Just a few points for those who think the Iliad has been betrayed

I have been noticing quite a few people criticising the film for its inability to stick religiously to the script of the Iliad; criticising those who think that the film has merits; and finally advising anyone with a positive comment to go and read the Iliad.

May I just offer a few suggestions, interesting facts and, perhaps, something of a reading list for these people when they critique this film? I shall also point out that I am not defending or advocating any particular viewpoint about the relative success or failure of this director in his portrayal of Greek myth. I hope the following points will explain why this is:

1) Firstly then, the idea behind oral epic poetry as a genre, was to take a well-known story and to tell it in a way that will entertain your audience. Homer, after all, was a bard who told his stories to entertain his listeners. He was part of a wider community who appreciated tales of ancient times, and a society who would pay money to hear a talented singer sing of a new version. These singers, such as Homer, were praised for ingenuity and their take on an old theme. As such, as part of this tradition, poets were motivated to craft their own version as if to say, “Ah, but I know what really happened. I even have the muse of epic poetry on my side” and hence the invocation of the muse in the Iliad and Odyssey. Therefore, this explains why, for example, we hear of events of the Trojan War, which do not actually appear in the Iliad itself. Key examples include: the death of Achilles, the destruction of Troy, the Trojan horse (although this is covered by the Odyssey) etc. These come from other epics that circulated at the time including The Kypria, The Little Iliad etc.

2) Thus, there was appreciation of the skill in manipulating the fluidity of myth, a kind of primordial soup almost! There were numerous poets, numerous playwrights and an infinite number of versions from which literary artists could draw their versions. For example, the death of Iphigenia is indeed omitted from the Iliad, but appears in the Kypria. There is even a tragedy written about the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Euripides (Iphigenia in Aulis), AND by the same playwright a play that talks about the survival of Iphigenia, who is whisked away to Tauris, out of harm’s way (Iphigenia in Tauris). This demonstrates that alternate versions do exist, and can even co-exist, within a playwright’s own oeuvre. That this film chooses to do the same, should not be considered a negative thing in its own right, but in fact adheres closely to the literary traditions both of tragedy and oral epic poetry. The chooses, of course, can still be critiqued. However, given that the traditions of Greek mythology, it should not be criticised on not adhering to the Iliad, when it is clear it draws from many sources.

3) Thirdly, I thought I might elaborate on the variety of sources it does in fact use. For all those recommending we reread the Iliad, I would posit that such individuals should read a fantastic work by Timothy Gantz, “Early Greek Myth: a Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources”, a work that spans two volumes. In there you will indeed find that the prince we know as Paris, was born Alexandros and exposed on a mountain to be found and raised by shepherds. It was the shepherd that named him Paris, hence the reason for two names in the Iliad. Although Homer never reveals his source for the two names, he clearly has heard of both. This is a technique called intertextuality or allusion. In these other sources, you will also find that Iphigenia is generally saved from actual sacrifice (Euripides, Kypria, Ehoiai). Moreover, Cassandra is a vicious character, who even arms herself with an axe and is frequently described as calling upon Troy to destroy Paris when he is born (Euripides). One entertaining example of allusion in Harrison’s film is his mention of Odysseus saying that he would rather plough his field with salt than go to war; in some versions Odysseus does in fact to this to feign madness and convince Agamemnon’s envoys that he is not fit for battle. It is only when Palamedes places Telemachos in front of the plough that Odysseus’ will breaks, so that as he stops the plough he proves his sanity and he reluctantly goes to war (Hyginus).

4) I could go on, but I shall end on this point; that if one criticises this film on the basis that it is unfaithful, one fails to appreciate the intertextuality and fluidity of Greek mythology or what I like to refer to as the mythic database. If we criticise this film for betraying the Iliad, we should criticise the Iliad for betraying his tradition. In the tradition before Homer, Patroclus and Hector played relatively small roles. It was a battle between Achilles and Memnon that took the centre-stage. With these two heroes, we saw a real duel between demi-gods since their mothers were Thetis and Eos. The consequence of the duel saw either Memnon or both Memnon and Achilles being deified, the former being granted immortality by Zeus, and the latter being whisked away to the White Island (Hesiod and Proklos). Gantz even suggests that this is something Homer knew given the way in which he talks about Memnon in books 3 and 4.

So in conclusion then, what Homer has chosen to do in his Iliad, in what Euripides chose to do with his tragedies, and all the other authors of the epic cycle (which notably fills in the gaps that are left by the very limited scope of the Iliad), is the same method chosen by John Harrison in his Helen of Troy. Regardless of the merits or vices of his choices, he nevertheless is more faithful to and knowledgeable of the tradition of Greek poetry and tragedy than his negative critics are. Homer has chosen, in his Iliad, to focus on the tragedy of Achilles, as Aristotle himself observed in the unity of its focus. The director here has chosen to focus on the tragedy by which the world is brought to its knees by the most beautiful woman alive, that war devastates all lives and leaves no survivors who are untouched by some suffering. Few characters are redeemable. This is why this film is called Helen of Troy and not Iliad. The Iliad is bent on showing the impact of Achilles’ dilemma about whether or not to fight. This begins as anger and hence the first few words of the Iliad, “Sing muse, of the anger of Achilles, son of Peleus” (to paraphrase). This is why it features only a relatively small number of days in the tenth year of the war. Achilles shows a Hamlet-like delay in getting back to where he should be, in battle and going towards his inevitable death. The Iliad is Homer’s take. Helen of Troy is Harrison’s take.