Helen of Troy

As a big fan of mythology and the Iliad, I'm pretty surprised by how nitpicky people are being on the details. Having taken a "Mythology in Film" course, I can safely state the following:

1) It's not supposed to be "The Iliad," it's "Helen of Troy." 2) It's a film. Made 3,000 years later. Targeted at an entirely different audience. 3) Greek mythology tends to be greatly inconsistent anyway, depending on your source. 4) Patroklus is never mentioned to justify Achilles's rage against Hector. So what? If Achilles hadn't withdrawn from war, he would've killed Hector anyways. And having him withdrawing and re-entering into the war would only have distracted from the main story (Helen) without really adding anything.

There's a difference between myths and literature. One can stray from the literature of a story while staying true to the mythology of it. The Iliad itself was constantly being reinvented by generations of oral poets who changed the story every time they performed it. Back in ancient times, a person who merely recited the story verbatim would be considered an inferior, because he'd merely be a copycat rather than a storyteller.

When it comes to the spirit and tradition, "Helen" shines. For instance, in the Iliad, Achilles compares Agamemnon taking Brisius to Paris taking Helen. In the film, the comparison is made literal. Brilliant. Then you have themes and scenes taken from the Orestia. Three or four different ideas are brought together in the span of one.

"Helen" may be a bit loose with the details, but it shows a good understanding why those details took place, and stays true to capturing their motivations. Just because they don't follow the material exactly doesn't mean they don't know it really, really well. The same is true for a lot of other film productions, from "Desire Under the Elms" to "O Brother Where Art Thou" to "Medea" and even "Clash of the Titans."

All and all, a good flick, I was pleasantly surprised. My only real complaints was the casting of Achilles (I assume they were combining his character with Ajax/Diomedes) and the fact that Hector never gets to actually beat anyone in combat (That was disappointing, to say the least).

There were several images that were important in the movie. Helen really stood out to be the most beautiful woman at that time but there were a lot of differences from the text. In the movie, what she showed the audience was a childish lady who suddenly turns into a flirt. Sometimes, it is also hard to grasp her true emotions probably because this flirt image has enveloped her identity in the movie. What I admired about Paris was not his cute face. It is true that he looks fit for the character of Paris but what's more to that is you could see in his face his passion for whatever he's doing and saying. The image of a "pretty boy" was really fit for him. I am very fascinated with how Agamemnon was able to internalize his character very well. He portrayed a king who was really greedy but also showed a soft side. His facial expressions were also stunning especially his eyes. His portrayal of Agamemnon's character was constant all throughout the movie. Menelaus' identity was hard to depict because his identity in the Iliad was not totally exposed. What was admirable in him in the movie was his being a nice man or prince. I saw in him the change from the beginning of the movie to the end. You could see in him his sincerity in changing. Although Hector only had a small part, he was able to show the audience a noble Trojan. His image in the movie was different from the original text. He was not the strongest Trojan and he was even overpowered by his brother, Paris. Achilles was a totally different character. He was just a war and bloodthirsty warrior in the movie. It's as if he's just a bully in Helen of Troy.

The technical aspects for me were not that good. The voices were hardly audible. Sometimes, it's as if the actors and actresses were just murmuring to each other although the background music was suitable for the movie. It made you imagine what it was like before and how it felt during that time. There were scenes that were too dark that the characters could not be seen anymore but the shade of colors used were suitable for the time being illustrated in the movie. There were angles wherein a character was blocking someone else and it made it so hard to feel and see what's really happening but there were also shots that were nice. This was particular with the wooden horse. The angle of the shot made the wooden horse look so majestic and the audience would really be at awe with how the Greeks were able to come up with that plan and how they were able to make that wooden horse.

Overall, Helen of Troy is something worthwhile to watch not only because of Paris' look but also because the movie gave explanations on how things came to be and it brought its audience closer to the "reality" of the Iliad.

The Helen of Troy miniseries on USA today failed apparently because the writer lacked the nerve to tell the classic story, and instead made up his own. Instead of using Homer's Illiad as a starting point, the TVsters seemed to turn to the 1956 film as the primary source--turning the seduction/kidnap of Helen into a big ol' love story.

So many key elements were missing: the interventions of the gods, the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, the killing of Patroclus in Achilles armor, Achilles subsequent killing of Hector, etc. This was the storyline of what we know of the myth of the Trojan War.

And major characters are triviliazed or disappeared: Hector's glory on TV is as a second banana to Paris; mighty Ajax gets a mention, little more; Diomedes, Nestor, Idonmoneus are absent. On the Trojan side, Aeneas, Sarpedon, Glaucus, Deiphobus and others are equally invisible.

Agamemnon is seen, not as a hero with the fatal flaw of hubris but a Hitlerian monster. Menaleas, a strong warrior in the Illiad, seems like he attended all the sensitivity training classes avaiable to the Achians, (the Greeks were referred to as "the Ageans" in the series), but wasn't much of a fighter.

But my biggest beef is with the character of Paris (Helen seemed commonplace, but acceptable). Paris was not much of a hero in the Illiad; actually, he was a bit of a feckless bounder. Helen's feelings toward him were decidedly mixed, with lust, pity, and contempt thrown together. Hector upbraided Paris on several occasions for his cowardice and sloth, but then, Paris occasionally entered the fray as an experienced soldier as well.

I sense the writers chickened out of grappling with a different kind of plot, and thereby missed an opportunity. The difficult interplay among the Greek heroes, the complicated moral choices on both sides, the tragic savagery of war, while existing to small degrees in the series, took back seat to a more or less conventional love story.

Too bad. Production values were fair, and some of the elements were there to make something better.

DVD borrowed from my local public library, DTS sound, widescreen, each half on each of two disks, I watched it on consecutive nights. I was most drawn to it for Sienna Guillory, young British actress and daughter of a famous musician from Cuba, whom I had seen in the modern remake of 'The Time Machine.' She plays Helen of Sparta, who becomes Helen of Troy, and is the default object of passion which sparks the war and eventual fall of Troy, via the Trojan Horse. Agamemnon and Achilles are depicted as heartless killers with no redeeming qualities. I don't know what Homer had in mind, but this seems to be decidedly different from most earlier treatments of these mythical characters. The video transfer to DVD is very high quality, but the sharpness and realistic colors are not as effective as some period pieces (e.g. Gladiator) which use a mildly tinted image and selective focus to better depict the olden times. Still, for the type of movie it is, a worthwhile depiction of some important Greek mythology.

Unlike the epic TROY, which spent much time and money recreating the spectacle of the Trojan War with CGI, the emphasis here is on the political ambitions and prophecies leading up to the start of the siege of Troy. Rufus Sewell as Agamemnon gives a performance (as the man who would conquer Troy) which eerily evokes Oliver Reed at his sinister best, as he makes it clear that the romance of Helen and Paris was merely a convenient excuse for the events that followed, and that the war came out of his own thirst for conquest. Sienna Guillory is attractive as Helen, but her role is rapidly reduced to that of a bystander in the great events that swirled around her. And the film makes clear its logic about this: how could a woman be responsible for a war in a time when even princesses were chattels of the royal houses to be auctioned off in marriage for political gain? As it deals more intimately with its characters and looks more closely at social power structures and gender roles of the period, this film is much more interesting as a human drama than the rather empty spectacle TROY.