![]() |
Brad Pitt sails into history and legend as Achilles in the misunderstood Troy |
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
Cast: Brad Pitt (Achilles), Eric Bana (Hector), Orlando
Bloom (Paris), Diane Kruger (Helen), Brian Cox (Agamemnon), Peter O’Toole
(Priam), Rose Byrne (Briseis), Saffron Burrows (Andromache), Brendan Gleeson (Menelaus),
Sean Bean (Odysseus), Julian Glover (Triopas), James Cosmo (Glaucus), John
Shrapnel (Nestor), Julie Christie (Thetis), Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus),
Vincent Regan (Eudorus), Nigel Terry (Archeptolemus), Trevor Eve (Velior),
Tyler Mane (Ajax)
VERSION CONTROL: Some
films are just vastly superior as Director’s Cuts. Troy is one. The longer cut of Troy,
I can assure you, is a richer, deeper, more enjoyable film. So watch that one.
I’m also spoiling The Illiad. For
those who worry about such things.
When I was younger I loved the Greek myths. I had two or
three books of them and I read them over and over again. I practically grew up
knowing the whole story of the siege of Troy in intimate detail. This helped feed
my love for sweeping epic films, with big casts, spectacle and themes. So it
probably won’t surprise you to hear I love
Troy. That I’ve seen it dozens of times. It’s the film I wish had existed
when I was a kid, because I would have watched it again and again. I know it’s
not perfect, but I can forgive it almost anything.
In Ancient Greece, a peace treaty has finally been agreed
between Sparta’s King Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson) and Priam (Peter O’Toole) of
Troy. Priam’s sons Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom) are in Sparta
to seal the treaty – only for Paris to fall in love with Menelaus’ unloved wife
Helen (Diane Kruger). When they elope – despite Hector’s fears for the harm it
will cause Troy’s people – Menelaus’ ambitious brother Agamemnon (Brian Cox)
sees his chance to cement his hold over the last corner of the Mediterranean by
conquering Troy. But to do so he’ll need the help of the greatest warrior in Greece,
Achilles (Brad Pitt), who cares only for his legend and hates Agamemnon.
Directed with an old-fashioned grandeur by Wolfgang
Petersen, mixed with an unflinching look at the blood and guts of war, Troy is a grand, cinematic epic that
looks fantastic. The production and costume design are spot-on, and there is a
great mixture of the “real” and the “special effect” in what you see on screen.
It’s also got some cracking battle and fight choreography. The sword fight
choreographers worked overtime on this one. The film embraces the grace and
style of Achilles – he’s not the largest or strongest, but he has a pace,
speed, intelligence and ruthlessness that allows him to duck, sway and
constantly be one step ahead of his opponents. It doesn’t shy away from the
brutality of his violence, and the camera never forgets the fallen.
It’s a film that understands the impact of war. It makes us
care about many of the characters – and frequently shocks us with senseless,
sudden deaths, or devotes time to the grief of those they leave behind. Our
hero Hector has an almost tortuous-to-watch lengthy build up to his final fight
– and then the camera gives us a moment or two when he is fatally wounded to
see the light start to go from his eyes before Achilles delivers the killer
blow. It’s a film that moves the viewer, that excites us with action while
letting us grieve the cost of war.

So why was Troy
rejected by so many people? Why was it so misunderstood on release? It’s a
mis-sold and partly mis-cut story struggling to embrace its own implications.
Maybe I’m reading stuff into it, but I feel like this is a different film than
the marketing or filmmakers seem to have understood.
Firstly, Achilles is (at least for the first two thirds)
effectively the film’s villain. He has no interest in people, only a
sociopathic wish to be remembered as a great warrior. He’s ruthless in combat
and slaughters indiscriminately. He’s temperamental and emotionally stunted.
Contrast him with Eric Bana’s Hector: a devoted family man, who values the
lives of the people of Troy first and foremost. Hector is effectively
reimagined from the source material as a very modern man – the audience
surrogate, the hero we can relate to, compared to the greedy, rapacious Greeks.
The struggle the film has is its biggest star plays Achilles
– and it doesn’t want to compromise his box office appeal. So it tries not to
draw too much attention to this contrast, and avoids passing too much judgement
on Achilles. So we struggle when Achilles and Hector fight – anyone with any
sense is surely rooting for the guy with a wife who just wants to see his kid
grow up, rather than the sociopath, even if he is played by a super-star. All
the characters hammer home our distress at Hector fighting Achilles, by the
fact all of them reckon he’s got no chance.
There are moving farewells for Hector with his father, wife and son. Hard to
sympathise with Achilles when he slays the film’s most sympathetic character
and drags him in the dirt right?
Achilles only starts to develop humanity (and become a modern hero) when he hits rock bottom
after killing Hector – and is shamed first by Priam’s humbling, controlled pain
(a tour-de-force from Peter O’Toole) then by his slowly developing love for
Briseis. From this point , Achilles fights specifically to protect others – and
finally puts aside his longing for immortal fame to try and save Briseis from
the slaughter of the sack of Troy. The film’s slightly muddled unwillingness to
condemn Achilles earlier, and its desire to celebrate him at the end, muddies
the water. But there is a clear character arc slowly developing of Achilles
becoming a humbler, more humane man.
As Achilles doesn’t look that good opposite Hector, the film
turns Agamemnon into a ruthlessly ambitious, vain and greedy tyrant (played
with a lip-smacking, roaringly enjoyable style by Brian Cox). Agamemnon (like
many of the Greeks) is a modern politician – he wants to fashion the Greek city
states into a single nation (sure one under his control, but it’s a more modern
idea). The film, however, uses him to make Achilles desire for lasting fame
feel more sympathetic. We all hate hypocritical politicians and cowardly
bullies, right? And we all prefer the romance of the individual fighter uninterested
in worldly affairs, right? Ergo, says the film, if we don’t like Achilles
because we prefer Hector, we can also like Achilles a bit more if we don’t like
Agamemnon. It’s clever structure in a way – but because the film doesn’t
completely commit to it, it gets a bit lost in the telling.
The film’s attitude to Agamemnon is reflected in its
favouring of Trojans over Greeks. While the Greek commanders squabble, or
engage in political chicanery, the Trojans have an old school nobility. The
film is enamoured with Priam. He’s played by Peter O’Toole in his grandest
style (and O’Toole, though he can’t resist a bit of ham here and there, is very
good). But Priam is in fact a naïve idiot, who makes a mess of everything. He’s
incapable of accepting the realities of the world – his decisions lead to
disaster at every turn. He may be overtly noble, honest and full of integrity –
but like Ned Stark in Game of Thrones
he’s completely out of his depth in Agamemnon’s ruthless world. Achilles may
call him a “far better king”, but by any modern standard, Priam is in fact a
terrible king, who makes all his decisions based on his regard for the Gods,
rather than a claim appraisal of the situation.
These two reasons are why the film struggles. The film despises
the Greeks but wants us to love Achilles – while at the same time having him
kill without compassion, including our main audience surrogate character. It
wants us to aspire to the romantic ideals of Priam and the Trojans – even while
it demonstrates time and again that these ideas are hopelessly misguided, and
completely wrong. It goes part of the way to accepting these contradictions,
but it can never quite bring itself to villainise Brad Pitt, or condemn the
noble Peter O’Toole.
I like to watch it my own way, balancing these
contradictions – and I think if you do that (like watching the TV show The Tudors if you accept what the show
can’t: that Henry VIII is the villain) then the film is really rewarding, full
of interesting ideas and packed with cracking scenes.
It also allows some wonderful performances. Brad Pitt is, I
suppose, an odd choice for Achilles in many ways – and he seems a bit bound in
by his 1950s-Hollywood-Epic-Transatlantic accent. But he really looks the part,
and I don’t think he’s afraid to let Achilles look bad – and he sells his
conversion into a more heroic figure. Eric Bana is terrific as Hector – warm,
engaging, hugely admirable. He has a world-weary tiredness to him – while
Pitt’s Achilles is as cold as marble, Bana’s Hector looks like he has the cares
of the world on his shoulders, tired already of the violence and horror he has
had to endure.
There are tonnes of excellent supporting performances. Sean
Bean in particular is so good as the wry and infinitely wise Odysseus you will
be wishing they had made an Odyssey
sequel so you can see more of him. Cox and O’Toole are rather good (bless, they
are clearly enjoying themselves) as flip sides of the same coin. Byrne is
affecting as gentle Briseis. Brendan Gleeson makes a fiercely bullying
Menelaus. I’m not sure Saffron Burrows has ever been better than here. James
Cosmo and Nigel Terry shine in smaller roles.
Poor Orlando Bloom struggles with a part that is hugely
difficult – Paris is basically a spoilt coward. The film makes great play of
Helen (a pretty good Diane Kruger in a near impossible part as the most
beautiful woman, like, ever) being
attracted to Paris precisely because he’s more of a romantic, and not
interested in violence – but he tends to come across more as a thoughtless
playboy, who lands everyone in trouble. It’s tricky for Bloom as this is the
purpose of the film – and in many ways he’s very good casting for it – but
that’s partly because he’s not the most persuasive of actors. He has a slight
redemption arc – but I’m not sure Bloom as the presence to really sell it.
I can’t believe how much I’ve actually written about this–
but, for all its faults and its confused structure I actually rather deeply love it. Maybe it’s
tied in too much with my love for Greek myths. Maybe I love these all-star character
actor epics. But I think it’s a film that puts a lot at stake for its
characters – and really makes you invest in them – and that draws some fine
performances from its cast and frames them all in a brilliant vista. It’s
crammed with some terrific scenes. It never fails to entertain me. It’s almost
a go-to film. I’ve seen it dozens of times and yet it never tires for me. I
love it. In many ways it’s one of my filmic (forgive me) Achilles’ heels.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.