intentional or not, I think we are given shallow symbolism nonetheless. I think Nolan is so focused on the film's deceptions that it dilutes the inception of the idea(s) he is trying to communicate. Pun intended. If Nolan and the film were perspicuous, as you say, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
What thematic point do you think Nolan is clearly making? I have lost the thread on that point lol.
Depends what aspect of it you're asking about, but my initial response probably covers it.
If he had made it absolutely explicit that the gods are real, for example, it would have taken away from the sense we get that these are people trying their best to understand and navigate a world that is bigger than them. The ambiguity reflects reality there, and I think that's very interesting and cool. I don't think that's him trying to eat his cake and have it too.
Rather, I think it's him trying to show how much is unknown and unknowable in the world—which makes the world bigger and more frightening as a result. And in turn, it makes the consequences of breaking those civilizational bonds much more devastating.
One thing that makes Odysseus' journey so harrowing is that those civilizational structures don't exist in those places where he landed. They can't count on Zeus' law with the cyclops. Circe is a woman struggling with the absence of such a law and acting accordingly to protect herself from the savages that arrive on her island. The Laestrygonians couldn't give two shits about whether Odysseus and his men come in peace. The world is terrifying, huge, and hostile. Civilization is what we created to help us survive it—and Odysseus spit in civilization's face.
That's all pretty clearly there to me and I only saw the film once.
Yes, I largely agree with you and see the point Nolan is trying to make. The point is clear, but there is a contradiction because of the ambiguous way Nolan presents the gods and the realities of the world he creates.
Nolan wants us to believe that Zeus' law is crucially important, which is essential for understanding the weight of Odysseus' violations against it and the consequences that follow for the world at large as the film unfolds, yet he simultaneously makes us, as the audience, not just the characters in the film, question the existence of the gods through his ambiguity.
This is one of many issues Emily Wilson had with the film. She writes, "It’s a challenge to represent deities on film without veering into Clash of the Titans silliness, so Nolan may have been sensible to leave them out. Even Zendaya’s underwritten Athena turns out to be a vulnerable victim of war, or perhaps a projection of Odysseus’ conscience – not a scheming and bloodthirsty war goddess. Other goddesses appear in cameo – Calypso, the seal-lady Sirens, Circe, Scylla and Charybdis – but there is no sign that we are supposed to realise they are goddesses. Poseidon, Hermes and Helius do not appear in person, although there are some scary storms and shipwrecks. One of my favourite moments was when Zendaya assures Damon that gods are not hard for mortals to understand: ‘Who doesn’t understand thunder? Fire?’ But the film wants to have it both ways. There are no gods, and yet shipwrecks and death are presented as the inevitable consequence of blinding the son of Poseidon and devouring the Cattle of the Sun. Zeus’ law is portrayed as being crucially important, and yet there is no Zeus."
The distinction between what we, the audience, are meant to believe and the beliefs of the characters is important to recognize. Because of the ambiguity Nolan bakes into the film, there isn't a way to resolve the contradiction surrounding the clear, central point he is trying to make to us as the audience about the importance of Zeus' law and the implications of violating it. I think the issues with his ambiguity permeate other aspects of the film and ultimately undermine the point(s) he is trying to communicate to us.
I don't really see a conflict between Zeus' law, and the people of that time's strict adherence to and reverence for it, and the ambiguity surrounding whether or not the gods actually exist. That's how we operate right now.
I think Emily Wilson has a chip on her shoulder and seems not to enjoy or understand movies very much. From what I've seen on her review, it seems excessive and grumpy and largely incorrect when there are facts to back up her opinions.
You're assuming "there are no gods" in this film, and as a result you think there's a contradiction. I think "we don't see the gods," and why would we? We are mortals. In reference to the cyclops and why it didn't try to talk to Odysseus and his men, Odysseus says "Would you try to talk to an ant?" Ok, so why expect a god to do it if even a cyclops wouldn't?
Zeus' law is important regardless of whether there is a Zeus, because Zeus' law isn't about the gods. It's about us. That's the point Nolan is making in my view.
A well written article but I think you're selling the movie a little short. I think Nolan's choice to portray the gods at a remove from humanity doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist in the story. At the beginning Odysseus challenges Athena and she responds that the gods do talk to humanity, they just do it through nature. While there are moral and natural explanations for the events of the movie (assuming a bit if folk magic) I think it also supports and even encourages the reading that these actions are the result of divine law. I think even the titular epigraph can be read either way: apparent can mean not actually there, but it can absolutely mean the complete opposite of *actually visible*.
(I also cannot verify this because I missed it the first time, but I've heard it said that after Odysseus washes up in Ithaca and talks to Athena he's later seen wearing her cloak?)
An incredibly insightful read on the movie. The double entendres of “apparent” is an angle I hadn’t considered. Thank you. You’ve given us much to think of.