I had not read The Odyssey since I was a student. Stories change when we return to them later in life, or perhaps we are the ones who change. Christopher Nolan’s film made me want to find out what I had missed.

More specifically, it made me want to read Emily Wilson’s translation. Her scathing essay about the film nearly stopped me from buying her translation. I bought the book anyway.

I did so because Wilson is not simply another critic. She chairs the classical studies department at the University of Pennsylvania, is a MacArthur fellow and has translated both Homeric poems. Nolan cited her version’s opening line when explaining what drew him to Odysseus. Her work has shaped how contemporary readers encounter Homer.

Wilson’s objection is not simply that Nolan compressed a sprawling poem, or that several of Homer’s women reach the screen with less to do. Her larger objection is that “the film’s own values and vision don’t hang together”. The film condemns the Greeks for using deception to destroy Troy, then asks us to cheer when Matt Damon’s Odysseus uses deception and violence to reclaim his home.

Wilson treats those contradictions as proof that the film has no coherent argument. But they are the argument. Nolan’s film is about what happens to victors after they discover that breaking the rules works.

The Greeks did not break into Troy. The Trojans carried them inside. The horse arrived as a gift and concealed an army. The Greeks turned trust into a weapon, and victory made the violation look righteous. They sailed home having learned that........

© The Guardian