Some More Comparisons between The Odyssey and O Brother, Where Art Thou?

After watching O Brother, Where Art Thou? in class, we discussed the ways in which the movie related to The Odyssey. Although there were many parts of the poem that were altered in the modern cinematic adaptation, there are elements that clearly correlate to elements from the epic poem. In this blog post, I will be expanding on some of the comparisons that we already discussed in class, and writing about some comparisons that were not brought up in class.

                At the beginning of the movie, Ulysses Everett McGill, the protagonist who represents Odysseys from The Odyssey, escapes the chain gang along with Pete Hogwallop and Delmar O’Donnel. The three escaped convicts have many obscure adventures together, but the first is when they get a ride from a blind man driving a handcar on the railway. In class, we compared this man to both a bard and a prophet. His blindness and appearance in the beginning of the movie to partially set the tone for Ulysses’ journey are similar to that of a bard invoking a muse and, in doing so, giving a brief overview of the hero’s journey at the beginning of an epic poem. Specifically, the man says, “you must travel a long and perilous road, a road fraught with peril” and which is similar to Homer’s description of Odysseus in the invocation of the muse where he says “many pains he suffered, heartsick on the open sea” and “driven time and again off course”. The man is also reminiscent of a prophet in the sense that he gives a cryptic omen of what is to come in the three men’s journey and seems to know things about the future that he could not have possibly known without some form of divine influence.

                To take the comparison to the prophet a step further, I think there are elements that connect the man with the handcar specifically to the figure of Tiresias rather than solely to prophets in general. The most obvious is the man’s reference to “a cow on the roof of a cotton house”. In The Odyssey, Tiresias offers Odysseus a warning to not eat the cattle of Helios. The man in O Brother, Where Art Thou? also says “you will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek” which relates to Tiresias in a broader sense. Tiresias’ prophecies were always fulfilled, but in an obscure way. When Tiresias warned Odysseus about the cattle of Helios, Odysseus initially thought that it was a simple stipulation. Ultimately due to a storm that lasted 30 days, Odysseus entire crew ended up breaking the agreement to stay away from the cattle. In another story, Tiresias warns Oedipus that he will kill his father and become intimate with his own mother. Oedipus is taken aback and does not believe that this could possibly come about. He even travels as far away from home to ensure it does not happen. Nevertheless, by the end of his story, all that had been prophesied about Oedipus came true.  Although the prophecies in these stories do not concern “a fortune”, they carry the same idea that their end result will come about in an unexpected way.

                We also explored Homer Stokes as a representation of Poseidon. While I do think that this comparison is valid, I personally found Antinous to be a more compelling correlation for Homer Stokes. In O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Homer Stokes is running for mayor. He gives many speeches and riles up crowds. This reminds me of Antinous role as leader of the suitors. The more striking correlation is in the downfalls of both the characters. In The Odyssey, Antinous is overindulging in Odysseus’ food. When Antinous is lifting a cup of wine to his lips, Odysseus shoots Antinous in the throat and Antinous dies. In O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Stokes’ defeat is less gory but there are elements that symbolize the events in The Odyssey. When Homer Stokes interrupts Ulysses’ singing, the stealing of his audience and his performance represents Antinous’ theft of Odysseus’ food and wealth. The movie depicts a close up of a hand unplugging Stokes’ microphone and cutting him off abruptly. The picture of Stokes’ voice abruptly taken away reminds me of Antinous’ meeting his end suddenly when he is shot through the throat with the arrow.

                The last comparison I will delve into involves the scene where Ulysses reveals to Pete and Delmar that there was never any treasure. Upon hearing this, Pete is enraged. He reveals that he only had two weeks left on his sentence, but now if he is caught, he will have to serve fifty more years. Delmar also voices the same frustration as Pete. They complain that they were so close to being free, but due to Ulysses, they have much more suffering ahead of them. This reminded me of Odysseus and his crew’s escape from Polyphemus. Odysseus manages to trick Polyphemus by going by the name of “Nobody” so that Polyphemus does not know his real name. Odysseus and his crew manage to escape and continue on their journey back to Ithaca. By this time, they had almost returned home after the war. Instead of leaving peacefully, Odysseus’ pride gets the better of him and he yells back at Polyphemus, “’Cyclops—if any man on the face of the earth should ask you who blinded you so—say Odysseus, raider of cities, he gouged out your eye, Laertes son who makes his home in Ithaca!’”. Odysseus does this against the objections of his crew, who beg him to leave quietly to avoid a painful demise. Instead, Odysseus condemns himself and his crew to a dangerous journey of ten years back home. The movie and poem share the aspect of being so close to freedom, but due to the protagonist, his crew and he are met with the prospect of a future full of struggle. Both share the aspect of the crew or the escape accomplices expressing their frustration with the protagonist’s decision.

                These are a few connections that came to my mind while watching O Brother, Where Art Thou?. I thought that the directors did a wonderful job bringing an ancient story to the present while keeping some similarities between the two. I may be digging into things that are not actually there and there are definitely a multitude of comparisons I did not cover, but these are some of the correlations that I found most interesting. 

Double Standard of Divine Intervention in The Odyssey

A reoccurring topic in class discussion has been the divine intervention throughout The Odyssey. Although the book at its core is focused on Odysseus’ long return home from the Trojan War and his son, Telemachus’, journey to become a man, multiple gods influence the character’s choices and plot development. Zeus supports Odysseus and allows for Athena to guide him on his voyage home. Hermes is sent to tell Calypso to release Odysseus. Circe tells Odysseus where he needs to go and gives him advice on how to deal with the Sirens. Tiresias (who although not a god is a monumental prophet in Ancient Greek literature) warns Odysseus with a prophecy about his life. Helios gets Zeus to kill Odysseus’ crew when they eat his sacred cattle. Poseidon is angered when Odysseus blinds his cyclops son, Polyphemus. He puts many obstacles in Odysseus’ path back home and punishes the Phaeacians for helping Odysseus return home.

Despite the dramatic impacts these gods have on the story line, they pale in comparison to Athena’s role. Athena is present from the first book of the poem. She starts Telemachus on his voyage, using disguises to both convince him and others to join him. Towards the end of the poem, she notifies Telemachus when it is time to return. In terms of her interaction with Odysseus, she provides him guidance while under a disguise and in her true form. She also disguises him and accents his splendor on multiple occasions. As the epic poem comes to a close, she protects Telemachus and Odysseus in their climactic battle against the suitors that have plagued their household for years.

The story shows a clear distinction between the ways the gods interact with Odysseus and Telemachus as opposed to how they deal with other mortals. Odysseus and Telemachus are in the favor of the gods. Odysseus is saved, spared, and otherwise assisted on numerous occasions throughout his journey. To contrast, other mortals are only punished and killed by the gods. Odysseus and Telemachus are the only characters that are benefitted by the gods.

I first noticed this double standard in Poseidon. Although Poseidon despises Odysseus, he does not kill him. I do not mean to minimize Odysseus’ hardships, but he is merely inconvenienced for many years because of Poseidon. On the other hand, Poseidon sinks a Phaeacian ship and places mountains in their harbor when they anger him. Not only are the people who help Odysseus killed, the entire land suffers when their ship dependent economy is destroyed along with the harbor. Their only wrongdoing was assisting Odysseus, but their punishment is dramatically harsh. At any point in the poem, Poseidon could have simply killed Odysseus. He proves it is something he is willing to do when he punishes the Phaeacians, but he chooses not to kill Odysseus.

This phenomenon is observable in the other gods, not only Poseidon. When Odysseus and his crew land on the island of the Sun, they have already been warned about the god Helios’ cattle. They all swear that they will not kill and eat the cattle of the sun. After they have run out of food and are suffering from hunger, the crew give in and feast on the cattle. Odysseus does not have any but is distraught upon hearing they violated their oath. Helios convinces Zeus to kill the crew, but Odysseus is spared. Odysseus is punished in the sense that he is stranded, but he still survives. Initially this seems to be justified considering Odysseus did not eat the cattle, but it contradicts how Athena, Odysseus, and Telemachus deal with the suitors in Ithaca.

Athena instructs Odysseus and Telemachus to kill every single suitor. In our brief introduction to the suitors before their slaughter, a few characters are specifically developed while the majority remain nameless. Antinous is the suitor that readers despise the most. He is incredibly rude to Penelope and Telemachus and overindulges in their food in the years leading up to Odysseus’ return. When Odysseus returns disguised as a beggar, Antinous shows him no respect and even throws a stool at him. His disrespect reaches the point where the other suitors warn him to restrain himself because Odysseus could be a god in disguise. In the context of a fictional story, the reader is satisfied when he is killed. The same cannot be said for all the suitors. If the rest of the suitors remained nameless, it could be assumed that they were similar to Antinous. In that case, it would be understandable that they receive the same treatment as him. However, there is one suitor, Amphinomus, who stands out. He shows concern for the waste of Odysseus’ food and warns the other suitors to return home before Odysseus carried out vengeance on all of them. Even so, Athena insisted that it is his fate to die along with the rest of the suitors. Amphimonus does not seem to deserve to be slaughtered along with rest of the suitors. The faults of the other suitors are placed on him as well, which is different from Odysseus surviving when the rest of his crew breaks their oath.

Since Odysseus is the main character of the epic poem, it makes sense that he receives special treatment. Additionally, since Athena supports Odysseus, it is understandable that the other gods would not kill Odysseus. The Odyssey is a poem about the feats of a great warrior and his cunning tactics that he uses to navigate challenges, but he receives divine assistance that no other character receives. If he is favored by the gods, how much credit do we give to Odysseus for these accomplishments? It is undeniable that there are cases in which Odysseus is clearly a hero. In some of his stories and the way in which he deals with the suitors, both his strength and craftiness are exemplified. Despite this, it is also clear that Odysseus owes a lot of his success to the gods. His life is spared by the gods on many occasions. Many of “his” clever ideas come from divine intervention such as Circe, Athena, and Tiresias. His strength is dramatized by Athena and she offers him protection.

Sherlock (Spoilers)

At a young age, I became fascinated with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. I would stay up all night engrossed in the stories of the detective who solved cases that confounded me. The adventure of the mysteries brought an excitement that I had never before experienced in novels. Sherlock Holmes has been brought to life in many movie and TV shows, and although I have watched several of the depictions, the one that has left an impression on me is the portrayal of the character in the TV show Sherlock. I am drawn in by the character’s emotional development. Although there is plenty of action and adrenaline driven appeal, this portrayal stands out as one that also explores his emotional path.

When we are first introduced to Sherlock Holmes, he lives on his own in modern day London. He is a consulting detective who helps the police with cases that prove to be too difficult for them. In the first episode, we are also introduced to John Watson, an army veteran who becomes Sherlock’s roommate and assistant on cases throughout the series. Sherlock is a man of sharpened intellect. He uses his heightened observational skills to find clues overlooked by the police. In the show, he is able to track people down in obscure ways. For example, he is able to locate missing children by the materials left behind from their kidnapper’s shoes. Sherlock’s fight against the antagonists of the show is for one to outsmart the other to always think one step ahead.

John Watson is important to the show because he brings out an otherwise neglected side to Sherlock Holmes’ personality. Due to a trauma in Sherlock’s childhood, he struggles to understand emotions and customs in a normal way which in turn disturbs his ability to form meaningful connections with others. Despite Sherlock’s observation skills, he has trouble interpreting people’s reactions on multiple occasions. At Watson’s wedding, he delivers a touching speech but is then worried he may have done something wrong when it moves the attendees to tears.

Sherlock Holmes describes himself as a “high functioning sociopath”. His lack of emotions helps him make logical decisions which are for the greater good, but also blur the lines of morality. At one point he murders the antagonist in order to save the lives of those he put at risk without feeling remorse. Although Sherlock’s decision is logical, it is uncomfortable to dismiss his murder. Such an occurrence makes the viewer reconsider their views on strict distinctions of good and evil.

As Sherlock and Watson’s friendship progresses, Sherlock begins to regain his emotional capacity. Although he still functions differently than a typical person, his connection with Watson is one that would not be possible with the earlier Sherlock. Instead of as an acquaintance, Sherlock begins to view Watson as family. In a quite recent episode, Sherlock and Watson have been estranged. In order to reach Watson, Sherlock is forced to drive himself almost to death. Sherlock is willing to sacrifice his life for the chance to regain Watson’s friendship. Sherlock also confronts his emotions towards other characters in the show. As his brother and friend’s lives are put in danger, it unlocks emotions he had sheltered in the past, and he is forced to accept that he cares for these individuals.

The action packed show is entertaining, but Sherlock Holmes is compelling due to his emotional journey. At the beginning of the show he is reluctant to show emotion and views it as a sign of weakness, but as the show progresses, he realizes it is a necessity to his humanity.