Bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_war#Origins_of_the_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/summary.html
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/the-iliad/character-analysis/agamemnon.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/canalysis.html
http://www.shmoop.com/iliad/agamemnon.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Troy_%28film%29
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/canalysis.html
http://isaacclassics.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/major-differences-between-homers-iliad.html
http://www.camws.org/meeting/2006/abstracts/larkin.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28339487/Comparison-of-Book-Iliad-and-the-Film-Troy
http://www.novelguide.com/theiliad/themeanalysis.html
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/the-iliad/critical-essays/themes.html
http://www.shmoop.com/iliad/eating-symbol.html
http://www.gradesaver.com/iliad/study-guide/major-themes/
http://www.theoi.com/Text/HomerIliad1.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/section11.rhtml
http://www.shmoop.com/iliad/fate-free-will-theme.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/themes.html
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=troy.htm
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/the-iliad/critical-essays/hero-homeric-culture.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-iliad-as-historical-source-5033472.html?cat=37
This is my response to NCEA standard 91204. The purpose of this blog is to compare Wolfgang Peterson's 2004 film Troy and Homer's epic poem The Iliad. This will allow me to demonstrate perceptive understanding of the relationship between aspects of the classical world and our culture today.
Thursday 18 April 2013
Conclusion
This is the last post I will make. I'm a bit sad now really :( I've put quite a bit of work into this blog. I hope this is enough to merit me getting an excellence. But enough sentiments.
The purpose of this blog was to show my understanding of the relationship between the Ancient Greek culture and Western culture today. I had to talk about the similarities and differences between the film and the poem and give reasons for them, and I think I have most definitely covered that. I had to talk about themes and patterns, and I talked about the themes of fate and war and the ways they manifest in the texts. I had to talk about messages conveyed, which I think is really just talking about themes but in a message form, such as Petersen's (albeit, possibly quite subliminal and maybe unintentional) message that the gods aren't real or the message that fate is inescapable. I had to talk about cultural expectations and codes of behaviour, and I talked about various things such Hiketeia, Arete, Time, Kleos and Xenia and how they relate to today's society. I had to explain the influence of the Iliad on Troy, which I think I did quite a bit, but just to clarify and put it in one statement: Troy is based off and inspired by the Iliad. The characters, plot, setting and themes are all inspired by the Iliad, and the differences between them are just conveniences made by Petersen to allow for better audience appeal or to fit the films budget. And finally, I had to acknowledge my sources, which I will do in the following post to this, which is just a bibliography.
Of course, while I can see the original movie Troy and can evaluate today's culture by just being in it, there is a limitation of the sources of evidence. The Iliad was originally an oral piece of literature, and as it passed from mouth to mouth it would have various changes, so using the Iliad as a source of evidence for the culture is limited in this respect. Also, almost everything we know about the culture of Ancient Greece is known through old literature and art and generally the artistic culture, which is open to interpretation, and things may have been lost in translation. Similarly, I do not own Troy and was not involved in any part of its creation (unfortunately, I would have loved to have been involved), so any judgement calls I have made about purpose or reading between the lines may quite possibly be inaccurate.
In summary, the relationship between Ancient Greek culture and our culture of today is that our culture evolved from the Greeks, and while some things have changed, like specific rituals and belief systems, the essence of humanity is still the same.
Thank you for reading!
- Luke Longworth
The purpose of this blog was to show my understanding of the relationship between the Ancient Greek culture and Western culture today. I had to talk about the similarities and differences between the film and the poem and give reasons for them, and I think I have most definitely covered that. I had to talk about themes and patterns, and I talked about the themes of fate and war and the ways they manifest in the texts. I had to talk about messages conveyed, which I think is really just talking about themes but in a message form, such as Petersen's (albeit, possibly quite subliminal and maybe unintentional) message that the gods aren't real or the message that fate is inescapable. I had to talk about cultural expectations and codes of behaviour, and I talked about various things such Hiketeia, Arete, Time, Kleos and Xenia and how they relate to today's society. I had to explain the influence of the Iliad on Troy, which I think I did quite a bit, but just to clarify and put it in one statement: Troy is based off and inspired by the Iliad. The characters, plot, setting and themes are all inspired by the Iliad, and the differences between them are just conveniences made by Petersen to allow for better audience appeal or to fit the films budget. And finally, I had to acknowledge my sources, which I will do in the following post to this, which is just a bibliography.
Of course, while I can see the original movie Troy and can evaluate today's culture by just being in it, there is a limitation of the sources of evidence. The Iliad was originally an oral piece of literature, and as it passed from mouth to mouth it would have various changes, so using the Iliad as a source of evidence for the culture is limited in this respect. Also, almost everything we know about the culture of Ancient Greece is known through old literature and art and generally the artistic culture, which is open to interpretation, and things may have been lost in translation. Similarly, I do not own Troy and was not involved in any part of its creation (unfortunately, I would have loved to have been involved), so any judgement calls I have made about purpose or reading between the lines may quite possibly be inaccurate.
In summary, the relationship between Ancient Greek culture and our culture of today is that our culture evolved from the Greeks, and while some things have changed, like specific rituals and belief systems, the essence of humanity is still the same.
Thank you for reading!
- Luke Longworth
Cultural Analysis
This is my last post containing original material. It's been a long road, typing this blog. I said at the start that the purpose of this blog was to show understanding of the relationship between the cultures of Ancient Greece and Western civilisation and the purpose of this post is to show my understanding. I have analysed characters, the plot and the themes of both the Iliad and Troy, and now it is time to tie together all of the things that I have concluded and link them all into one big cultural analysis.
Greece is where this all began. We talk about Western civilisation today, and the reason it is called Western civilisation is because it started in the "West", or specifically Europe. Even more specifically, it started in Greece. The word 'oriental' that we use to describe Asia actually means "Eastern". So Greece is the origin of both our culture today and the story that I have been talking about. The story of the Trojan War is inherently Greek, but because it was adapted into film 9 years ago, the differences between the two texts can show us the differences in culture. I'd also just like to briefly mention a man named Eric Spivey, who on Yahoo! voice (http://voices.yahoo.com/the-iliad-as-historical-source-5033472.html?cat=37) pointed out quite correctly that the Iliad isn't quite a snapshot of Greece at the time of the Trojan War, but in reality it is showing us the culture of Greece a little way down the track.
Lets start with the roles of woman in society. The mother and daughters in the household were in charge of running the house and were generally viewed as a convenience or economic unit in society. They were tradeable and made an exceptional prize. We can see this through the portrayal of Briseis as just being a "prize" and being referred to as such for much of the Iliad. Also, we can see this reflected in Helen's abduction too. Paris took Helen because Aphrodite told him he could, effectively. With no regards to women's wishes they were treated like objects.
Today, women are treated as equals in our society, with virtually no laws that apply to men and not to women or vice versa. This is reflected in the development of Briseis to be a serious character with much sway in the plot as a character, not just a prize.
Religion is another thing that is quite different between our cultures. Greece's primary religion was that of the Olympic pantheon. Everyone believed in and worshipped the gods, and fate was a major part of Greek lives. Because of this, most, if not all of Greek literature was about the supernatural, about the gods, or at least including the gods in some way. We can see this in the Iliad in the way that the gods are an active force that are active characters as well as just being alluded to.
Today, many people do not believe in any religion, especially here in New Zealand, with nearly half of the population not saying they belong to a particular religion. So in Troy, the gods do not feature, because many people do not believe in any supernatural forces and the rest don't believe in the Greek gods.
Something I haven't really analysed is the cultural practices that Greece had, although they have been mentioned. The funerals of Greeks were quite different from the funerals of today, with huge funeral pyres and everyone watching the cremation. Quite significantly different was the practice of putting coins over the deceased's eyes. The dead person was supposed to carry these coins with them to the River Styx and use them to pay the ferryman (Charon) to get across the river to the underworld. Today, most people not believing in this partcular afterlife, this practice doesn't happen.
Another interesting one to look at is Hiketeia, or supplication. In the Iliad we see multiple scenes of supplication, such as Thetis supplicating Zeus: "So she sat down before him, and clasped his knees with her left hand, while with her right she touched him beneath the chin, and she spoke in prayer to king Zeus, son of Cronos...Yet Thetis, even as she had clasped his knees, so held to him, clinging close, and questioned him again a second time." This is quite comparable to when Priam comes to Achilles in the movie and kneels before him and kisses his hand. This manner of supplication is very formal, very structured. It is tamer in the film, because nowadays we no longer caress people's chins and clasp their knees when we want something, but we do still have little formalities like "please" and "thank you" and tentative respect still applies today. So we might say that one way that Greece influenced our culture was in this way of supplication.
The ideas of honour and fame are very similar in Ancient Greece as they are today. Today we still want recognition, we still want to be remembered, even if we don't really talk about it that much. Time, Kleos and Arete are still ideas that are valid today. We see them in the Iliad in characters such as Achilles, Ajax (a prime example, as he committed suicide when he didn't get Achilles' armour) and Hector, but now we still have people trying to achieve the very best in a competition to get honour and fame. All professional sports have some aspect of that in them, and that is why we can see these values just as much in Troy as we can in the Iliad: They are equally as important to us as they were to the Greeks.
One of the main things that I got out of analysing the characters was that Greeks were a bit patriotic, or at least they thought they were the best and would win the war (which they did). The Greeks liked to see their characters do something heroic and liked to see the enemies fall, which is actually just the same today! People usually like and support the good guys.
One last brief comment: People like eye-candy. In the Iliad there is often-times a description of the flowing hair of someone, or the strong fist. The epiphets are used to title the characters, but also to describe them. In Greece, the people away from the cities possibly didn't see a huge variety of people so they let their imaginations run wild with the characters. More obviously, in Troy there are a number of scenes with naked or near-naked bodies. I think the conclusion that we can draw from this is that no matter where in history you look, there will always be some degree of shallowness in humanity that just loves to see or to imagine someone hot.
Greece is where this all began. We talk about Western civilisation today, and the reason it is called Western civilisation is because it started in the "West", or specifically Europe. Even more specifically, it started in Greece. The word 'oriental' that we use to describe Asia actually means "Eastern". So Greece is the origin of both our culture today and the story that I have been talking about. The story of the Trojan War is inherently Greek, but because it was adapted into film 9 years ago, the differences between the two texts can show us the differences in culture. I'd also just like to briefly mention a man named Eric Spivey, who on Yahoo! voice (http://voices.yahoo.com/the-iliad-as-historical-source-5033472.html?cat=37) pointed out quite correctly that the Iliad isn't quite a snapshot of Greece at the time of the Trojan War, but in reality it is showing us the culture of Greece a little way down the track.
Lets start with the roles of woman in society. The mother and daughters in the household were in charge of running the house and were generally viewed as a convenience or economic unit in society. They were tradeable and made an exceptional prize. We can see this through the portrayal of Briseis as just being a "prize" and being referred to as such for much of the Iliad. Also, we can see this reflected in Helen's abduction too. Paris took Helen because Aphrodite told him he could, effectively. With no regards to women's wishes they were treated like objects.
Today, women are treated as equals in our society, with virtually no laws that apply to men and not to women or vice versa. This is reflected in the development of Briseis to be a serious character with much sway in the plot as a character, not just a prize.
Religion is another thing that is quite different between our cultures. Greece's primary religion was that of the Olympic pantheon. Everyone believed in and worshipped the gods, and fate was a major part of Greek lives. Because of this, most, if not all of Greek literature was about the supernatural, about the gods, or at least including the gods in some way. We can see this in the Iliad in the way that the gods are an active force that are active characters as well as just being alluded to.
Today, many people do not believe in any religion, especially here in New Zealand, with nearly half of the population not saying they belong to a particular religion. So in Troy, the gods do not feature, because many people do not believe in any supernatural forces and the rest don't believe in the Greek gods.
Something I haven't really analysed is the cultural practices that Greece had, although they have been mentioned. The funerals of Greeks were quite different from the funerals of today, with huge funeral pyres and everyone watching the cremation. Quite significantly different was the practice of putting coins over the deceased's eyes. The dead person was supposed to carry these coins with them to the River Styx and use them to pay the ferryman (Charon) to get across the river to the underworld. Today, most people not believing in this partcular afterlife, this practice doesn't happen.
Another interesting one to look at is Hiketeia, or supplication. In the Iliad we see multiple scenes of supplication, such as Thetis supplicating Zeus: "So she sat down before him, and clasped his knees with her left hand, while with her right she touched him beneath the chin, and she spoke in prayer to king Zeus, son of Cronos...Yet Thetis, even as she had clasped his knees, so held to him, clinging close, and questioned him again a second time." This is quite comparable to when Priam comes to Achilles in the movie and kneels before him and kisses his hand. This manner of supplication is very formal, very structured. It is tamer in the film, because nowadays we no longer caress people's chins and clasp their knees when we want something, but we do still have little formalities like "please" and "thank you" and tentative respect still applies today. So we might say that one way that Greece influenced our culture was in this way of supplication.
The ideas of honour and fame are very similar in Ancient Greece as they are today. Today we still want recognition, we still want to be remembered, even if we don't really talk about it that much. Time, Kleos and Arete are still ideas that are valid today. We see them in the Iliad in characters such as Achilles, Ajax (a prime example, as he committed suicide when he didn't get Achilles' armour) and Hector, but now we still have people trying to achieve the very best in a competition to get honour and fame. All professional sports have some aspect of that in them, and that is why we can see these values just as much in Troy as we can in the Iliad: They are equally as important to us as they were to the Greeks.
One of the main things that I got out of analysing the characters was that Greeks were a bit patriotic, or at least they thought they were the best and would win the war (which they did). The Greeks liked to see their characters do something heroic and liked to see the enemies fall, which is actually just the same today! People usually like and support the good guys.
One last brief comment: People like eye-candy. In the Iliad there is often-times a description of the flowing hair of someone, or the strong fist. The epiphets are used to title the characters, but also to describe them. In Greece, the people away from the cities possibly didn't see a huge variety of people so they let their imaginations run wild with the characters. More obviously, in Troy there are a number of scenes with naked or near-naked bodies. I think the conclusion that we can draw from this is that no matter where in history you look, there will always be some degree of shallowness in humanity that just loves to see or to imagine someone hot.
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Reasons - Plot/Theme
The plot and the theme are being grouped together here because the reasons for these should be relatively short compared to the original analyses and I thought I might as well do them in one big post.
The first thing I said about plot was that the difference in coverage between the poem and the film was quite a significant difference. That the poem showed a year of a ten year war and the movie showed all of a 17 day war. The way I see it, this condenses down into two parts: Firstly, the length of the war and secondly, the amount of the war that is shown in the text.
The amount of the war that is shown is quite an interesting thing to look at. In Ancient Greece, the story of the Trojan War was spread far and wide, and in ten years of war there is a lot of legend to cover. The Iliad is only one part of a huge amount of tales and stories told at the time. For example:
The above vase painting shows Achilles and Ajax having a game of petteia. This happened earlier in the war, before the victory where Achilles won Briseis. This shows that the myths of the Trojan War were many. So the story in the Iliad was just a snapshot, just a little bit of this whole mythology of the time. It doesn't need to cover the whole story. However, in today's society, a lot of people have heard of Achilles and the Trojan War but they don't know the whole story. If only part of the war story was told, many people would be confused, not knowing the beginning or ending of the story. So in that regard, the whole war story must be told.
The length of the war is actually quite easy to look at too. First of all, lets look at why the Iliad talks about a ten year war. First of all, the real Trojan War was probably ten years long. Simple as that. They might as well have been accurate. Also, by making it ten years they can squeeze lots of stories out of it. The film, on the other hand also has two simple reasons for its short length. Firstly, the shorter the war, the more cost effective it is. To cover a ten year war requires a lot more effort, a much longer movie, and much more money! Troy didn't have an endless budget, and to use their money to the best effect, Petersen made the war short. Also, if they had a longer war, they would have to stretch the plot out until it became excruciatingly slow, and the audience would have got up and left. This is not a good thing when one is trying to attract people to the movie.
The next thing I talked about was the role of Briseis. This could have fallen into character analyses but I thought that it had more plot influence than other aspects of character. This was an example of the difference of the roles in characters, which is an extensive topic, but I just focused on the one character. I talked about how in the poem all she is is a "prize" and she has almost no role except as an object of desire. However, in the film, she is a very prominent character and helps to develop Achilles, she kills Agamemnon and she has her own personality and dialogue.
This one is quite interesting to examine. I think that Greeks viewed women in a very different way than we do today. In our culture men and women are equals, but in Greece they were very different. Men were the warriors and society elites, and they grew the food and supported the family, but women made the money. The women in a household were taught to weave and the weaving was sold. So women were used as units of economy. Daughters could be sold to other families. And women could be taken as concubines as war-prizes. And this is what happened with Briseis.
In Greece, Briseis would have been seen as being a great prize, and all the young teenagers aspiring to be great warriors would want to have a war-prize like her someday. Today, the audience would be shocked if she was treated this much like an object, especially because half of the audience would be women. People in today's society cry out for equality in every respect, so the equality of Briseis as a character was important for Petersen to employ. Also, in today's society it is more believable to have woman doing something significant than it was in Ancient Greece. So in summary, the role of Briseis different to make more sense and to not offend the audience.
If I had more time I would talk about the difference between the roles of more characters, but looking at the size of my section on Briseis, I suspect that this blog would go on forever. However, I may have to watch that this next section doesn't go on forever either! This will be about the lack of gods in Troy. This is one of the most significant and impacting changes between the two texts. Homer's Iliad has many scenes with the gods featuring as characters and even more where the gods are referenced to or talked about. Petersen's Troy only shows us one goddess (Thetis) and does not say that she is a goddess, and the references to the gods are few and spread apart compared to in the poem.
In New Zealand today, about half of the population is Christian, and about 40% claims to have no religion. In the remaining 10% of the population there are religions such as Buddhism, Hindu, Islam et cetera, (view pie chart below from wikipedia.org) but the point is that there are lots of different religious views in our culture. In Ancient Greece, I think it is probably safe to say that at least 90% of people believed in the gods. The Greek culture was very much based around their religion. So in any piece of literature the gods must star as major parts of the text because that is what Greeks wrote about. If the gods weren't part of the Iliad in the way they are, the Greeks at the time wouldn't have thought it to be very realistic, or at least they wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.
In today's Western culture, no one believes in the Greek gods. There might be the odd person who breaks the norm but it is probably safe to say that no one in today's culture believes that the Greek traditional religion is true. In this respect, including the gods as characters or as unstoppable forces seems unrealistic to the audiences of today. The supernatural is hinted at, such as Achilles' death being foretold, and also his death coming from the hands of a bow after he beheaded Apollo's statue. Also, Thetis appears. There are some interesting things about the gods though: The Trojans were portrayed as being much more devout to their patron god (Apollo) than the Greeks, and the stronger characters seem to mostly not believe in the gods. Neither Hector or Achilles is pious at all, and these are the strongest two warriors in the war. Was Petersen trying to tell the audience something about belief in the supernatural? Was he trying to say that religion makes us weak? That's for you to decide (I think he was trying to say this, not that I agree with it).
In summary, the Iliad has many references to the gods because the gods were real to the audience at that time, and they would be involved in anything big like a war so they had to be in the story, whereas in today's culture no one believes in them, so to include the gods in Troy would ultimately just make it less believable and enjoyable for the audience.
However, today's culture says that you can be whatever you want or do whatever you want and that you don't have to listen to anyone who tells you what you should do with your life. So the idea that everyone has their own destiny that they cannot escape is not a nice one, and the people watching Troy don't want to walk out of the movie feeling like they have no control over their own life. So by that logic, the theme of fate is hardly prevalent in the film compared to what it is in the original poem.
The second theme was War: the Glory of it, and the Brutality of it. The idea of war being glorious is almost solely in the poem, whereas both the film and the poem show the brutality of war beautifully. The glory of war being more prominent in the poem is a tricky one on a certain level, but the inevitable and obvious conclusion is that clearly war was more of a good thing in Ancient times. Today we shudder at the sound of war and any hints that we may be going to war soon frighten us to no end. Back then, war was a great thing, a glorious thing, and men would aspire to be great warriors like Heracles and Achilles.Why war was a great thing is a harder question to answer. Maybe it was because Greece was made of lots of "city-states" or polis, and these city-states would war against each other all the time. It's hard to tell, but that is my suspicion.
The brutality of war is another aspect of theme that is interesting to look at, because it contrasts quite strongly with the theme of the glory of war. While the glory of war is something that is beautiful and and desirable about war, the brutality is something that should put everyone off war. Why was Homer both glorifying war and thrusting the brutality of it in your face? Is the Iliad glory, or gory? There are a few possibilities that spring to mind. Maybe Homer was trying to dispel the illusion of grandeur that war portrays by first putting up a facade of glory but then tearing it down with bloody battle scenes and disturbing descriptions. Maybe Homer was reveling in the brutality of it, maybe he loved the goriness and the power of one man over another and the two aspects of war in his mind were one and the same. Or maybe I am misinterpreting the brutality of it and he is just telling it as it is because that is how it is. My thoughts are that the second is correct. Even though the way I say it makes Homer sound like a sadistic, twisted person (or persons), but the idea that the Greeks reveled in battle is undeniable, so by including bloody battle sequences he appealed to the crowd.
Which brings me very nicely to the brutality in Troy. Ajax was an example I used of brutality, but Achilles is another great example. Ajax showed raw power and made us flinch whenever he hit someone, but Achilles was finesse and perfection, an unstoppable dancer. Petersen was very graphic in his fight scenes, showing bits of blood and gore flying up from weapons, and scenes such as Patroclus with his neck cut open or Hector with a spear in his heart were brutal. Was Petersen trying to show us all how brutal war is? Or was he really stealing ratings? I'm sure most people reading this can honestly say they love watching fight sequences in movies. They are so thrilling, and the more brutal and realistic they are, the more we enjoy rooting for our favourites and wincing whenever something really sore happens. Petersen may have been trying to teach us about the brutality and the horrors of war, but in reality I think he was just trying to show us some really cool fights.
Plot
The first thing I said about plot was that the difference in coverage between the poem and the film was quite a significant difference. That the poem showed a year of a ten year war and the movie showed all of a 17 day war. The way I see it, this condenses down into two parts: Firstly, the length of the war and secondly, the amount of the war that is shown in the text.
The amount of the war that is shown is quite an interesting thing to look at. In Ancient Greece, the story of the Trojan War was spread far and wide, and in ten years of war there is a lot of legend to cover. The Iliad is only one part of a huge amount of tales and stories told at the time. For example:
The length of the war is actually quite easy to look at too. First of all, lets look at why the Iliad talks about a ten year war. First of all, the real Trojan War was probably ten years long. Simple as that. They might as well have been accurate. Also, by making it ten years they can squeeze lots of stories out of it. The film, on the other hand also has two simple reasons for its short length. Firstly, the shorter the war, the more cost effective it is. To cover a ten year war requires a lot more effort, a much longer movie, and much more money! Troy didn't have an endless budget, and to use their money to the best effect, Petersen made the war short. Also, if they had a longer war, they would have to stretch the plot out until it became excruciatingly slow, and the audience would have got up and left. This is not a good thing when one is trying to attract people to the movie.
The next thing I talked about was the role of Briseis. This could have fallen into character analyses but I thought that it had more plot influence than other aspects of character. This was an example of the difference of the roles in characters, which is an extensive topic, but I just focused on the one character. I talked about how in the poem all she is is a "prize" and she has almost no role except as an object of desire. However, in the film, she is a very prominent character and helps to develop Achilles, she kills Agamemnon and she has her own personality and dialogue.
This one is quite interesting to examine. I think that Greeks viewed women in a very different way than we do today. In our culture men and women are equals, but in Greece they were very different. Men were the warriors and society elites, and they grew the food and supported the family, but women made the money. The women in a household were taught to weave and the weaving was sold. So women were used as units of economy. Daughters could be sold to other families. And women could be taken as concubines as war-prizes. And this is what happened with Briseis.
In Greece, Briseis would have been seen as being a great prize, and all the young teenagers aspiring to be great warriors would want to have a war-prize like her someday. Today, the audience would be shocked if she was treated this much like an object, especially because half of the audience would be women. People in today's society cry out for equality in every respect, so the equality of Briseis as a character was important for Petersen to employ. Also, in today's society it is more believable to have woman doing something significant than it was in Ancient Greece. So in summary, the role of Briseis different to make more sense and to not offend the audience.
If I had more time I would talk about the difference between the roles of more characters, but looking at the size of my section on Briseis, I suspect that this blog would go on forever. However, I may have to watch that this next section doesn't go on forever either! This will be about the lack of gods in Troy. This is one of the most significant and impacting changes between the two texts. Homer's Iliad has many scenes with the gods featuring as characters and even more where the gods are referenced to or talked about. Petersen's Troy only shows us one goddess (Thetis) and does not say that she is a goddess, and the references to the gods are few and spread apart compared to in the poem.
In New Zealand today, about half of the population is Christian, and about 40% claims to have no religion. In the remaining 10% of the population there are religions such as Buddhism, Hindu, Islam et cetera, (view pie chart below from wikipedia.org) but the point is that there are lots of different religious views in our culture. In Ancient Greece, I think it is probably safe to say that at least 90% of people believed in the gods. The Greek culture was very much based around their religion. So in any piece of literature the gods must star as major parts of the text because that is what Greeks wrote about. If the gods weren't part of the Iliad in the way they are, the Greeks at the time wouldn't have thought it to be very realistic, or at least they wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.
In summary, the Iliad has many references to the gods because the gods were real to the audience at that time, and they would be involved in anything big like a war so they had to be in the story, whereas in today's culture no one believes in them, so to include the gods in Troy would ultimately just make it less believable and enjoyable for the audience.
Theme
The first theme I talked about was Fate. I mentioned its potency and inescapability, but I also mentioned that is does not feature much in the film. One thing I said in the opening of the paragraph was that fate was closely intertwined with the gods, and I've already said in this post the reasons for not having any gods: It's not believable to Western culture. In Ancient Greece, fate was a very prominent part of the Greeks lives.If someone died it was because the gods had ordained for them to have died at that time in that way. If there was a famine, it was because the gods had fated it to be so. This is evident throughout almost all of Greek literature. One great example (outside of the Iliad) is Oedipus Tyrannos by Sophocles. In this story, the main character, King Oedipus, tells his story about how he was fated to kill his father and marry his mother so he ran away from home to never see them again in case he ever did those horrible things, but later it turns out that he was adopted and because he ran away he ended up unknowingly killing his father and taking his father's wife (his mother) as his own. This exemplifies how large the theme of fate is in Greek literature, and shows why this theme was prominent in the Iliad.However, today's culture says that you can be whatever you want or do whatever you want and that you don't have to listen to anyone who tells you what you should do with your life. So the idea that everyone has their own destiny that they cannot escape is not a nice one, and the people watching Troy don't want to walk out of the movie feeling like they have no control over their own life. So by that logic, the theme of fate is hardly prevalent in the film compared to what it is in the original poem.
The second theme was War: the Glory of it, and the Brutality of it. The idea of war being glorious is almost solely in the poem, whereas both the film and the poem show the brutality of war beautifully. The glory of war being more prominent in the poem is a tricky one on a certain level, but the inevitable and obvious conclusion is that clearly war was more of a good thing in Ancient times. Today we shudder at the sound of war and any hints that we may be going to war soon frighten us to no end. Back then, war was a great thing, a glorious thing, and men would aspire to be great warriors like Heracles and Achilles.Why war was a great thing is a harder question to answer. Maybe it was because Greece was made of lots of "city-states" or polis, and these city-states would war against each other all the time. It's hard to tell, but that is my suspicion.
The brutality of war is another aspect of theme that is interesting to look at, because it contrasts quite strongly with the theme of the glory of war. While the glory of war is something that is beautiful and and desirable about war, the brutality is something that should put everyone off war. Why was Homer both glorifying war and thrusting the brutality of it in your face? Is the Iliad glory, or gory? There are a few possibilities that spring to mind. Maybe Homer was trying to dispel the illusion of grandeur that war portrays by first putting up a facade of glory but then tearing it down with bloody battle scenes and disturbing descriptions. Maybe Homer was reveling in the brutality of it, maybe he loved the goriness and the power of one man over another and the two aspects of war in his mind were one and the same. Or maybe I am misinterpreting the brutality of it and he is just telling it as it is because that is how it is. My thoughts are that the second is correct. Even though the way I say it makes Homer sound like a sadistic, twisted person (or persons), but the idea that the Greeks reveled in battle is undeniable, so by including bloody battle sequences he appealed to the crowd.
Which brings me very nicely to the brutality in Troy. Ajax was an example I used of brutality, but Achilles is another great example. Ajax showed raw power and made us flinch whenever he hit someone, but Achilles was finesse and perfection, an unstoppable dancer. Petersen was very graphic in his fight scenes, showing bits of blood and gore flying up from weapons, and scenes such as Patroclus with his neck cut open or Hector with a spear in his heart were brutal. Was Petersen trying to show us all how brutal war is? Or was he really stealing ratings? I'm sure most people reading this can honestly say they love watching fight sequences in movies. They are so thrilling, and the more brutal and realistic they are, the more we enjoy rooting for our favourites and wincing whenever something really sore happens. Petersen may have been trying to teach us about the brutality and the horrors of war, but in reality I think he was just trying to show us some really cool fights.
Tuesday 16 April 2013
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.
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.
Monday 15 April 2013
The Why Behind the What
From this post onwards I will be analysing the observations I have made in the previous 6 posts. The next post will be analysing the comments I made on the characters of Paris, Agamemnon, Hector and Achilles and linking these analyses to the cultures of New Zealand today and of Ancient Greece. Some things being discussed will be purpose of the texts, audience appeal and budget.
Lets begin with some overall statements. What were the purposes of the two texts? Well the purpose of Troy was, like all films, to make money. Wolfgang Petersen may have had a love of the story and wanted to bring it to the screen, but ultimately his occupation is directing films and his source of income is from films. Troy was quite a successful film, grossing $133,378,256. This means that the purpose of the film, to make money, was fulfilled. But how does a film make money? The answer is, obviously, by people paying to go and see the film. But people only go to see films that they want to see, and often they want to see films more or less based on their ratings. And films only get good ratings if the critics like them. Which brings us to the very essential point that the film was created to appeal to the audience.
The Iliad was written by Homer. On a brief side note, no one actually knows who Homer is. For many years it was thought that Homer was a single person who wrote the poem and its sequel, the Odyssey, but recently the theory that a "Homer" was a job that a Greek might have has been invented. I personally think it is more likely that Homer is the name of a profession because the poem probably wouldn't have survived otherwise, but that is just my opinion. Anyway, the Homers wrote the poem and then would travel around and tell the poem to different groups of people, earning themselves a meal and a place to sleep. The poem once again had to appeal to the audience, or no one would listen and the Homer wouldn't get any place to rest or eat. It is also important to note that the Iliad came first and that Troy is based off the Iliad. The poem is an original work, and while Troy is also original, the story and characters are inspired by those of Homer. Finally, though both texts have to appeal to these audiences, the two audiences are in very different cultures, so the differences in texts can be used to find the differences between cultures.
Lets begin with some overall statements. What were the purposes of the two texts? Well the purpose of Troy was, like all films, to make money. Wolfgang Petersen may have had a love of the story and wanted to bring it to the screen, but ultimately his occupation is directing films and his source of income is from films. Troy was quite a successful film, grossing $133,378,256. This means that the purpose of the film, to make money, was fulfilled. But how does a film make money? The answer is, obviously, by people paying to go and see the film. But people only go to see films that they want to see, and often they want to see films more or less based on their ratings. And films only get good ratings if the critics like them. Which brings us to the very essential point that the film was created to appeal to the audience.
The Iliad was written by Homer. On a brief side note, no one actually knows who Homer is. For many years it was thought that Homer was a single person who wrote the poem and its sequel, the Odyssey, but recently the theory that a "Homer" was a job that a Greek might have has been invented. I personally think it is more likely that Homer is the name of a profession because the poem probably wouldn't have survived otherwise, but that is just my opinion. Anyway, the Homers wrote the poem and then would travel around and tell the poem to different groups of people, earning themselves a meal and a place to sleep. The poem once again had to appeal to the audience, or no one would listen and the Homer wouldn't get any place to rest or eat. It is also important to note that the Iliad came first and that Troy is based off the Iliad. The poem is an original work, and while Troy is also original, the story and characters are inspired by those of Homer. Finally, though both texts have to appeal to these audiences, the two audiences are in very different cultures, so the differences in texts can be used to find the differences between cultures.
Sunday 14 April 2013
Theme/Practices Analysis
This post is about the themes in the two texts and the differences between them. I will also cover the practices of the Greek culture. There are two major themes that spring forth when studying the Iliad: Fate and the gods' and man's influence, and War, the glory of it and the futility of it. In Troy, there are the same themes, but in different amounts and from a different perspective. There is also a heavier emphasis on the theme of motivation and consequences in the film, which in the poem is more linked to the idea of Fate.
The theme of Fate is a prevalent one in the Iliad and Troy, but much more so in the Iliad. The idea of gods and fate are quite tightly intertwined, which we can clearly see in the opening paragraph of the poem: "The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus' son, Achilles, that destructive wrath which brought countless woes upon the Achaeans, and sent forth to Hades many valiant souls of heroes, and made them themselves spoil for dogs and every bird; thus the plan of Zeus came to fulfillment, from the time when first they parted in strife Atreus' son, king of men, and brilliant Achilles." The first statement of the huge epic poem was that this story was about Zeus' will "coming to fulfillment". This is a great example of the role of fate in the Iliad. Fate clearly is a large driving force in the Trojan War because Troy is "fated" to fall, therefore all of this is actually happening because of fate. It is interesting, however, to have a more critical look at the idea of fate. In Book 20, Aenead of Troy fights Achilles, and he loses his shield but just before Achilles moved in to kill him, Poseidon jumped into the fray and blinded Achilles with mist and pulled Aenead out of the battle. His argument for this was: "Nay, come, let us head him forth from out of death...for it is ordained unto him to escape". This is a confusing aspect of fate because it raises an important question: Is fate ordained by the gods, or is it a force separate and mightier than the gods? Throughout the poem this idea of fate is used to explain the plot, but in Troy, fate is only used for foreshadowing. The only example of fate is when Achilles meets his mother Thetis on the beach (see video below) and she tells him that his destiny is either to go to war and die with great glory or to stay behind, earn no glory and live a long life. "For your glory walks hand in hand with your doom." Then later, at Troy, after Achilles has earned great glory (although in the film, his glory is actually not shown much, but that's another story), he is shot by Paris and he dies. This is, in effect, the only use of Fate in the film. Overall, the main impression that we get of Fate in both of the texts is that Fate is inescapable, and the main difference between these texts in this respect is that Troy has much fewer references to it.
The second main theme is that of War. This is a very broad statement and can be refined into two aspects of war: The Glory of war and the brutality or futility of it. The glory of war is an evident theme in the Iliad, with all of the warriors striving to achieve greatness. Characters that savour war are loved by their people and characters that run from it are scorned and mocked. For example, Achilles is renowned as being the best warrior in the Achaean army, and his feats in battle earn him endless respect from both sides in the war. By contrast, Paris is hated by both sides for both his kidnapping of Helen and his failure to fight with valour and honour. The glory of war is also linked to Achilles' fate: Go to war and earn endless recognition and fame but die, or stay home and be forgotten. War is the road to greatness, to glory. In Troy, the glory of war is portrayed less of the greatness of war itself, or even that war brings, but it is expressed as a greatness of individuals in war. The main example that springs to mind is the character of Ajax. Ajax mows down the Trojans with a fierce ecstasy that shows his strength and power. (See video below, the second one, excuse the music).
While this shows the raw, sick beauty of battle that war brings out, but while it shows the glory of war slightly, it shows it more as the Brutality of War, or the bloodiness of war. This theme is expressed quite evenly in both of the texts. In both the Iliad and Troy, the deaths and mutilations of people are shown in bloody detail. One example in Troy is how brutally and in how much detail they show the death of Patroclus (See video below, the first one). In the Iliad, there are also many scenes where brutality is shown in great detail. For example, it says in Book XXII (on the subject of Hector's death): "...but there was an opening where the collar bones part the neck and shoulders, even the gullet, where destruction of life cometh most speedily; even there, as he rushed upon him, goodly Achilles let drive with his spear; and clean out through the tender neck went the point." The descriptions of death are very detailed and bloody.
I will just point out a few of the cultural practices outlined in the two texts: Most noticeably, the death rites. We can see on multiple occasions the different rituals performed at death. Click this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5vnrvGq7sY to watch a good example of a funeral at the time. This is quite an important one in Troy as well as in the Iliad. Another good one in both texts is the idea of champions, or challenging someone, basically one-on-one combat. Many times in both texts there are challenges. In Troy, Achilles beats Boagrius and Agamemnon wins the war. Later, Paris challenges Menelaus to end the war. Finally, Achilles challenges Hector to avenge his cousin. In the Iliad many more challenges are made, such as Hector versus Ajax being an official challenge.
Some other values or cultural practices that are seen in the texts are as follows: Arete, excellence in a chosen field (usually war or competition) and an Aristos, one who possesses it (kind of like a sports star today I guess). Achilles is an aristos. Two similar ideas are Time, (pronounced tee-may), the honour you have in your community and Kleos, your fame (specifically that survives after death). This is what Achilles and to a certain degree Hector are aiming to get, although Achilles wants more Kleos and Hector wants more Time. One more value is the value of Aidos: Public shame. Paris shows us a prime example of this by running from Menelaus. Some practices that are seen are: Hiketeia, or supplication. We can see this in both texts when Priam asks for Hector's body back, and Xenia, or hospitality. This is a compulsory thing that everyone at the time did. We see this in Troy with Paris and Hector being treated exceptionally well in Menelaus' castle, and it is also seen in the Iliad sometimes, such as in Book IX when Aias, Odysseus and Phoinix come to Achilles' hut, he serves them a feast before they get down to business.
In summary, two major themes in both the Iliad and Troy are the themes of Fate and of War. Fate is shown as a force both created by the gods and one that the gods are subject to, but overall it is inescapable. Fate is shown to be much less of an influential force in the film as it is in the poem. War is shown as both a glorious and a brutal thing, with Achilles achieving glory and Paris being scorned, but with clearly detailed descriptions of death and mutilation in both texts.
The theme of Fate is a prevalent one in the Iliad and Troy, but much more so in the Iliad. The idea of gods and fate are quite tightly intertwined, which we can clearly see in the opening paragraph of the poem: "The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus' son, Achilles, that destructive wrath which brought countless woes upon the Achaeans, and sent forth to Hades many valiant souls of heroes, and made them themselves spoil for dogs and every bird; thus the plan of Zeus came to fulfillment, from the time when first they parted in strife Atreus' son, king of men, and brilliant Achilles." The first statement of the huge epic poem was that this story was about Zeus' will "coming to fulfillment". This is a great example of the role of fate in the Iliad. Fate clearly is a large driving force in the Trojan War because Troy is "fated" to fall, therefore all of this is actually happening because of fate. It is interesting, however, to have a more critical look at the idea of fate. In Book 20, Aenead of Troy fights Achilles, and he loses his shield but just before Achilles moved in to kill him, Poseidon jumped into the fray and blinded Achilles with mist and pulled Aenead out of the battle. His argument for this was: "Nay, come, let us head him forth from out of death...for it is ordained unto him to escape". This is a confusing aspect of fate because it raises an important question: Is fate ordained by the gods, or is it a force separate and mightier than the gods? Throughout the poem this idea of fate is used to explain the plot, but in Troy, fate is only used for foreshadowing. The only example of fate is when Achilles meets his mother Thetis on the beach (see video below) and she tells him that his destiny is either to go to war and die with great glory or to stay behind, earn no glory and live a long life. "For your glory walks hand in hand with your doom." Then later, at Troy, after Achilles has earned great glory (although in the film, his glory is actually not shown much, but that's another story), he is shot by Paris and he dies. This is, in effect, the only use of Fate in the film. Overall, the main impression that we get of Fate in both of the texts is that Fate is inescapable, and the main difference between these texts in this respect is that Troy has much fewer references to it.
While this shows the raw, sick beauty of battle that war brings out, but while it shows the glory of war slightly, it shows it more as the Brutality of War, or the bloodiness of war. This theme is expressed quite evenly in both of the texts. In both the Iliad and Troy, the deaths and mutilations of people are shown in bloody detail. One example in Troy is how brutally and in how much detail they show the death of Patroclus (See video below, the first one). In the Iliad, there are also many scenes where brutality is shown in great detail. For example, it says in Book XXII (on the subject of Hector's death): "...but there was an opening where the collar bones part the neck and shoulders, even the gullet, where destruction of life cometh most speedily; even there, as he rushed upon him, goodly Achilles let drive with his spear; and clean out through the tender neck went the point." The descriptions of death are very detailed and bloody.
Some other values or cultural practices that are seen in the texts are as follows: Arete, excellence in a chosen field (usually war or competition) and an Aristos, one who possesses it (kind of like a sports star today I guess). Achilles is an aristos. Two similar ideas are Time, (pronounced tee-may), the honour you have in your community and Kleos, your fame (specifically that survives after death). This is what Achilles and to a certain degree Hector are aiming to get, although Achilles wants more Kleos and Hector wants more Time. One more value is the value of Aidos: Public shame. Paris shows us a prime example of this by running from Menelaus. Some practices that are seen are: Hiketeia, or supplication. We can see this in both texts when Priam asks for Hector's body back, and Xenia, or hospitality. This is a compulsory thing that everyone at the time did. We see this in Troy with Paris and Hector being treated exceptionally well in Menelaus' castle, and it is also seen in the Iliad sometimes, such as in Book IX when Aias, Odysseus and Phoinix come to Achilles' hut, he serves them a feast before they get down to business.
In summary, two major themes in both the Iliad and Troy are the themes of Fate and of War. Fate is shown as a force both created by the gods and one that the gods are subject to, but overall it is inescapable. Fate is shown to be much less of an influential force in the film as it is in the poem. War is shown as both a glorious and a brutal thing, with Achilles achieving glory and Paris being scorned, but with clearly detailed descriptions of death and mutilation in both texts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)