Support NeoGAF

[GymWolf]

Why do they call this bitch's work translation and not interpretation?

When you take so many liberties can it really be called translation?

If we consider the casting, i guess the first half of the word fit like a glove in this case, but still...

 

[crumbs]

Men love the Odyssey because it's a celebration of patriarchy, misogyny, and consumerism (???).

When you're a (marxist) hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

This is AI of course, but it made me laugh!

"He looks like Batman had sex with Magneto atop of an anvil".

Wow.

 

[Yerd]

Oh dear lord. Emily Wilson describing what's Wrong with The Odyssey.



Good luck making it through all 3 minutes and 55 seconds.

I watched it twice.

Mainly because I can't help but laugh whenever I hear this Brittish Elmer Fudd accent. lots of "Gweek" and "nawatow". It doesn't matter how smart you are, you will always sound comical with the Elmer Fudd thing, and I can't get past it. Plus she mumbles and the audio is horrible. I didn't see her having a problem with the Odyssey, she has a problem with the translators/translations.

 

[jason10mm]

George Chapman published his seminal first english translation of the Iliad in 1598 at the "elderly" age of 39, finishing with it and the Odyssey in 1616 before he was 60.

Alexander Pope did his Iliiad translation in 1720 at the "elderly" age of 32, finishing the Odyssey in 1726 before he was 40.

William Morris was 54 when he published his Odyssey in 1887.

Samuel Butler was 75 when his prose Odyssey was published in 1900.

Robert Fitzgerald was 51 when he published his translation of The Odyssey in 1961

Robert Fagles was 63 when he published his in 1996.

Emily Wilson, born 1971, was 46 when she published in 2017.

So her "elderly white men" claim is not only total horseshit, but SHE is kinda old compared to the real pioneers of this stuff. She is LITERALLY standing on the shoulders of giants in this respect and it's a shame she is so publicly dismissive, speaks a lot about her (lack of) character I think.

edit: And to think I forgot the Richard Lattimore translations, being the most direct attempt to render the greek into english, was 59 when he did the Odyssey in 1966, and only 45 when he did the Iliad in '51. We can perhaps give him a few grace years as well since he serve in WW2.

 

[near]

Oh dear lord. Emily Wilson describing what's Wrong with The Odyssey.



Good luck making it through all 3 minutes and 55 seconds.

It makes sense now.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Lol what the fuck

How is she serious? How did she get a publishing deal by blatantly butchering the source material with her own insane views?

Because "modern take on old famous thing, written by womyn" is a key that opens all the publishing doors these days.

 

[Toons]

This is actually historically accurate on its own merits as the Greeks did not view the world through the lens of modern racial categories, and our current concept of race is a relatively recent invention in human history.

However, if this historical truth is being used to justify a modern creative preference, then that's probably the wrong approach to take.

The Greeks may not have understood our concept of race, but they cared immensely about specific geography and lineages. The Odyssey and wider Greek myths are deeply rooted in real Mediterranean geography, local genealogies, and tribal identities.

To the Greeks, Achilles wasn't just a generic guy. He was a Thessalian, a Myrmidon. Odysseus wasn't just a random bloke from Mediterranean. He was specifically Ithacan. Any adaptation that treats Greek myth as a completely colorblind, placeless fantasy ignores how explicitly tied these stories were to the physical, cultural landscape of the Aegean Sea.

While the Greeks didn't have a modern racial understanding, they did have an awareness of what different peoples looked like. Fun fact; The Greeks interacted with black people from sub-Saharan Africa and referred to them as Aithiopians (Ethiopians), which literally translates to "burnt-face." I should add that this wasn't a racial slur but just a physical description.

If you asked a resident of Athens what the most important division among humans was, they would say whether a person was a Hellene (Greek) or a Barbarian. So a Greek seeing this Nolan version would question why the whole cast are Barbarians

But as I've said before, it's pointless trying to justify this based on what people would say who lived over a thousand years ago.

Even if we accept the premise that Homer wouldn't have understood modern race, the modern audience watching the adaptation absolutely does.

If a film uses entirely colorblind casting in a historical or mythological setting without a clear narrative reason, it can break the suspense of disbelief for the audience, making the production feel like a modern theater exercise rather than an immersive journey into the ancient Mediterranean world. To be honest, that's how I felt watching the trailers. I don't feel like I'm being transported back in time. I feel like I'm watching a student production or an AI generated film.

I dont think that's entirely invalid but I think the extra narrative reason is as valid as he in narrative reason in this case.

We agree that the audience here is not greek, but a modern audience with a lot of racial opinions and who is more than eager to project those things into the media they consume, as well as consune art from artists willing to insert their race politics into the media they make.

But whereas you look at this and see a double standard I do not.

The reality is, and the one no one here likes to bring up, is the invisible reason that "whitewashing" as a trend in Hollywood became so controversial was because it was fundamentally and EXCLUSIVELY used as a tool of furthering rhe mistreatment of minority peoples. This was not a mere happenstance of casting or a situation of "available actors". The system was such that hiring actors of color could lose you funding, distribution, ruin your career as a filmmaker, and potentially even get you investigated.it didn't stop at casting. NBC was so afraid of airing the kiss between Kirk and Uhura(keep in mind, this was less than 60 years ago) that they considered having him kiss spock instead. And they forced the actors to film a scene without. NBC did this out of fear of backlash.

The system of whitewashing was a means of dehumanizing minorities, plain and simple. Using their stories and erasing them from the narrative.

And it is impossible to claim or suggest there is in any way an equivalent force being inflicting upon european culture or white people by Hollywood media. Its simply not a serious argument.

When you say a "double standard", it's implying that the reaction is to the same causal effect but thats not entirely true. It is known precisely why whitewashing was done in the past and I think most here wouldn't defend those sentiments. The reasons it is done NOW are far more diverse in scope and scale, and while it CAN involve some anti white sentiment(and that should be condemned) it does not at all involve fear of one losing their career or their funding as a result of casting Europeans.

This is why when Chris Nolan says he casted it this way for purely artistic and thematic reasons I believe him. He wouldn't be adversely affected had he casted all white. We all know he wouldn't. Hes well respected in the industry and party much has a blank check waiting from most studios.

That artistic vision is not going to gel with everyone. Some want a more faithful sdsptsik of the story. That I can get. But thats clearly not what Nolan is setting out to make.

 

[Fake]

To adapt a popular expression from recent years: It's amazing how much people defending raceswapping and cultural appropriation by Hollywood are pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.

Its a liberal tatic. Just like hiring for DEI. Because most are minorities, you can't have a discussion of whatever they are good to the position or not without bringing the 'you're racist' to the conversation.

Its a very efficient way of end discourse.

 

[Fake]

Oh dear lord. Emily Wilson describing what's Wrong with The Odyssey.



Good luck making it through all 3 minutes and 55 seconds.

I can't. Sorry. This is stupidity in its purest form.

When someone dumb in this forum deny woke, I gonna show this video.

 

[John Bilbo]

Because "modern take on old famous thing, written by womyn" is a key that opens all the publishing doors these days.

Yes: it's not just one cultural front or market. It's the whole lot of them. Maybe the music industry is somewhat saved? Movies, games and literature are not.

 

[IDKFA]

The reality is, and the one no one here likes to bring up, is the invisible reason that "whitewashing" as a trend in Hollywood became so controversial was because it was fundamentally and EXCLUSIVELY used as a tool of furthering rhe mistreatment of minority peoples. This was not a mere happenstance of casting or a situation of "available actors". The system was such that hiring actors of color could lose you funding, distribution, ruin your career as a filmmaker, and potentially even get you investigated.it didn't stop at casting. NBC was so afraid of airing the kiss between Kirk and Uhura(keep in mind, this was less than 60 years ago) that they considered having him kiss spock instead. And they forced the actors to film a scene without. NBC did this out of fear of backlash.

The system of whitewashing was a means of dehumanizing minorities, plain and simple. Using their stories and erasing them from the narrative.

Yes. Whitewashing was wrong. We can all agree with that.

However, that was a long time ago. Times have changed. Is the correct response to now cast non-white people into roles of historical white/European figures? A type of revenge to right the wrongs of the past?

And it is impossible to claim or suggest there is in any way an equivalent force being inflicting upon european culture or white people by Hollywood media. Its simply not a serious argument.

Why do you keep throwing this at me? I've said multiple times that I agree there isn't some far-left shadow organisation with a vendetta against white people.

The reasons it is done NOW are far more diverse in scope and scale, and while it CAN involve some anti white sentiment(and that should be condemned) it does not at all involve fear of one losing their career or their funding as a result of casting Europeans.

The reason it's done today is because people of a certain ideology think they are being virtuous be casting non-white people into white roles. Diversity is seen as a badge of honour and a way to signal you're a good person.

There is also this bizarre belief that making a historical or even a fantasy project with an all white cast is "racist". For example, The 2020 adaptation of Emma was criticised for having an all white cast.

Maybe that's another reason. Studios and filmmakers are scared of the online, far-left attack dogs.

A final thought, studios might believe having a diverse cast makes the project more appealing to a global audience, which is why amazon had a very diverse cast in Rings of Power.

The funny thing is, white people are a global minority. Perhaps it's actually racist to race swap them?

This is why when Chris Nolan says he casted it this way for purely artistic and thematic reasons I believe him. He wouldn't be adversely affected had he casted all white. We all know he wouldn't. Hes well respected in the industry and party much has a blank check waiting from most studios.

Maybe? Who knows. He keeps his political views to himself.

That artistic vision is not going to gel with everyone. Some want a more faithful sdsptsik of the story. That I can get. But thats clearly not what Nolan is setting out to make.

The vison doesn't gel with me. Personally, I'm not drawn it and as stated, it looks like a student play or AI generated content.

 

[Audiophile]

Oh dear lord. Emily Wilson describing what's Wrong with The Odyssey.



Good luck making it through all 3 minutes and 55 seconds.

The f***ing hubris.

 

[jason10mm]

Yes. Whitewashing was wrong. We can all agree with that.

However, that was a long time ago. Times have changed. Is the correct response to now cast non-white people into roles of historical white/European figures? A type of revenge to right the wrongs of the past?

While there were times when they wouldn't have minority characters, or limit what those characters could be, I don't think there are actually a whole ton of "whitewashed" characters where they took a historic asian or black person and just had them portrayed by a white person (minstrel type stuff aside) except in pretty singular events like John Wayne as Ghengis Khan. There simply wasn't a lot of diversity in 95% white hollywood/southern california so whenever they tried to tell a story that wasn't american/european based, they quickly ran into a talent shortage. So you get pacific islander playing japanese, or hispanic stepping in for chinese, italian for native american, etc. I think folks forget just how shoe-string a lot of hollywood was, especially TV, until fairly recently and the studio system encourage a relatively small pool of talent that got multipurposed, and in an era where you couldn't easily revisit a picture, pause and rewind, and at home it was a 12" screen, that kind of stuff was "good enough".

There was DEFINITELY stereotyped characters, no question about that, but that isn't the same as whitewashing.

 

[falconhoof]

While there were times when they wouldn't have minority characters, or limit what those characters could be, I don't think there are actually a whole ton of "whitewashed" characters where they took a historic asian or black person and just had them portrayed by a white person (minstrel type stuff aside) except in pretty singular events like John Wayne as Ghengis Khan. There simply wasn't a lot of diversity in 95% white hollywood/southern california so whenever they tried to tell a story that wasn't american/european based, they quickly ran into a talent shortage. So you get pacific islander playing japanese, or hispanic stepping in for chinese, italian for native american, etc. I think folks forget just how shoe-string a lot of hollywood was, especially TV, until fairly recently and the studio system encourage a relatively small pool of talent that got multipurposed, and in an era where you couldn't easily revisit a picture, pause and rewind, and at home it was a 12" screen, that kind of stuff was "good enough".

There was DEFINITELY stereotyped characters, no question about that, but that isn't the same as whitewashing.

There's such an issue with people looking at the past through the modern lens. It's basically a requirement to do so people can feel all virtuous and superior. People forget (willingly) that the racial make up of countries was radically different, even 20 years ago. There's also a massive tilt to viewing shit through the American lens in other countries where it makes even less sense.

It's why I posted that slide the other day showing that 51% of UK Adverts feature black people, when they make up 4% of the population. That 4% was probably 1% in the '90s and almost nothing in the 50's.

As an effect off this I saw the results of a poll where people in the UK were asked what the racial breakdown of the country was and I think black people were guessed at about 27% on average. Why would people think that?

None of this is a criticism of people's beliefs but how they evaluate their judgement based on bad data. There's absolutely acts in the past where decision makers would act based on racial lines, though that's exactly what they're doing today, hence 51% of ads featuring black people, they just think they're doing it for bold and virtuous reasons. I just think it's another flavour of racism and it will be judged that way in years to come.

 

[jason10mm]

There's such an issue with people looking at the past through the modern lens. It's basically a requirement to do so people can feel all virtuous and superior. People forget (willingly) that the racial make up of countries was radically different, even 20 years ago. There's also a massive tilt to viewing shit through the American lens in other countries where it makes even less sense.

It's why I posted that slide the other day showing that 51% of UK Adverts feature black people, when they make up 4% of the population. That 4% was probably 1% in the '90s and almost nothing in the 50's.

As an effect off this I saw the results of a poll where people in the UK were asked what the racial breakdown of the country was and I think black people were guessed at about 27% on average. Why would people think that?

None of this is a criticism of people's beliefs but how they evaluate their judgement based on bad data. There's absolutely acts in the past where decision makers would act based on racial lines, though that's exactly what they're doing today, hence 51% of ads featuring black people, they just think they're doing it for bold and virtuous reasons. I just think it's another flavour of racism and it will be judged that way in years to come.

Well, I gotta respect the grift. Make execs think they MUST hire a certain group. That group profits. Ride the grift until the $$$ runs out because the audience doesn't actually show up.

Trans actors made BANK on this, as did others. But I think the grift has about run it's course. The actual talent will stay, but the rest are gone.

 

[touchfuzzy]

There's such an issue with people looking at the past through the modern lens. It's basically a requirement to do so people can feel all virtuous and superior. People forget (willingly) that the racial make up of countries was radically different, even 20 years ago. There's also a massive tilt to viewing shit through the American lens in other countries where it makes even less sense.

It's why I posted that slide the other day showing that 51% of UK Adverts feature black people, when they make up 4% of the population. That 4% was probably 1% in the '90s and almost nothing in the 50's.

As an effect off this I saw the results of a poll where people in the UK were asked what the racial breakdown of the country was and I think black people were guessed at about 27% on average. Why would people think that?

I always like to point out every ad that has an interracial or homosexual couple in it too. It's at least 50% of ads. Like, we need to start being honest here that hetero, same-race relationships (of all type of ethnicities) make up probably 95% of all couples on this planet, if not more.

 

[DeafTourette]

While there were times when they wouldn't have minority characters, or limit what those characters could be, I don't think there are actually a whole ton of "whitewashed" characters where they took a historic asian or black person and just had them portrayed by a white person (minstrel type stuff aside) except in pretty singular events like John Wayne as Ghengis Khan. There simply wasn't a lot of diversity in 95% white hollywood/southern california so whenever they tried to tell a story that wasn't american/european based, they quickly ran into a talent shortage. So you get pacific islander playing japanese, or hispanic stepping in for chinese, italian for native american, etc. I think folks forget just how shoe-string a lot of hollywood was, especially TV, until fairly recently and the studio system encourage a relatively small pool of talent that got multipurposed, and in an era where you couldn't easily revisit a picture, pause and rewind, and at home it was a 12" screen, that kind of stuff was "good enough".

There was DEFINITELY stereotyped characters, no question about that, but that isn't the same as whitewashing.

I only partially agree to this as it's missing the fact that there were black actors (and Asian and others) ... There were even movies of all black and all Asian actors. Movies like Porgie and Bess, Carmen Jones and others. Or Phantom of Chinatown and Daughter of Shanghai. They weren't big studio movies but they were movies still the same (like some of the Blaxploitation films of the 70s).

The point is, Hollywood wasn't hiring them because of racism. Not in lead roles, anyway. As the help, as a criminal, as background.... Never the lead. Even now Asian actors have a hard time getting the lead in a role that has nothing to do with Martial Arts and are rarely seen as a POSSIBILITY in a romantic role (even that film last year barely showed romance ... The one with Ke he Quan ... I know I'm misspelling his name).

And you're right about TV using the same actors over and over. I saw Leonard Nimoy in more than one role over the entire run on Wagon Train... He played a Native American, Mexican and an East European. Claude Akins was used the same way on there (playing different people).

 

[jason10mm]

I only partially agree to this as it's missing the fact that there were black actors (and Asian and others) ... There were even movies of all black and all Asian actors. Movies like Porgie and Bess, Carmen Jones and others. Or Phantom of Chinatown and Daughter of Shanghai. They weren't big studio movies but they were movies still the same (like some of the Blaxploitation films of the 70s).

The point is, Hollywood wasn't hiring them because of racism. Not in lead roles, anyway. As the help, as a criminal, as background.... Never the lead. Even now Asian actors have a hard time getting the lead in a role that has nothing to do with Martial Arts and are rarely seen as a POSSIBILITY in a romantic role (even that film last year barely showed romance ... The one with Ke he Quan ... I know I'm misspelling his name).

And you're right about TV using the same actors over and over. I saw Leonard Nimoy in more than one role over the entire run on Wagon Train... He played a Native American, Mexican and an East European. Claude Akins was used the same way on there (playing different people).

There were limited opportunities and roles for certain minorities, no question. But I don't recall very many times where they would have WHITE actors play a black or asian character, unless the actor was of some sort of mixed ethnicity themself (of course acknowledging the miscegenation laws as well). Yul Brenner as King of Siam, for example, or Ricardo Montalbon as Kahn, going from this....

to this

where you have "exotic" looking actors playing various "foreign" characters. But were there ANY actual Indian actors in Hollywood in the 60's that would have fit that character and wouldn't have a thick accent or something?

This is a pretty good summary that has most of the examples I can recall and some I didn't even know about. Some are kinda bs, like saying a european can't play a south american....which has a ton of european descended people in it, but some are legit.

25 Times White Actors Played People Of Color And No One Really Gave A S**t

Think blackface and yellowface are a thing of the past? Get ready to cringe.

www.huffpost.com

For me, if you are cosmetically darkening skin and adding epicanthic folds or buck teeth....that's a line that shouldn't be crossed. But Ben Affleck writing, directing, and starring in a film as a character based on an ecuadorian, well, you need star power to get the film made and I don't think he "pretended" to be a different race.

 

[rkofan87]

 

[Stuart360]

Sorry if this has already been posted but this is genius -

 

[jason10mm]

Sorry if this has already been posted but this is genius -

One of the negatives about AI is they can have photorealistic-ish actors saying and doing stuff that would NEEEEEEEVVVVEEERRRRR fly if you had to get real people to do it, or at least there would be a few more folks to put up boundaries. I've seen AI made stuff that is just horrific and far beyond what is just funny, and eventually everyone is gonna be up in arms at each other over videos created by like 2 dudes (or jsut the AI spun off on its own).

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Oh dear lord. Emily Wilson describing what's Wrong with The Odyssey.



Good luck making it through all 3 minutes and 55 seconds.

Gusy , check out THIS deconstruction.

 

[Gusy]

Gusy , check out THIS deconstruction.

Yeah.. Like the text said.. there's nothing to admire, nothing to build or create.. so.. Why dont we take a literary gem and fill it with new bullshit that fits a narrative.

At this point its like a recipe that always produces the same toxic, resentful dish.

 

[SlimySnake]

It's why I posted that slide the other day showing that 51% of UK Adverts feature black people, when they make up 4% of the population. That 4% was probably 1% in the '90s and almost nothing in the 50's.

lol thats hilarious. they went full retard. you never go full retard.

I still remember Jada boycotting the oscars after Will Smith was snubbed saying oscars were racists because none of the 20 acting nominees were black. Well, just a couple of years before that 12 years As A Slave won best picture, lupita won best actress, ejiwafor was nominated for best actor, barkhad abdi was nominated for best supporting actor in Captain Phillips, and the black director was nominated. But nope, oscars so white campaign went viral and changed hollywood forever. The year after Moonlight won over La La Land. Black fucking Panther was nominated for best picture. Fucking Get Out won oscar for best screenplay. Fucking Parasite won then Everything Everywhere at Once a few years later. Dont even get me started on Michael B Jordon winning over DiCaprio this year.

Mediocrity being rewarded left and right. What a joke this industry has become.

 

[Yerd]

lol thats hilarious. they went full retard. you never go full retard.

I still remember Jada boycotting the oscars after Will Smith was snubbed saying oscars were racists because none of the 20 acting nominees were black. Well, just a couple of years before that 12 years As A Slave won best picture, lupita won best actress, ejiwafor was nominated for best actor, barkhad abdi was nominated for best supporting actor in Captain Phillips, and the black director was nominated. But nope, oscars so white campaign went viral and changed hollywood forever. The year after Moonlight won over La La Land. Black fucking Panther was nominated for best picture. Fucking Get Out won oscar for best screenplay. Fucking Parasite won then Everything Everywhere at Once a few years later. Dont even get me started on Michael B Jordon winning over DiCaprio this year.

Mediocrity being rewarded left and right. What a joke this industry has become.

Black Panther was very mediocre. I liked the villains backstory, but it wasn't an amazing movie. I feel the same way about the most recent jizz target, Sinners.

 

[EviLore]

Ideologically compromised and incompetent.

And, of course, her translation is now being used widely in academic settings.

 

[jason10mm]

Ideologically compromised and incompetent.

And, of course, her translation is now being used widely in academic settings.

This is my shocked face at this distressing news

maybe she should have taken a bit more time with it, but then she'd be "elderly" as well, I guess.

 

[Stuart360]

Its obviously going to gross a certain amount off Nolan's name alone, but i'm pretty sure its not going to be the 'mega blockbuster' it could and maybe should of been.

Plus Nolan is obviously a great director but i honestly find his films a alittle over realistic and sterile to be honest.

 

[GymWolf]

That Eteoneus fella must be non-binary.

 

[calico]

Black Panther was very mediocre.

It's pretty bad. The most fun thing about it is that if you race swap Wakanda to a white isolationist utopia with the same politics (and pretend such a movie could be made), it would be considered an incredibly racist, ultra-MAGA, America First propaganda piece with a white saviour ending.

 

[Gp1]

What are the odds that Page is Patroclus and we see a Brad Pitt cameo as Achilles?