you can always come back home

this ask has been in my inbox for some time because i feel it's kind of disingenuous to judge the translation/adaptation decisions of a movie that hasn't come out yet, since that is specifically about the part of the movie we're not yet privy to- the script? I will likely come back to this answer after I've actually seen the movie.

from what i can tell (this video essay gives a decent overview) most criticism of nolan's choice of translation to work off of comes from the same group that was the loudest in their criticism when the translation first came out: misogynists. they think that translating with a goal in mind or with conscious consideration of your predecessor's and your own biases is either tainting the text an sich or rewriting the text- like a text about to be translated is a solid, impenetrable (hah) thing that can be left untouched or unchanged. None of these critics have ever heard of the polytropos problem so i'm not taking them seriously at all.

wilson's openness about her thinking process about gendered issues in the language of the epic and expectations set by her exclusively male predecessors does not make her a rewriter and does not affect the integrity of the odyssey. at all. Therefore, it does not affect the adaptational integrity of nolan's movie. Given the aesthetics he went for, i don't think he is going for accuracy anyway. See this ask about my thoughts on nolan's aesthetic choices and their political ramifications.

That said, the video essay takes it to the other extreme- in defending both Wilson and some of Nolan's choices -especially colourblind casting - it makes claims about the language and intent of greek epic that are also inaccurate, especially about the nature and status of the epic genre in antiquity. Wilson's translation is meant to be accessible to a modern (unfamiliar) reader and more true to the directness of Greek language here and there, often embellished by older english translators that were trying to maintain metre or work in verse. But those are two translations goals that happen to coincide- they do not mean that Homeric epic itself was meant to, or considered, accessible, low-brow, or folksy in antiquity. It just means that Homeric Greek, translated as literally as possible to English, often comes off as more straightforward. one example of this imo is English' lack of compound words- Greek can get REALLY intricate and complex with combining words and making new ones by using certain prefixes- something that often can't be mimicked in english without sounding like rudimentary language. Wilson managing to include more accurate language while also making the work more understandable is a triumph, not a failing.

so, the people criticising nolan on using wilson are launching a two-pronged attack on what does not conform to their idea of Homer's Greece: they say Nolan does not understand his source material, and when it's pointed out that he closely worked with a critically acclaimed translation, they attack said translation for being too 'political'. Nolan is not intellectual enough, and intellectuals are inherently corrupt; otherwise they would never disagree with their limited worldview of a rosy, white, heteronormative, elevated Homeric Greece.