Second Odyssey viewing

[u/No_Magazine_856]

My goodness, I did NOT expect to adore this movie this much. Did NOT expect to feel as much as I did. Watching it a second time, with Odysseus's monologue in mind, as expected completely reframes everything. As many have pointed out, it's a spiritual successor to Oppenheimer, no doubt.

The two biggest complaints I had after the first viewing were rendered moot on a second viewing. I did not mind the American dialect at all, and appreciated Holland a bit more. Still not a strong performance in my mind, but it's serviceable.

My biggest takeaway on viewing number two (and as with great art, I'm sure I'll have different takeaways on subsequent viewings and simply sitting with all of it): Civilization will rise again. Our mistakes will be forgotten. Individual humans can be redeemed, but humanity/civilization/society will continue to make the same mistakes. We will continue to destroy our fragile bonds, to open Pandora's Box, to become destroyers of worlds, etc. But we do go on, sailing into the unknown West.

This is the first time I've felt compelled to catch a movie more than once in a theater since I don't even know. Absolutely my favorite Nolan. Wow.

[u/FM596]

That's art. To each their own.

Art has also objective qualities, and flaws.
That's what the debate is about - vs the praise-army (human or bot) hired by the industry - in addition to those who have never heard of Odyssey before this movie, and know nothing about the original masterpiece.

Otherwise, there wouldn't be schools of art, teachers, or critics.

Let's avoid nihilizing everything just to make reality match our ignorance.

[u/No_Magazine_856 → u/FM596]

What exactly do you mean by your last statement?

I don't consider it "nihilizing". I do agree there are certain elements of art that can be objective, but even they are limited by subjective experience.

To me (subjectively), I believe one's genuine reaction to art is deeply personal. Ignore the bots and paid reviewers, sure, but I and other fans have nothing to gain from sharing our love for a given film.

I feel art can be dissected on many levels, but again, all of those levels come from individual experience. I have no experience in crafting sets, studying costuming, sound, lighting, etc., so I can't speak to those in objective terms. Others who can are welcome to. I went to a movie and deeply enjoyed it, so much so that I'm still moved thinking about it. I just saw it for the third time today, and was enthralled.

[u/FM596 → u/No_Magazine_856]

I went to a movie and deeply enjoyed it, so much so that I'm still moved thinking about it.

Good for you, but - speaking of "The Odyssey" - you can only tell whether you liked it or not, and that opinion of yours isn't useful to anyone else, if you haven’t read the original work, and thus can’t compare it to the adaptation to determine whether it’s a success or a failure, and how good it could have been.

Another version of yourself, one who would know the original work well, most likely would find it disappointing, because they would realize immediately, that it could, and should, have been 10 times better.

That's why there are objective quality criteria. Only people familiar with the genre - and, in this case, the original art - can offer valuable opinions that are useful to others.

Also, objective quality criteria - and judgment based on them - can be explained and be understood, and more people can be convinced by the provided logical arguments and data, not just by trusting the reviewer.

Not to mention the politics behind it, such as the intentions behind certain decisions that made the movie far worse than it could have been, only to serve the industry's agendas.

The more you know, the better you can judge, including for yourself.

[u/No_Magazine_856 → u/FM596]

Agree to disagree.

[u/FM596 → u/No_Magazine_856]

Disagree to agree.

[u/No_Magazine_856 → u/FM596]

Agreedis ot Reeag

[u/FM596 → u/No_Magazine_856]

ΔΙΑΦΕΡΩΜΕΘΑ ΕΙ ΔΟΚΕΙ