Troy: Director's Cut (Petersen, 2004)

[John Cope]

Surprised there wasn't a thread for this already. Anyway, I had to post a link to this recently published look at the new edition, courtesy DVDTalk. It really couldn't be a more thorough or positive review. For my part, I'm glad to hear that some of the deficiencies of the theatrical cut have been addressed (like that godawful song over the closing credits, which sent me out on an emotional note opposite what was intended I'm sure).

[Luke M]

The review is one of the better ones I've read on DVDTalk. It's interesting how it's more than just scenes being added in but it also has different edits. I plan on getting the HD-DVD version.

[jbeall]

Here's the link.

This would have to be one hell of an edit in order for Troy to even approach mediocrity. The theatrical cut was ridiculously bad; when I saw it in theaters, the audience was cracking up at the myriad moments of unintentional comedy. After reading that review, I think the author already liked the film, because his descriptions don't really suggest (to me, anyway) that any of the problems in the theatrical cut are actually addressed by this dvd release.

[Darth Lavender]

Ironically, the whole thing I liked about Troy was it's badness.

It's a throw-back to Hollywood's lesser epics with miscast stars, clunky dialogue and all the other curiosities of that genre.
(People are going to disagree with me about the casting, but as good as, for example, Pitt was in the role of Achiles, casting anyone other than an unknown in such an iconic role is bound to come off a little ridiculous, and that's a part of Troy's charm. It takes a classic work of literature, and packages it as a standard-issue Hollywood action flick.)
One could, in a way, compare it to Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet or Moulin Rouge! in that it combines high and low art (although Luhrman was doing this deliberately)

Fortunately, I never bought the first Troy HD release (had the SD already,) so I'll probably pick this one up. I am a little concerned about all the extra Paris/Helen scenes (I just find any 'mutual' romance boring as all heck. Closest I can think of to a romance movie that I actually enjoyed is "Secretary" (not counting films like Belle et la Bete, The Silence of the Lambs, The Phantom of the Opera, etc.)

[jbeall]

Ironically, the whole thing I liked about Troy was it's badness.

It's a throw-back to Hollywood's lesser epics with miscast stars, clunky dialogue and all the other curiosities of that genre.
(People are going to disagree with me about the casting, but as good as, for example, Pitt was in the role of Achiles, casting anyone other than an unknown in such an iconic role is bound to come off a little ridiculous, and that's a part of Troy's charm. It takes a classic work of literature, and packages it as a standard-issue Hollywood action flick.)
One could, in a way, compare it to Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet or Moulin Rouge! in that it combines high and low art (although Luhrman was doing this deliberately)

Perhaps, but those generic epics from Hollywood's golden years weren't all that good, and ironic distance doesn't necessarily make it better; it just means that you're conscious of why it's bad and why you still like it anyway. Not that I'm disputing your right to like a bad film; I still think The Adventures of Hudson Hawk is great, although it's pretty universally panned.

But give me the Robert Fagles translation of the Homeric epics anyday over this trash.

[Barmy]

Does anyone even watch those old Hollywood epics anymore? They were awesome on the tube when you were seven, but not anymore. On the rare occasions that they screen theatrically in 35mm I will check them out but even then they are kind of boring. The spectacle aspects are cool, but even if you have a 100 inch plasma it seems like a waste of time.

[John Cope]

What if someone were to actually dare to suggest that the Hollywood epics of the past don't need to occupy some reserved position of guilty pleasure but are actually a worthy form in their own right; unfashionable now, but that has zero to do with quality.

Certainly there were many awful films that fell under that model just as there are many awful films that fall under the rubric of "independent" today. Once again, this performs no broad indictment. Still, to claim that the big scale epics of the past were all "generic" is something of an insult.

Contrary to Barmy's intuitive assumption, there are other aspects to value in these films beyond large scale staging of battle scenes. I can't speak for anyone else but what I value in many of these is their emotional quality, the element that links them to the unabashed melodramas also more readily acceptable at that time. The problem here, of course, is that this is a fine line to walk and, ultimately, a pretty subjective one. The immense artifice of these films emphasizes the surface and genuine, sincere sentiment can feel false or forced with just a slight shift of emphases; there's also the problem of some emotional moments feeling like self-indulgence veering into self-parody or descending into mawkish hysteria. And yet, the risk is so worth while just to get one such moment that clicks: like Edmund Purdom's deeply felt speech at the end of The Egyptian. No self-conscious, self-awareness creeps in to spoil the mood or break the spell.

It is interesting to me that the melodramatic tone of something like Far From Heaven is accepted and embraced but only because Haynes' noxious distantiation allows us to indulge our remove at the same time, to "comment on our own emotional involvement" or to recognize the devices even as we accept succumbing to them. To me this absolutely does not allow for an immersive experience; it reeks of pseudo-sophisticated disdain for real feeling (like that damn music cue right after Quaid hits Moore--I'm sure Haynes' would argue that he is just following form but he knows full well that we can't simply switch off years of academic theory wholly designed to identify such devices as emotional cues; in fact, he relies on it).

And I think jbeall is being just a little unfair in condemning Troy for its lack of authenticity to the text. I won't trot out the old "it's an adaptation for the cinema, after all" argument (though I am sore tempted). Instead, I'll say that the effort to convert Homer's broad, archetypal principles into images that function within a popular form is a noble enterprise, well worth doing. I'm sure the manner in which issues of loyalty, inspiration and fatalism were addressed here was seen as being to an inadequate effect. If this effort seems too designed to pander to contemporary populist sensibilities, then so be it. What is missed with this dismissal is the enormous importance of shaping the response of large audiences, which is quite possible through an infusion of ideas, even the watered down variety. It's certainly far better than most of what the cineplex crowd indulges in. Someone always has the ear of the masses; why should that form of communication be simply relinquished to those with absolutely nothing to say?

[Mr Sausage]

And I think jbeall is being just a little unfair in condemning Troy for its lack of authenticity to the text. I won't trot out the old "it's an adaptation for the cinema, after all" argument (though I am sore tempted). Instead, I'll say that the effort to convert Homer's broad, archetypal principles into images that function within a popular form is a noble enterprise, well worth doing

I'd say it's fair, not as a general principle, but pragmatically in that what's altered from the original text is altered for the worse. I don't much care if they feel like killing off Menelaus, or keeping Achilles alive long enough to take part in the Trojan horse ruse; but when complexities are replaced with cliches, why shouldn't we complain? For example, in Homer's text Agamemnon is pompous and over-proud, but at the same time a glorious and heroic person. In the movie he is a worthless, unredeemable rat whose death--killed while trying to rape Briseus in revenge--tells you exactly how the film views him. Far from converting "broad, archetypal principles," the movie has taken a complexly layered character and made him into a dull cartoon. Achilles god-like rage, important enough to be the subject of the poem's first line, is reduced in Troy to whining, brooding adolescence. Helen of Troy, in response to Paris' stunning cowardice, replies with that eternally hackneyed cliche: "I don't want a warrior, I want a man I can grow old with." This is not only something that Helen of Troy would never say, and not only something that no ancient greek would ever say, but a perfectly ridiculous and vapid comment in the context.

Apparently, turning Homer into "images that function within a popular form" is a "noble enterprise." Calling it "noble' seems an arbitrary compliment. What appears far more noble is to maintain Homer's complexities and thereby make a serious and intelligent film. Noble, in that it would be the harder, more rewarding thing to do. Taking those complexities and using cliches in their stead seems on the contrary ignoble, in that it demonstrates a paucity of imagination.

I agree that there is no point to condemning change for the sake of change; but if the source's virtues are replaced with things of less value are we not right to complain?

[jbeall]

Well, Mr. Sausage put it far more eloquently than I could, so I'll just thank him for his comments.

My two cents to add: I'm okay with film adaptations of great works of literature. I still await the R1 dvd release of John Huston's The Dead, which I think it marvelous.

However, the best adaptation of Homer I've seen was the miniseries of the Odyssey starring Armand Assante about ten years ago. It was on a much smaller budget, but succeeded in remaining true to the themes and concerns of Homer's work. You can make big epics with lavish sets that are actually good--see Lord of the Rings--but Troy wasn't, and even the "popular" audience with whom I shared a theater thought the movie was bad.