Zhong Shu Interviews Christopher Nolan: THE ODYSSEY

All right. Hello, Mr. Nolan.

Hello.

Nice to meet you.

Um, well, filmmakers are bars of the modern age. Just like the Greeks know of

modern age. Just like the Greeks know of Odysius, Achilles, Agamenon because of um Homer's narratives, we know of the Batman, the Joker, and Openheimer

because of your narratives. And Homer

tells stories of distant past. You too.

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

time ago. Um, but Homer's time was a time of rise. It was a time of civilizational rise. The Greeks were um

civilizational rise. The Greeks were um prospering as as as a 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 fifth century BC. So Homer's

tone was celebratory. um it was victorious. He celebrate he celebrates

victorious. He celebrate he celebrates the victory of of the war and your tone is emphatically nod. So I guess my first question is um does that say something

about our age? Are you a bard for a civilization at dusk?

I think there's a really interesting point a really interesting question. I

mean underlying the the main part of the point is this 400y year or so gap between the events that that Homer is 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 for me I don't think I'm completely at odds with the way home is telling the story uh

when you look at it from a sort of historical perspective and the reason is and what I got interested in you know as I adapted it is that Homer is 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 had

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 would unearth these walls of old palaces that were crumbled. They called

them cyclopian 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

civilization. And so I became interested by that collapse, that what they call the catastrophe, the Bronze Age collapse. You know, what happens between

collapse. You know, what happens between the events of the Trojan War and and Homer. And so, yeah, I I think it's

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 partly comes out of having

worked on Oppenheimer before this, which is very much a film about the end of the world, about the end or collapse of civilization ultimately. So I think yeah

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.

It exists in your Odyssey. Um so

[snorts] I guess the the a natural question that I had when watching the film was did you Christianize the Odyssey? Um, do you think that atonement

Odyssey? Um, do you think that atonement why did atonement become important for the coming of of of catastrophe?

I I think it's a really good question.

Uh, 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 Zeno. 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

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 is the idea the people from the sea who were thought to have precipitated the bronze age collapse. It's one of the great

collapse. It's one of the great mysteries of history of like who were they? But the idea that really a

they? But the idea that really a violation of Zenia, a violation of Jesus law, which is what the suitor is 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. Uh I don't know whether there

the story. Uh I don't know whether there 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 Adysius and Penelopey. But I think in a way we may

Penelopey. 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 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 it's a natural conclusion of borrowing in on this

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

I guess from what you're saying um the connection between atonement which is the perspective of a Christian world and Zenia 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,

to war? Um, yeah.

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

hospitality or senior is is broken.

I think so. Um and I think that it's sometimes it's difficult to draw a line.

And 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 underpinninging of Zenia 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 rule and possibly is even defined by it and that

to me was a really interesting thing to realize this ancient text to me speaks directly to the modern world because I think we live in a world where the concept of zenia the concept of mutual respect is more challenged I think than

it's ever been in more obvious way as it's ever been. And I think we see the negative effects of that in terms of what defines civilization, what binds us together.

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 [laughter] will expose me even more. There's another

great book written by another great man, Susidity's Pelpeneisian War also has a central theme on the hubris of the Athenians. Yeah,

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

Athenians. Yeah.

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

My question is, um, should should Adysius repent for his human pride?

Maybe pride appropriate for a great man.

I mean I suppose the question could be asked what difference would it make if he repented you know I mean that's the interesting thing about these philosophical approaches is that his

repentance would be purely internal it would purely be for his own uh spiritual self it wouldn't necessarily affect anything outside him because the damage is done uh zen he has broken maybe for

all time I mean that's that's the interesting thing I I think you know that is the thing about hubris that is the thing uh you know it's it's tragic because it's it'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 what's happened and therefore in

storytelling terms isn't isn't necessarily relevant you know that that's that's when I say we bring our understanding to it so we feel that there's cathosis because there's confession because there's honesty and

intimacy between Adysius and Penelopey and that was veryant important to me and I'm very invested in that emotionally.

But if it has no practical effect and the collapse is coming anyway, the catastrophe is coming, you know, what difference does it make if he repents?

You know, that that's the interesting thing. You know, are we concerned with

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 an age that demands apology from from greatness.

Yeah. Um, great storytellers when they portray greatness, Homer 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 I'm just wondering if as one of the greatest storytellers of our age. Um, how you how do you approach greatness? Is it still a story of apology and and that demands

repentance and reflection and self-criticism? Well, I think that that

self-criticism? Well, I think that that when you're talking about storytelling, you're 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 uh story itself.

So, when you're characterizing somebody and and the trit version of this or the or the criticisms often leveled at movies in general is, oh, the character has to be made sympathetic, so the character is manipulated in different

ways or changed 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 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 works. So when we create a

storytelling 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

receives that. And the fact that that mechanism is identifiable to people doesn't 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 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, 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 is 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. I'm trying to be true to the

story. I'm trying to be true to the thematics of the story as I create a 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 crit film critics down the water as well as academics. Um, but I just realized

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 GA, not in German. But filmmakers have to speak to audiences outside of his polus. Um, people who don't speak their

polus. Um, people who don't speak their language and and and you come to a place with people of of different nomos and different customs and and and and you don't put them into

consideration. No, but but the the

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 frana of storytelling created by

Hollywood for the last 100 years 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

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, that could be true of certain elements and film grammar, film language evolves 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. No. and they understand that language.

No. and they understand that language.

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 um and uh innovation because at some point the mechanism becomes trit or unusable but without the mechanism

you can't really build you you have nothing to you can't Yes. You can't completely have a tabular

Yes. You can't completely have a tabular rosa you rather you can't throw everything away. You have to make your

everything away. You have to make your choices in terms of how am I orienting a story. So for example, one of my first

story. So for example, one of my first films, Momento, was a story that I structured in reverse 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

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 uh 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

dissertation. I mean, writing on Plato or Aristotle is the most difficult thing to do. Um just like making a film on um

to do. Um just like making a film on um the Odyssey it's it's been done you know for uh thousands of years and you know making momento you can make it whatever

you want nobody nobody knows if the character they won't have a complaint about um your adaptive choices and I'm curious um you've said before after openheimer with the success of

openheimer you felt like you've had a kind of liberty to do yeah whatever you want or actualize what you want to do and you chose the most difficult dissitation to write uh 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 momento yes it's a

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 a film is a different or an original creation the audience and and critics they tend

to judge it in relation to previous examples of the genre which is an advantage and a 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 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?

way. Why has this character done this?

Why has they done 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. With with with the Odyssey, you've dragged the classicists to [laughter] hounds behind your back. Um I guess final question u for me. What are the

gods? Are they figments of imagination

gods? Are they figments of imagination or are they necessary noble lies?

They are to the characters in the story. They are

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

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. 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 because they're presented as facts. The same would be true of the

facts. The same would be true of the theological structure that explains nature to people at 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 um superheroes for we moderns.

I yeah in a way.

Thank you very much Mr. Nolan.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you. Very interesting

conversation. Yeah.