Without a doubt, I believe that Homer’s two epic stories – The Iliad and The Odyssey – remain some of the greatest literature since ink was ever put to paper.
The truth about both stories that some still refuse to accept is that, originally, these were spoken-word narratives, the kind of thing said and passed down from generation to generation long before they could ever appear on a printed page. These epic poems were the original stuff of performance art; and – given their length and scope – I can’t even begin to imagine the process any gifted speaker would have gone through to commit one – much less both – to memory. Granted, our society has changed over the years – meaning that there isn’t nearly the same kind of entertainment delivered today than was way, way, way back then – and yet the truth remains that anyone who could’ve accomplished this probably knew far more about establishing and maintaining an audience than do storytellers today.
Because I’ve always been fond of them – The Odyssey perhaps a bit more than The Iliad – I’ve always sought out the various theatrical incarnations that have been produced over the years. Granted, I haven’t seen all of them, but I’ve still made a concerted effort to acquaint myself with both theatrical and televised interpretations (as well as a few different printed translations); which is, chiefly, my reason for wanting to use this space on SciFiHistory.Net to say something about Troy (2004), director Wolfgang Petersen’s big screen opus. The version was scripted by David Benioff (of HBO Game Of Thrones’ fame or notoriety, depending upon one’s feelings about how that program turned out); and it starred Eric Bana, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, and a cast of … well … hundreds, I suspect.
For those completely unaware, the story of the Trojan War is the stuff that is recounted in Homer’s The Iliad. (Believe it or not, there are some who don’t realize that, not that one has to know.) It’s an expansive tale that explores love, loss, and liberty in a way few yarns do – much less filmed interpretations – and, undoubtedly, it’s probably about as faithful as adaptation that audiences might ever see. That’s saying something in and of itself; and that fact alone is reason enough to give it a watch.
But … you want even more reasons?
Well, let me list a few …
The truth about both stories that some still refuse to accept is that, originally, these were spoken-word narratives, the kind of thing said and passed down from generation to generation long before they could ever appear on a printed page. These epic poems were the original stuff of performance art; and – given their length and scope – I can’t even begin to imagine the process any gifted speaker would have gone through to commit one – much less both – to memory. Granted, our society has changed over the years – meaning that there isn’t nearly the same kind of entertainment delivered today than was way, way, way back then – and yet the truth remains that anyone who could’ve accomplished this probably knew far more about establishing and maintaining an audience than do storytellers today.
Because I’ve always been fond of them – The Odyssey perhaps a bit more than The Iliad – I’ve always sought out the various theatrical incarnations that have been produced over the years. Granted, I haven’t seen all of them, but I’ve still made a concerted effort to acquaint myself with both theatrical and televised interpretations (as well as a few different printed translations); which is, chiefly, my reason for wanting to use this space on SciFiHistory.Net to say something about Troy (2004), director Wolfgang Petersen’s big screen opus. The version was scripted by David Benioff (of HBO Game Of Thrones’ fame or notoriety, depending upon one’s feelings about how that program turned out); and it starred Eric Bana, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, and a cast of … well … hundreds, I suspect.
For those completely unaware, the story of the Trojan War is the stuff that is recounted in Homer’s The Iliad. (Believe it or not, there are some who don’t realize that, not that one has to know.) It’s an expansive tale that explores love, loss, and liberty in a way few yarns do – much less filmed interpretations – and, undoubtedly, it’s probably about as faithful as adaptation that audiences might ever see. That’s saying something in and of itself; and that fact alone is reason enough to give it a watch.
But … you want even more reasons?
Well, let me list a few …
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“An adaptation of Homer's great epic, the film follows the assault on Troy by the united Greek forces.”
When dealing with trying to summarize a work as intellectually exhaustive as is Homer’s The Iliad, I think it’s only fair to take certain liberties in order to deliver something entirely relatable to whatever generation you’re dealing with.
Now, in no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that one of the seminal works in literature get dumbed down. My point is that The Iliad stylistically meant something a bit more to the people of its native era than it does to today’s cynical viewers. For example, the gods aren’t philandering in our every day affairs (or, at least, most wouldn’t accept such a possibility in modern times). Furthermore, the actual war lasted approximately a whole decade, making it entirely acceptable for screenwriters to compress some of that passage of time for the purpose of shifting the significance of some events and morph them into different cause/effect moments. Also, warfare in the Bronze Age – generally accepted to be when this classical throwdown took place – was largely limited to men with swords, shields, and spears; and rarely – if ever – were horses and/or a cavalry of any type found in these campaigns.
In order to tighten up the narrative, director Petersen and scripter Benioff had to change things up a bit. While historians, academics, and some critics might understandably take issue with some of these changes, I’d argue that they’re substantively insignificant so long as there’s no alternation to the premise around which such occurrences align to the source material. Sticking to such cold and hard facts might impede a modern audience’s ability to relate to it; so, a few minor tinkerings here and there should not distract from what can ultimately be achieved in rendering one of mankind’s greatest meaningful adventures.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“An adaptation of Homer's great epic, the film follows the assault on Troy by the united Greek forces.”
When dealing with trying to summarize a work as intellectually exhaustive as is Homer’s The Iliad, I think it’s only fair to take certain liberties in order to deliver something entirely relatable to whatever generation you’re dealing with.
Now, in no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that one of the seminal works in literature get dumbed down. My point is that The Iliad stylistically meant something a bit more to the people of its native era than it does to today’s cynical viewers. For example, the gods aren’t philandering in our every day affairs (or, at least, most wouldn’t accept such a possibility in modern times). Furthermore, the actual war lasted approximately a whole decade, making it entirely acceptable for screenwriters to compress some of that passage of time for the purpose of shifting the significance of some events and morph them into different cause/effect moments. Also, warfare in the Bronze Age – generally accepted to be when this classical throwdown took place – was largely limited to men with swords, shields, and spears; and rarely – if ever – were horses and/or a cavalry of any type found in these campaigns.
In order to tighten up the narrative, director Petersen and scripter Benioff had to change things up a bit. While historians, academics, and some critics might understandably take issue with some of these changes, I’d argue that they’re substantively insignificant so long as there’s no alternation to the premise around which such occurrences align to the source material. Sticking to such cold and hard facts might impede a modern audience’s ability to relate to it; so, a few minor tinkerings here and there should not distract from what can ultimately be achieved in rendering one of mankind’s greatest meaningful adventures.
Thus, with a bit of creative alterations Troy succeeds as an epic accounting of men in a world wherein gods exist mostly as ‘influencers,’ a sentiment which now – in 2025 – might mean a helluva lot more to newcomers than it did just over two decades ago when it first screened. Certainly, there’s mention of these higher beings, but the film never cracks the seal at showing them in any way other than deities worshipped. While purists might’ve appreciated a bit more, I think they can still accept a crafty bit of cosmetic surgery that was required in order to get this one ‘in the can,’ as they say. Positioning it as a conflict between men and their nations works; and I’ll say nothing more on that point.
Still, my biggest complaint regarding any of what’s delivered in Troy is that – foundationally – it’s a difficult story to tell because it lacks a central good versus evil throughline.
Removing the gods from the grand equation, the script essentially turns everything into an us versus them mentality where neither side is inherently noble or villainous except with casting and contextual considerations provided by the filmmakers. In order words, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Achilles could be shown as champions just as easily as they could be conquerors except for the fact that Petersen cast Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, and Brad Pitt (respectively) knowing full well that Achilles – with Pitt’s youthful visage and muscular physique – would be accepted as the ‘golden boy’ here resisting the oppressive machinations of his superiors. That’s how it’s all played for those of us watching; and we accept it mostly because of the aesthetics, not because that’s how it was in The Iliad.
Given the fact that Menelaus’ wife Helen (played by Diane Kruger) is the sole reason the man was prompted to head off to this distant land and recover his bride, am I to see him as a bad guy here? In the way that Petersen and Benioff maintain? Why is he evil for wishing to see that which was his to be returned? It would be different if, contextually, they had inserted some scenes which underscored Helen’s need to escape her life – we’re truly given no major background other than her personal happiness (or lack thereof) – but given that no one saw that necessary I’m a bit at a loss over what to make of the lady’s motivations.
This vagueness plagues a good deal of Troy, not to say that it corrupts the entire feature. When motivations aren’t spelled out cleanly, the audience is left to determine which characters are deserving of their emotional support; and this weakens some of the smaller moments that add up to the whole. Given the fact that it was intended to be a single-film production, I can only guess that such deficiencies were the unintended result of trimming the effort to a marketable length … the Achilles’ heel of every flick based on a story nearing The Iliad’s length. Such will always be the case.
Still, my biggest complaint regarding any of what’s delivered in Troy is that – foundationally – it’s a difficult story to tell because it lacks a central good versus evil throughline.
Removing the gods from the grand equation, the script essentially turns everything into an us versus them mentality where neither side is inherently noble or villainous except with casting and contextual considerations provided by the filmmakers. In order words, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Achilles could be shown as champions just as easily as they could be conquerors except for the fact that Petersen cast Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, and Brad Pitt (respectively) knowing full well that Achilles – with Pitt’s youthful visage and muscular physique – would be accepted as the ‘golden boy’ here resisting the oppressive machinations of his superiors. That’s how it’s all played for those of us watching; and we accept it mostly because of the aesthetics, not because that’s how it was in The Iliad.
Given the fact that Menelaus’ wife Helen (played by Diane Kruger) is the sole reason the man was prompted to head off to this distant land and recover his bride, am I to see him as a bad guy here? In the way that Petersen and Benioff maintain? Why is he evil for wishing to see that which was his to be returned? It would be different if, contextually, they had inserted some scenes which underscored Helen’s need to escape her life – we’re truly given no major background other than her personal happiness (or lack thereof) – but given that no one saw that necessary I’m a bit at a loss over what to make of the lady’s motivations.
This vagueness plagues a good deal of Troy, not to say that it corrupts the entire feature. When motivations aren’t spelled out cleanly, the audience is left to determine which characters are deserving of their emotional support; and this weakens some of the smaller moments that add up to the whole. Given the fact that it was intended to be a single-film production, I can only guess that such deficiencies were the unintended result of trimming the effort to a marketable length … the Achilles’ heel of every flick based on a story nearing The Iliad’s length. Such will always be the case.
Otherwise, Troy excels. The cast is solid. The production detail is exquisite. And the three-hour cut adequately hits enough high points to make it an easy recommendation. It’s the kind of theatrical opus Hollywood used to make more of back in the day; and I, for one, have no trouble singing its praises even though I’ll likely always favor the source material over any filmed interpretation. It may not say what The Iliad meant to say; and yet it has a voice all of its own worth listening to.
Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) was produced by Warner Bros., Helena Productions, Radiant Productions, Plan B Entertainment, and Nimar Studios. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by Warner Bros. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start to finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Gods be praised! The disc boasts an astonishing assortment of behind-the-scenes extras, the likes of which will be keeping me busy for hours on end. It’s truly a collection something like The Iliad deserves, so hats off to all involved for making this one worthy of the word ‘legend.’
Highest Recommendation Possible.
While a good degree of my praise for Troy (2004) could be owed to the fact alone that I’m such an unabashed fan of the source material, I’d still point to the picture as exactly the kind of theatrical interpretation that deserves greater consideration. Yes, it’s thematically different from The Iliad – books and films are cerebrally different experiences anyway – and changes have been made in order to craft a vision unique unto the people and places that make up this chapter in human history and myth. The scope and scale feel proper; and the cast and crew take audiences back to a time when men were men, women were women, and gods were praised … or else. Come for the story but stay for the spectacle.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) by request for the expressed purpose of creating this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) was produced by Warner Bros., Helena Productions, Radiant Productions, Plan B Entertainment, and Nimar Studios. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by Warner Bros. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start to finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Gods be praised! The disc boasts an astonishing assortment of behind-the-scenes extras, the likes of which will be keeping me busy for hours on end. It’s truly a collection something like The Iliad deserves, so hats off to all involved for making this one worthy of the word ‘legend.’
Highest Recommendation Possible.
While a good degree of my praise for Troy (2004) could be owed to the fact alone that I’m such an unabashed fan of the source material, I’d still point to the picture as exactly the kind of theatrical interpretation that deserves greater consideration. Yes, it’s thematically different from The Iliad – books and films are cerebrally different experiences anyway – and changes have been made in order to craft a vision unique unto the people and places that make up this chapter in human history and myth. The scope and scale feel proper; and the cast and crew take audiences back to a time when men were men, women were women, and gods were praised … or else. Come for the story but stay for the spectacle.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) by request for the expressed purpose of creating this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed