Troy's Fallen! May 14, 2004

by Mark Rose

How do all the Troy productions stack up?

Elbow room is in short supply these days for Brad Pitt and other Achilles wannabes. (Warner Bros.) [LARGER   IMAGE]

It's getting crowded at Troy these days. In addition

to the motion picture with Brad Pitt as Achilles,

there are at least four television programs out there.

There's the movie, there's History Channel and

National Geographic documentaries, something on A&E,

and there's In Search of the Trojan War. Here's a review of

some of these. (See Manfred Korfmann's article "Was

there a Trojan War?" on this website for the real

story.)

Troy is a violent film. Homer's great poem the Iliad is

cut and hacked mercilessly in it, while the evidence

of the archaeological record is helpless before its

onslaught. Where to start in discussing this? Let's do

this critique in just three paragraphs (it could go on

for pages): the archaeology, the story, then briefly

the movie as a movie.

Ancient depiction of an eighth-century Greek ship matches those in the new movie Troy, setaround 1200 B.C. (Warner Bros.)[Click on images for larger versions]

I'll start with the archaeology because it is in a

sense window dressing for the story of the Trojan War.

The Iliad is the most powerful of the cycle of epic

poems that together tell of the war from start to

finish, and it is one of the greatest works of

literature. Like any great story, you could transfer

it to other settings, other times or places, and

remain true to it (like Romeo and Juliet being

rewritten as West Side Story). So archaeology here is

providing the setting or context, and presumably the

filmmakers intended something to match what Homer

described. Homer, who belongs in the eighth century

B.C., told of events long before, around 1200 B.C.,

toward the end of the Late Bronze, which is when the

ancient Greeks said the Trojan War took place. So we

might expect some unity in the archaeological setting,

with things matching what we know about material

culture in the Aegean world ca. 1200 B.C., but instead

we get a chronological train wreck. I'll limit myself

to a few of the most outrageous examples: the ships

look to be of eighth-century design (see photos);

statues that litter the Troy of this film are pretty

ghastly creations that are apparently inspired by

sixth- and fifth-century B.C. sculptures (see photos);

Trojan princesses in one scene sport jewelry that

belongs in the Early Bronze Age, a full millennium

before this story takes place; and coins are dutifully

placed on the eyes of all the heroes who get killed in

the movie, never mind that coins won't be invented for

another five or six centuries. We might also expect

some correspondence between the physical setting of

the movie and the places it takes us, such as Troy.

The city of Troy is increasingly well known and we

have a good idea of its appearance, thanks to the

Troia Projekt (University of Tubingen and University

of Cincinnati) excavation and the virtual reality

based on it; the filmmakers, however, must have wanted

something more spectacular (see photos). Troy's

intimidating outer wall in the film, which I take to

be 40 or 50 feet in height with higher towers, is a

fiction (they didn't have siege engines for battering

down walls in the Late Bronze Age, so walls on that

scale would have been a colossal waste). There's

evidence for a ditch enclosing the lower city at Troy,

but here drama trumps reality. So the archaeology in

this film is a double miss in terms of unity of time

and place. Some of the inaccuracies are understandable

from the point of view of the filmmakers--having

Achilles standing below 50-foot-tall walls and calling

out for Hektor may make for a better shot than having

him stand on the far side of a ditch. But others of

these errors, like the coins, are just ugly; they

don't help the movie. Why not get it right? And it was

a relief to see that many of the silly statues are

smashed during the sack of Troy (an especially goofy

Apollo statue gets it early in the film, providing a

light moment).

The lower city of Troy was protected by a ditch, shownhere, but in the movie the ditch has been transformed into a wall that's 40 or 50 feet tall. (Troia Projekt)[LARGER   IMAGE]

Clearly Homer had the story of the Trojan War wrong

and it had to be rewritten, to judge by changes (I

can't say improvements) this movie makes. Homer says

it took ten years, but here it is three weeks with the

famous quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles taking

place on day one. Hektor kills Menelaos and Ajax on

day two of the war (Homer's having Menelaos surviving

the war and returning to live happily in Sparta with

Helen is awkward, and the suicide of Ajax isn't really

needed for this movie). On the night of day two, the

Trojans unleash their secret weapon: Great Balls of

Fire! Day three, Hektor is such a good guy that after

he kills Patroklos, the young protege of Achilles, he

suggests everybody knock off for the rest of the day.

By the end of day four, Achilles kills Hektor and

Priam can come and beg for his son's body. Where Homer

took more than nine years, the film gets it all done

in just four days. For the grand finale, the

filmmakers aren't satisfied with just the horse and

the sack of Troy. In the epics, Achilles is dead and

gone by the time the wooden horse is built, but here

he is still alive so he can search for his love

interest, Briseis. Attacked by Agamemnon, Briseis

kills him (never mind the ancient tale of Agamemnon

returning to Greece to be killed by his unfaithful

wife Clytemnestra and then be avenged by his children

Orestes and Electra). Paris then shoots Achilles with

arrows (five or six, I lost count) before scampering

off with his love interest, Helen, to live the simple

life somewhere--maybe subsisting on nuts and twigs on

the slopes of Mount Ida. That's right! Helen and Paris

get to run away! Homer had it wrong! Hektor's wife

Andromache makes good her escape, with their son, too.

Best of all, Paris gives the "sword of Troy" to Aeneas

who also escapes and sets out to found Rome. 'Tis a

far, far happier ending than Homer and the ancients

devised (mostly enslavement, death, revenge, and the

like). Those are the main points where the script is

unlike any other telling of thee Trojan War, but

there's lots more: Achilles doesn't come to the army

as depicted, Briseis is a slave not a priestess of

Apollo, etc., etc., etc. What's the impact of all this

rewriting? Homer's Iliad is a profound work about what

it is to be human; this is not. Homer's message is

here diluted by a rather insipid rendering of boy-

meets girl, and the narrative of the epics is shuffled

about drastically in many places for little effect.

The reconstruction, of excavated structures only, in Troy's citadel doesn't much look like theHollywood version. Nicecolumns! Did you get thoseat Knossos (bottom right), or what? (Troia Projekt) (Warner Bros.)

[LARGER   IMAGE ]

Looking at this simply as a movie, and this is purely

personal reaction, some of the characters were well

portrayed others not so well portrayed. Hektor and

Andromache are okay; Helen gets better over the course

of the film. Paris is acceptable. Priam (Peter

O'Toole) looks a bit like a stunned mullet in some

scenes. Brad Pitt seems to try very hard as Achilles.

But his lines are sometimes not so good ("Let no man

forget how menacing we are," he exclaims, in case the

audience needs reminding) and maybe the role was

beyond him, or at least the Achilles of Homer was

beyond him. This movie is not great, which doesn't

mean it might not make pots of money, but given $200

million to play with, the filmmaker could have come up

with something better. Hopefully some people might

actually be inspired to read the Iliad after seeing

this. But the few that do will be far outnumbered by

the millions who see this film and leave the theater

thinking they have seen something that reflects the

time and place and events that inspired Homer. Granted

that a summer blockbuster is not the same as a

documentary, this film could have been more accurate

and truer to Homer without sacrificing mass appeal.

Take one Archaic kouros figure, add the Zeus Olympias by Pheidas, shake, and hey presto! You get whatever isbehind Peter O'Toole!

HIstory Channel's "The True Story of Troy" will be

broadcast on Sunday, May 16 at 8:00 p.m. It has some

very nice elements and a few misleading or otherwise

not so good ones. They did talk to the right people.

There are nice sections on current work at Troy

featuring excavation director Manfred Korfmann and his

colleagues in field at the site, and discussion about

who found the site with Susan Allen, champion of its

true discoverer, Frank Calvert, over Heinrich

Schliemann. Others who appear include Getzel Cohen of

the University of Cincinnati, who gives lots of

background information, and classicist Robert Garland

who is filmed by a campfire on a beach. Highlights

include the work at Troy, early film of oral poets in

the Balkans, discussion of human sacrifice in the Late

Bronze Age, and Garland's fireside chat about the

Iliad. A U.S. Army general, who specializes in the

study of ancient warfare, comments on the Homeric code

of honor. Less satisfactory is the hamfisted and

oversimplified comparison of the Trojan War with Iraq.

There's also some problems with props: the so-called

mask of Agamemnon and inlaid daggers from Mycenae are

centuries too early for the Trojan War, but appear

over and over. There are some ancient and historical

images of the war--vase paintings, mosaics, and such--

but the documentary relies too much on costumed

actors. Some are re-enacted scenes (the sacrifice of

Iphigenia, with an inlaid dagger; Schliemann adorning

his wife with the Trojan gold jewelry). Then there are

mood bits (lots of red-lighted battle scenes, one

overly used of some guy twirling a couple of swords as

he spins around) that are over the top. The re-

enactments can be annoying beyond overuse. For

example, University of Cincinnati scholars Sharon

Stocker and Jack Davis are shown at the Mycenaean

palace site of Pylos discussing evidence for a bull

sacrifice and feast. Unfortunately the scene dissolves

to a re-creation that's pretty much a toga party. But

there's good stuff here--listen to what the various

archaeologists have to say, and listen to Garland's

thoughts about the <iliad< i=""> (you'll get there

what you won't get from the Troy film).</iliad<>

Archaeologists and actors mix it up in History Channeland National Geographic Troy documentaries.

National Geographic's Beyond the Movie: Troy, a DVD that

came out in April, is available online through Amazon,

Barnes and Noble, and the like ($24.98). It is a very

slick production. The scholars involved include Jack

Davis and C. Brian Rose of the University of

Cincinnati (the latter co-directs the current

excavations at Troy), and Eric Cline, a specialist in

trade in the Late Bronze Age. Highlights include Rose

explaining the archaeological evidence at Troy--two

destruction levels in the Late Bronze Age, the second

with arrowheads indicating it was caused by an attack

rather than a fire or earthquake--and how that fits

into what we know about the Late Bronze Age and what

Homer describes. Cline makes the interesting

suggestion that the Trojan Horse might have been a

reference to an earthquake, since Poseidon--the sea

god who is also known as "Earthshaker"--had the horse

as his particular animal (like Athena and her owl).

Also nice are clips from the 1930s excavation of the

site. Not so nice are re-enactments, especially the

duel between Achilles and Hektor wearing brightly

polished armor as they hack at each other with shiny

steel swords. The production ends with an unparalleled

cloud of purple prose ("Everything Schliemann touched

seemed to turn to gold, but everything this gold

touched seemed to fall.")

Detail showing the Greeks pulling the wooden horse into Troy from The Wooden Horse of Troy by the Circle of Paul Bri. (Corbis/Courtesy History Channel) [LARGER   IMAGE]

If you choose to see Troy, enjoy the movie, but leave

your copy of Homer and your archaeological texts at

home. Either the History Channel or National

Geographic production will get you closer to reality,

though neither is without flaws. For more on the movie

Troy look for the commentary "Assessing the Evidence

for the Trojan Wars," on the Archaeological Institute

of America's website by C. Brian Rose, one of the

directors of the current excavations at the site and a

professor at the University of Cincinnati, and see the

Troia Projekt site.