As a student of screenwriting, I'm very aware that in the process of adapting a book into a film, certain concessions need to be made. Literary nuances are made visible, novel plot arcs are compressed into a clear three-act structure, and certain characters are destined to be cut (RIP Peeves). However, there are films that take crazy, inexplicable, and inexcusable liberties with the source material, purely for the sake of Hollywood - the most egregious of which, at least in my opinion, may be 2004's The Handsome Man in Armor. Vehicle Trojan . Yes, aside from the leather kilts and genuinely regrettable hair, this film adaptation of Homer’s epic poem “The Iliad” is also so blatantly, stupidly inaccurate that it still excites me a decade later of anger. So on the occasion of its tenth anniversary, let's take a moment to revisit some of the more confusing changes made to this classic war story (while trying not to wear out our keyboards with question marks, that is).
Patroclus was Achilles' "cousin," not his lover
While the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles is never explicitly described in The Iliad , other works by Plato and Aesculius, among others, depict the two men as lovers - Holland Ma certainly did nothing to prevent this interpretation. In fact, Patroclus' death at the hands of Hector was the primary motivation for Achilles' subsequent grief-stricken killing spree, controversial disrespect for Hector's body, and ultimately his prophesied death. However, in the film, the writers chose to gloss over Achilles' relationship with the captive priestess Briseis (hi, Rose Byrne!), going from "I'm angry because Agamemnon wants to She takes away " the destined love between like souls ," while relegating Patroclus to the role of "cousin." Man, do they really give that guy a hard knock every time he even hints, "Oh, you mean his cousin?" "Yes, his cousin." "But are they cousins?" "Indeed, that Patroclus is his cousin. Without a doubt, a hundred percent cousin." This is essentially Filmmaker's version of ancient Greece being "non-gay".
Of course, this change is particularly annoying because it's completely illogical plot-wise—downplaying Achilles's vengeful pain of losing his lover to "Holy cow! Basic family loyalty!"—and, because of its revision Apparently an attempt to appease homophobic censors worried that a sexual subplot between two men wouldn't play out in Peoria. Not only would taking away the nuance of their relationship create a stronger motivation for Achilles' subsequent rage, but also, it would give the bisexual character some excellent visibility, reminding the testosterone-hyped teen market that cool Men can wield swords with the best of them (or, in this case, better) — and, best of all, we'll probably get to see Brad Pitt and Garrett Hedlund Making out, well, yes.
I mean, come on – tell me there wasn’t serious tension in all the “fighting”…
Helen never felt at home in Sparta - except that she was born there
Sure, it's a fairly minor quibble, but it's frustrating, if only because it makes no sense. Putting aside the fact that casting anyone to play Helen is problematic - as she is considered the most beautiful woman ever and no actress can truly live up to those standards, not even the very lovely Diane Kruger — the writers chose to explain her motivations for suddenly absconding across the ocean with Prince Paris (aka the puppy-faced Orlando Bloom), giving her a melancholy monologue about how “Sparta was never me home - when I was 16, my parents sent me there to marry Menelaus."
To which I let out a resounding "no": Helen's parents were the king and queen of Sparta, and she chose Menelaus from a pool of suitors that included all the eligible men in the country—essentially, A bachelorette in a gown. In fact, the pact that Odysseus forced all of Helen's suitors to swear at this special gathering—that they would pool their resources and fight anyone who tried to steal her—was the impetus for the Trojan War. But no: in the movie version, she's a miserable child bride married to an insensitive fool, and Agamemnon essentially goes to war because he enjoys going to war.
And, speaking of Menelaus…
Menelaus is dead, but no
For those of you who remember the Odyssey , you may remember the scene twenty years after the war when Odysseus' son Telemachus comes to Sparta to visit Menelaus and Helen, and they give He told some cool stories about his dad. Of course, this wouldn't be possible if Menelaus had been stabbed to death by Hector after Paris backed down from the duel - which, you guessed it, is how the movie chooses to have things play out.
Then Agamemnon died, this,? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
While viewers could certainly survive without that little detour in the story of Odysseus' long journey home, it's effectively offset by the fact that the filmmakers chose to stab Agamemnon in the gut during the final climactic battle. An entire series of plays, Aeschylus's Oresteia , tells the story of Odysseus. Agamemnon returns home, where his wife and her lover murder him, and his son's subsequent revenge. Sure, viewers might be temporarily satisfied with seeing one of the story's main villains eviscerated - and Brian Cox does rock a vile death scene - but even within the film's twisted world, this is A cheap catharsis that feels unearned and ultimately weighed down by its inaccuracy.
I mean, Xie Xi. As if it wasn't enough for us to see the rat's nest on the back of Eric Bana's head.
Image: Warner Bros. Pictures
