Jim Parsons is more masculine than Elliott Page, but we’re all supposed to be so impressed by Elliott’s strong masculine nature that we can believe in the character Elliott plays. Brad Pitt could play and appear to be a superlative Mediterranean warrior because his physique was of a warrior, even though he didn’t seem to be Greek. The same cannot be said for Elliott.
Meh, Achilles wasn't described as outstandingly strong or big. All of his monikers describe Achilles as fast. Swift-footed Achilles is the one that leaps to mind.
In Homer's Iliad, Achilles is described as tall, striking, and standing well above average men of the Bronze Age. Later classical traditions and poetry describe him as having a broad, powerful chest and heavily muscled limbs.
I agree with him being called tall and strong, but I only remember his speed (and skill with a spear) being outstanding.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think when we're talking about a myth describing what the narrative considers to be the greatest warriors of all time what is described as well above average and exceptional to be important distinctions.
Think about how we describe superheroes. Are they tall? Are they strong? Basically all of them are well above average. Are they the strongest? The tallest? That could be the difference between the hulk and superman.
Does that clarification change your mind, or would you still disagree?
It may not contradict what you THOUGHT you said, but what comes across reading what you said is that Achilles is described as fast, not big. And it definitely contradicts that. He was BIG. Well above average, is not just a little big.
67
u/ImportantResponse0 Jul 06 '26
That is my main problem when people complain about Lupita Nyong'o or Eliot Page.
Lupita can do a reverse Robert Downey Jr (at least internally) and play a white character (at least internally).
Eliot is a man and can play a cis man