Christopher Nolan talks narrative decisions, film critics and whether he Christianised The Odyssey

All right.

Hello, Mr. Nolan.

Hello.

Nice to meet you. Um

Well, filmmakers are bards of the modern age, just like the Greeks know of Odysseus, Achilles, Agamemnon because of um Homer's narratives, we know of the

Batman, the Joker, and Oppenheimer because of your narratives. And Homer

tells stories of dis- distant past. You,

too. The Trojan War happened between 12th to 11th century BC, but Homer lived in the 8th century BC. So, that's a long time ago. Um

time ago. Um But, Homer's time was a time of rise. It

was a time of civilizational rise. The

Greeks were um uh prospering as as as a culture. The the economy, the the the

culture. The the economy, the the the books, the the thinking, everything is on on the rise um for a couple hundred years, really until the 5th century BC.

So, Homer's tone was celebratory.

Mhm.

Um it was victorious. He celebrates He celebrates the victory of of the war.

And your tone is emphatically not. So, I

guess my first question is um does that say something about our age? Are you a bard for a civilization at dusk?

[laughter] I think it's a really interesting point, a really interesting question. I mean,

underlying the the main part of the point is this 400-year or so gap between the events that that Homer's describing and when Homer's story was written down or you know, first received by readers and

audiences.

Uh that's a pretty interesting gap. And

[snorts] for me, I don't think I'm completely at odds with the way Homer's telling a story uh when you look at it from a sort of historical perspective. And the reason

historical perspective. And the reason is, and what I got interested in, you know, as I adapted it, is that Homer's writing about an era before his.

He's writing about an era hundreds of years before that his audience viewed as being more uh advanced than theirs.

So, they were a civilization on the rise, but they were trying to get back to where they'd been 400 years before.

So, that idea of a cycle, that idea of, as you say, a civilization at dusk, I think it's there in the poem. It's

subtle, but when you you look at the history as well, and you look at the idea that, you know, when they went on Earth, these walls of old palaces that were crumbled, they called them Cyclopean walls because they thought

only a giant could have built such grand walls, you know. They had this idea of the greatness of this past civilization.

And so, I became interested by that collapse, that what they call the catastrophe, the Bronze Age collapse.

You know, what happens between the events of the Trojan War and and Homer.

And so, yeah, I I think it's something that that from a modern perspective is it's frightening and interesting and intriguing. And I think for me, it

intriguing. And I think for me, it partly comes out of having worked on Oppenheimer before this, which is very much a a film about the end of the world, about the end of all collapse of civilization, ultimately. So, I think,

civilization, ultimately. So, I think, yeah, I definitely carried that that sensibility into this adaptation of the Odyssey.

I mean, one thing that captured me was that the concept of atonement doesn't exist in Greek culture. It doesn't exist in the Greek language. Um it doesn't exist in Homer's Odyssey.

Mhm.

It exists in your Odyssey. Um so, I guess the a natural question that I had when watching the film was, "Did you Christianize the Odyssey?" Um do you think that atonement Why did atonement

become important for the coming of of of catastrophe?

I think I think it's a really good question.

I wasn't too conscious in how I was approaching it philosophically other than I really honed in on the idea of of what what's termed xenia. Uh in the film, we

call it Zeus's law for simplicity, but it's that idea of mutual respect, that I treat you the way I want to be treated.

And in their theology, it's because you might be a god in disguise.

So, I really drilled down on that, and I started to realize that for me, a lot of what's interesting about the interaction of of history and mythology is this idea of uh the Sea

Peoples. It's the idea of the people

Peoples. It's the idea of the people from the sea who were thought to have precipitated the Bronze Age Collapse. It's one of the great mysteries of history, like who were they? But the idea that really a

were they? But the idea that really a violation of xenia, a violation of Zeus's law, which is what the suitors are doing in the palace that that really it's that break of of

Zeus's law that is causing this difficulty and this damage. I think the idea of atonement in a way is what we bring as viewers to the story.

I don't know whether really is atonement in the film or whether we just feel that that that's the catharsis or that's the process we're seeing in the final meeting that we've waited for between

Odysseus and Penelope, but I think in a way we may be bringing our more modern sensibility to that. Uh

but it's I think it's a very interesting question, and and in so far as it's there, it's not a deliberate attempt to, for example, Christianize it, but it's an outgrowth or it's a it's a natural conclusion of borrowing in on this

philosophical idea of what happens when you break Zeus's law.

Mhm. I guess from what you're saying, um the connection between atonement, which is the perspective of a Christian world, and xenia, which is the perspective inherent in the Greek world, what

connects them is is the fact of war.

What is the response to war? Um

and and you still want to say that the presentation is inherent in the Greek mythology mythological um worldview that um war happened when hospitality or

xenia is is broken.

I think so. Um

and I think that it sometimes is difficult to draw a line. I think

academics often maybe are too dogmatic in drawing a line between different philosophies and as they evolve historically, because I think I was more interested in the commonalities. Because

one of the things I found is that once you ignore the theological underpinning of xenia, what you realize is that it it is what we in modern terms call the golden rule,

you know, this idea of treat others as you would be treated has never really changed over time. The reasons that that we try to hold people to that might have changed.

But the idea itself hasn't changed. And

what I came to think is that what the poem to me is saying or inspiring me is the idea of uh civilization depends on this [snorts] rule.

And possibly is even defined by it. And

that to me was a really interesting thing to realize that this ancient text to me speaks directly to the modern world because I think we live in a world where the concept of xenia, the concept of mutual respect is more challenged I think than it's ever been in more

obvious ways than it's ever been. And I

think we see the negative effects of that in terms of what defines civilization, what binds us together.

Mhm.

Right. Here's another great concept that is challenged in our world, hubris. Um

there's another You've already started to complain about academics and I feel like the next question will expose [laughter] me even more. There's another

great book written by another great man, uh Thucydides' Peloponnesian War also has a central theme on the hubris of the Athenians. He blamed the fall of the

Athenians. He blamed the fall of the greatest civilization in the world, um Athenian democracy, on the hubris of the Athenians.

Yeah.

Um your film centralizes on the hubris of one man, the the human pride of one specific man.

Yeah.

My question is um should should Odysseus repent for his human pride? Maybe pride

appropriate for a great man?

[snorts] I mean, I suppose the question could be asked what difference would it make if he repented. You know, and that's the

repented. You know, and that's the interesting thing about these philosophical approaches is that the his repentance would be purely internal.

It would purely be for his own uh spiritual self. It wouldn't

necessarily anything outside it because the damage is done.

Uh, Xenia's broken maybe for all time. I

mean, that's that's the interesting thing. I I think,

thing. I I think, you know, that is the thing about hubris. That is the thing about, you

hubris. That is the thing about, you know, it's it's tragic because it's it's irreversible, essentially. And that's

irreversible, essentially. And that's where Christian Christian theology looks at it in a different way, but in a practical sense doesn't necessarily change Yeah.

what's happened. And therefore, in storytelling terms, isn't isn't necessarily relevant. You know, that

necessarily relevant. You know, that that's that's when I say we bring our understanding to it. So, we feel that there's catharsis because there's confession, because there's honesty and

intimacy between Odysseus and Penelope.

And that was very important to me, and I'm very invested in that emotionally.

Mhm.

But if it has a practical effect, and the collapse is coming anyway, the catastrophe is coming, you know, what difference does it make for your appearance? You know, that that's the interesting thing. You know,

are we concerned with his spiritual well-being, or are we concerned with the the world that he lives in, and the world that that in some sense he feels he's damaged?

We live in age that demands apology from from greatness.

Yeah.

Um, great storytellers, when they portray greatness, you know, Homer celebrates it. We circle around it, we

celebrates it. We circle around it, we dance around it, we turn greatness into privileges, and and we demand apologies for it. That's a fact of Hollywood. And

for it. That's a fact of Hollywood. And

I'm just wondering if you as one [snorts] of the greatest storytellers of our age, um, how you how do you approach greatness? Is it still a story of

greatness? Is it still a story of apology, and and that demands repentance, and reflection, and self-criticism?

Well, I think that that when you're talking about storytelling, you always in conversation with the expectations of the audience. So, it

really is an energy that's brought from the audience, as well as an energy that's put forward from the story itself. So, when you're

story itself. So, when you're characterizing somebody, and and the the trite version of this, or the or the the often leveled at movies in general is, "Oh, the character has to be made sympathetic." So, the character is

sympathetic." So, the character is manipulated in different ways or changed different ways. And

different ways. And that's a fundamental flaw of film criticism in a way or storytelling criticism because to be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism.

And that's a a real problem in criticism today because people have this idea that because I can understand why the story affects me the way it is, therefore it didn't work. That's not how storytelling

didn't work. That's not how storytelling works. So, when we create a heroic

works. So, when we create a heroic figure in a story as storytellers, we have to be mindful of the energy that the audience brings to that story and the interaction between our intention and the way the audience receives that.

And the fact that that mechanism is identifiable to people doesn't invalidate it. Part of that mechanism is

invalidate it. Part of that mechanism is saying, "Are we going to treat greatness as an absolute or coming from a democratic uh coming from uh a more idealized

philosophical state that that we live in in today's world where we want to view people as equal." Um do we have to apologize for that greatness? And the

answer is, yes, we do or the audience rejects the greatness. And that is part of the mechanism. Once again, the fact that the mechanism is identifiable doesn't mean that it's invalid or

shouldn't be used. And so, for me, as we talk about it and this is none of none of these things are things that I try to be conscious of when I'm writing or self-conscious of, but as we talk about

it, we of course realize that my attempt to to do that is to retain it within the philosophical surrounding of the breaking of xenia that I have found interesting in the

story. So, I'm trying to be true to the

story. So, I'm trying to be true to the thematics of the story as I create the character that the audience can invest in and can feel satisfied by.

As you were speaking, first of all, I like how you dragged film film critics down the water as well as academics.

Um but I just realized filmmakers in a way have it much harder than poets because poems can only be read in a language Yeah.

that is the culture in which it is written. You know, you can't read

written. You know, you can't read Shakespeare really and not in English or Goethe not in German, but filmmakers have to speak to audiences outside of

his polis. Um people who don't speak

his polis. Um people who don't speak their language and and and you come to a place with people of of different normal or different customs and and and

you don't put them into consideration.

No, but but the the interesting thing about about film and and this is you know, when I was talking about film criticism, I was talking more about amateur film criticism than professional film criticism because professional film criticism

tends to understand the necessity for the mechanisms. So, you're looking at a lingua franca of storytelling created by Hollywood for the last 100 years Mhm.

that is very effectively universal. And

so, it is its own language and that language is understood by people all over the world, which is what's incredible about it. And and it is a very very accessible modern language of storytelling and it has certain rules,

it has conventions. You can break those conventions, you can bend them, you can move them, but you have to be aware of them the whole time.

Um and as I say, I'm thinking more of amateur criticism when I say that people who because they feel they've identified the mechanism, they they feel that it invalidates it. Uh

invalidates it. Uh that could be true of certain elements and film grammar, film language evolves with that. So, when a trope becomes too

with that. So, when a trope becomes too familiar to an audience, you know, then it has to be changed, but we do as filmmakers avail ourselves of that common language. We build on that

common language. We build on that understanding of our audience has seen many films. Yeah.

And they understand that language and so, you're playing with that language.

It's the language of genre, it's the language of audience sympathy, it's the language of clarity and of narrative direction and how you guide people through a story.

You're talking about a a relationship to tradition and innovation because at some point the mechanism becomes trite or unusable but without the mechanism you can't really

build you you have you have nothing to compare it to yeah.

You can't yes you can't completely have a tabular rasa you rather you can't throw everything away. You have to make your choices in terms of how am I orienting the story so for example one

of my first films Memento was a story that I structured in reverse chronologically. But what I retained was

chronologically. But what I retained was a very very clear and simple three-act structure.

So the the structure of the film as it's received by the audience is very very conventional but the chronology is unconventional and so those are the choices you make that's one example where you say okay I need this to be

extremely familiar underneath so that I can change what's on the surface and that's a continual a continual mechanism that's evolving and that and that you're

you're working with the whole time.

I'm again thinking like a a nerdy doctoral student who has to write a dissertation. I mean writing on Plato or

dissertation. I mean writing on Plato or Aristotle is the most difficult thing to do just like making a film on the Odyssey it's it's been done you know for

thousands of years and you know making Memento you can make it whatever you want nobody nobody knows if the character they won't have a complaint about your adaptive choices and I'm

curious you've said before after Oppenheimer with the success of Oppenheimer you felt like you've had a kind of liberty to do whatever you want or actualize what you want to do and you

chose the most difficult dissertation to write if you're getting a PhD.

I mean in some ways but but in other ways I there's there's something I do think your question is slightly missing which is that what I'm trying to say is that when you make Memento

yes it's character I've created and people won't criticize it on that but it's in a tradition of noirish amnesia-based noir fiction and people judge it by

those terms. So, even though on the surface of things nominally the film is a different or an original creation, the audience and and critics and everything they tend to judge it in relation to previous examples of the

genre, which is an advantage and a disadvantage. And so,

disadvantage. And so, you know, yes, when you adapt Batman, for example, there are a lot of people who are going to say, "Well, hang on, why is it this way? Why is it that way?" and everything

way? Why is it that way?" and everything else. But even with an original story,

else. But even with an original story, it's the same thing. It's like, "Well, hang on, why have you used the protagonist in this way? Why has this character done this? Why have they done that?" And they're judging it relative

that?" And they're judging it relative to the overall cultural flow of the movement of cinema and the conventions of of cinema. And as I say, it's not a complaint, it's because it's it's just something you have to be aware

of as a filmmaker. It's an advantage and it's a disadvantage.

Yeah, but with with the Odyssey you've dragged the classicists, too.

As hounds behind your back. Um I guess final question for me, what are the gods? Are they

figments of imagination or are they necessary noble lies?

They are to the characters in the story, they are reality. And

reality. And what I found interesting about looking at the idea of gods and how to address it, the way I got interested in addressing this from the point of view of people who would have lived in that time,

for whom in a pre-scientific era evidence of divinity is everywhere. And

so, the existence of gods is not an article of faith, it's simple reality.

So, thunder and lightning is God speaking to them. Or the state of the ocean is moved by the gods. They have no other explanation for it. And so, just as we accept

things from science as absolute fact, you know, the earth is round and we travel around the sun. We can't know these things. We take them as as faith

these things. We take them as as faith because they're presented to us as facts. The same would be true of the

facts. The same would be true of the theological structure that explains nature to people of that time. And so

for me the gods are real, but they are inside the people. They are being projected by the people.

Oh, that's cool. Just like uh superheroes for we moderns.

I Yeah, in a way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wollman.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you. Very interesting

conversation.

Yeah.