Reasons - Characters

  In my earlier post I observed that Paris in the Iliad is much more hated than he is in Troy, how his cowardice and arrogance are more pronounced. Also I talked about how Paris is very self-absorbed and how he doesn't really care much about his people in the poem, but in the film he is willing to sacrifice himself to save his people (although he cannot accept death when it is staring him in the face, but it is still an improvement on his character in the poem).
  Lets have a look at Paris' role in the movie and in the poem. Remember that the poem is written from the point of view of a Greek. In a Greek society, the Greeks listening would want Greece to win the war in the poem. They also want Greece to have the cooler characters and Troy to have the nastier villains. Paris is an air-headed character that no one likes in the poem for this reason. The Greeks don't want Troy to have the best characters.
  However, in the audience of the film there is likely to be very few Greeks, and the Trojan War is so long ago that the Greeks that are watching probably aren't too fussed about who wins the war. In this respect, the viewpoint of the film is much more impartial. The Trojans and Greeks are both shown with comparably equal amounts of good and bad. Paris is therefore made to be a braver, nicer character. They made the character much more likeable so the people would go to see the movie and enjoy it more.Also, from the Greek perspective, Paris kidnapped Helen and stole the Trojans queen, while in the film they made it much more of a romantic stowaway and the prince who the queen fell in love with had to be much nicer and more attractive.

  In the next character analysis I looked at Agamemnon. I pointed out how the king is "nastier and more of an antagonist" and talked about how two significant differences between the king in the Iliad and the king in Troy were the manner of his taking Briseis and his death. I also said that I would explain the reasons behind these differences in a later post. This is that post.
  Once again, lets have a look at Agamemnon's role in the film. This one is a trickier one. Certainly he leads the Greeks, who are probably seen slightly more as the protagonists (due to the fact that the nasty Trojans stole their queen), but overall I think he can be seen as the antagonist. If Hector hadn't killed Menelaus and Paris had been killed, it would probably be safe to say that Helen would have gone back to Greece and the war would have ended. However, Agamemnon clearly said to Menelaus: "I didn't come here for your pretty wife, I came here for Troy!" Since Agamemnon is in charge of Greece's armies, he still wouldn't have left if the Trojans had given back Troy. This makes Agamemnon the driving force in the war. And since the war is so bloody and brutal and clearly a bad thing, this makes Agamemnon the villain.
  In the Iliad, Agamemnon is the king of the Greeks, who are clearly the good guys, rescuing their stolen queen from the Trojans! Of course, he's not a very good king, but he's not too bad! The bad guys here are the Trojans. While there is still a lot of conflict going on between Achilles and Agamemnon throughout the poem (this creates the storyline), Agamemnon isn't as nasty or spiteful, and he learns across the text.
  Agamemnon in the film is more of a bad guy than Agamemnon in poem. As such, he needs to be more horrible, thus the taking of Briseis is even less justified than it is in the poem. Also, in modern Western films, the audience is accustomed to seeing the villain have his comeuppance and be either imprisoned or killed, and in this case he is killed by the woman he mistreated and stole from Achilles, a fitting end for the villain.

  The third character analysis I made was the analysis of Hector. I made the observations that some major differences are his kills and also that his character is slightly more ignoble and imperfect in the Iliad. Hector's major kills in Troy number as follows: Menelaus, Great Ajax and Patroclus. In the poem, of these three he only kills Patroclus. Also, his behaviour towards battle was different; he ran from fighting Ajax in the poem and he mistreated Patroclus' body after he killed him.
  His "extra" kills in the film were there for particular reasons. Let's have a look at the relationship between Paris and Helen. The marriage between Helen and Menelaus have a negative light over it and it seems that Paris and Helen are destined for each other (which, ironically, they are because of Aphrodite). Because Petersen decided to portray their relationship like this, to produce a happy(ish) ending for his audience (most audience members nowadays expect the ending to have at least a semblance of happiness), this relationship had to last after the battle of Troy. But if Menelaus was still alive, the Trojan War would have continued until Menelaus had found Helen, ie, Paris would have been killed and Helen taken home. So Petersen eliminated this threat by making Hector kill Menelaus. This also served the purpose to make Hector seem like more a family-oriented man, which is also important.
  His fight and killing of Great Ajax were also significant. Hector is unknown at the beginning of the film, so to introduce him as a great fighter they had to have him kill a great warrior. This also explains why Petersen spent so much time showing Ajax fighting; so that when Hector killed him it would be a huge feat. Ajax didn't have much bearing in the story Petersen was telling, so he allowed Hector to kill him.
  Like Paris, Hector is part of the Trojan army, who in the eyes of Ancient Greeks are the "bad guys". So Hector in the poem can't be perfect! Hector is shown as an honorable warrior, but occasionally he falters in his perfection. Achilles is clearly the better warrior so he runs away. In the battlelust, he gets carried away with Patroclus' body. In the film, Hector is much more sure of himself and comfortable with who he is and his morals. He has perfect self-control and immense respect for everyone. It is much more sad when he dies in the film than when he dies in the poem, because he is just such a nice, noble guy in the film, whereas in the poem he is a very respectable bad guy, but he leads their armies and so he muct die. Petersen is trying to pull ratings by making Hector perfect and then killing him off. If he had to make Hector die (and this is one thing that is essential to do), he milked it for all it was worth and made it heart-wrenching and sad!

  The final character was Achilles. I saved Achilles for last because he is the main character, but in reality, this means that his character between the two texts is very similar. I pointed out that the main differences between the two was his immortality (or lack of it) and then talked about how the similarity of his emotions or humanity was the most important part of his character.
  Let's begin with the easier one to examine: His mortality. Achilles is the main character in both texts. In the poem, he is invulnerable to weapons, making him the perfect warrior. He can charge into battle and give it his all without needing to worry too much about defense. Achilles cannot be killed. The average Greek kid or teenager would have aspired to be a great warrior like Achilles. Maybe they played war games and everyone wanted to be Achilles. Achilles fighting prowess made him every kid's dream. But nowadays, if Achilles was portrayed as being invincible, his character would seem flat and unbelievable. People would complain about how Achilles was a ridiculously unbelievable character. By taking away Achilles' trump, it makes his battle scenes more believable, makes the audience hold their breath when someone begins to put up a fight. A life or death situation for Achilles makes the story far more interesting than the story of an invincible fighter. So Achilles' invulnerability was taken away for Petersen's movie so that Achilles was more believable and the plot was more gripping.
  It is a similar thing that Achilles is very human with some emotional flaws, but also emotional realism. In the same way that an invincible Achilles is unrealistic to a modern audience, an Achilles without his "Achilles heel" (a modern day term for fatal flaw or weakness) would be unbelievable. Achilles is prone to rages and stubbornness, but is also courteous and compassionate in some circumstances. The character of Achilles is a tragic one, and the Greeks LOVED tragedy. In Troy, Achilles is shown in two very different lights: One man who is caring and gentle towards Briseis and another man who slaughters defenseless priests in a temple and mauls Hector's body. His drive for vengeance is ultimately his downfall. To both the Greeks and to us today the character of Achilles is great, but his fatal flaws ultimately have to prove fatal in both texts, otherwise the audience will feel unsatisfied.
  Finally, the humanity of Achilles helps the audience to relate to him. If Achilles was perfect, the audience couldn't relate or understand him as well, but if he was a terrible person no one would like him. The middle ground that both texts display is quite important because it shows that both the Greek crowds and the people of today like to hear about someone they can relate to. In summary, the Greek attitude towards the characters in their stories were effectively the same as they are today.