Echoes in Eternity, Part I - "Troy"

SPOILERS ahead.

Three podcasts dictate a lot of my viewing habits these days: How Did This Get Made?, The Rewatchables, and Knowing You Know Nothing. Typically, I tend to only write about movies I watch for Knowing because I actually take part in the episode. But if a movie I watch for the other two inspires something, I go with it. In this case, The Rewatchables did an episode of Gladiator, so I decided to rewatch that and write about it. It also made me want to watch other epic films I owned, especially when I thought of a unifying theme among them. In Gladiator, Maximus tells his men before battle, “What we do in life, echoes in eternity.” This line reminded me of themes in Troy and Alexander, as well. I’ve watched all three recently, and I decided to write about them in chronological order (by their setting, not by their release date). The main reason for this is that each film after Troy makes reference to myths and being remembered and whatnot (especially Alexander). There’s also the rabbit hole of director’s and extended cuts I get to go down, too. So with that written, here’s the beginning of the “Echoes in Eternity” Trilogy.

Echoes in Eternity, Part I

Troy is based on a myth (there is debate about whether or not a war really happened, but even if it did, Homer likely dramatized the hell out of it), so it’s ripe with speeches and comments about being remembered and living a life of glory. In fact, one could argue that the film hits you over the head with the theme a few too many times. But myths tend to be simplistic, so I forgive Troy. 

The focus of the film is on Achilles, who is pretty much a dick for the first two-thirds of the film. He only wants to fight in the war so he will be remembered as a great warrior and hero. He’s told early on by his mother that he can go and fight and live on as a legend, or he can stay home and make a life for himself but only his family will remember him. Obviously he chooses glory on the battlefield. I’ll get more into the glory vs. family argument in the next section. For now, I want to focus on this idea of having to fight to be remembered.

While looting and whatnot is shown as a motivation for the soldiers in Troy, they are mainly sold on the idea of fighting as a way to earn glory and have their name live on beyond death. Achilles yells before a battle, “Immortality! Take it! It’s yours!” But Achilles is already famous. His name will achieve immortality, but most of his fellow soldiers will be forgotten; they fight for the chance that their names will be remembered.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent here, but it’s kind of a metaphor for capitalism. Here’s a system that can potentially allow you to become insanely wealthy, but odds are you’ll scrape by and eventually die unnoticed. But we all keep grasping for that slight chance. 

Troy posits that even just trying at least means something. When a boy tells Achilles that he “wouldn’t want to fight” Boagrius, Achilles responds, “That is why no one will remember your name.” The dickishness of that statement aside, it says a lot about the mentality towards war in the film. It’s not about fighting for a noble cause or even fighting for a country; it’s about being willing to fight. It’s a timeless motivation that stands to this day. Look at most ads for military service, and you’ll find a message along the lines of, “Very few are willing or able to take on this challenge.” It’s a great motivator, and I find it to be true. What they don’t do is promise you the chance to become an immortal hero known forever. That bit about being a soldier seems to have been left behind once, you know, following orders became the most important part of the training.

Perhaps immortality is lacking in recruitment ads, but it’s still a part of the soldier experience. With Memorial Day fresh on my mind coupled with Veterans Day, there are yearly holidays meant to honor those who have fought and/or died. The difference is that individual notice is left to the family of the service member. In a way, both family and glory are covered in modern times. As a soldier who fought and/or died, you are commemorated as a whole by the country at large, but it’s your family that remembers your name and story. This seems like a much better way to look at military service, especially since military service is typically entered by people who want to do their part, not by people just wanting recognition. Of course, Achilles would disagree with this (at least the Achilles from the beginning of the movie), although Hector would embrace this.

Family vs. Glory 

Hector is really the hero of Troy, even if more time is spent with Achilles. He fights for his homeland, not for glory. He has a family he wants to protect, and war is thrust upon him rather than sought out. He is living proof that you don’t have to choose between a family life or glory; both are possible, even if most films argue against it.

This made me think of a recent film I wrote about: The Truman Show. In that film, the possibility of Truman having a child with his fake wife seems like the potential nail in his coffin. If he has a kid, then no way will he ever escape the prison of the show and be allowed to live a real life. In film, and often in life, starting a family is seen as the death of any individual goals for the parents, and that’s truly unfortunate. 

Yes, having kids changes things, and if you have normal human emotions, your family becomes more important than yourself. But this does not mean that individual growth and achievement die. As a parent, my family is my main concern, but I still find time to write and learn new things. I’m not trying to be remembered for all time or anything, but I’ve put out enough material that people will likely still stumble across my articles after I’m dead. It’s not Achilles-level fame, but I have produced work that will survive me. But I don’t care; this is something I do for fun. If I was single and childless, nothing would be different in regards to my film writing. So why do movies like this make it seem like a family will hold a person back?

Achilles is told by his mother that a family will bring him happiness, but once a couple generations are gone, his memory will die, too. He must choose to go to war and be remembered or have a family and be forgotten. But why? For mythical reasons, I get it, but why is it not possible for Achilles to simply have a family that he can return to after war? Odysseus has this, so why can’t Achilles?

For the purposes of the film, it’s for character development. Achilles finally learns that a family that cares for you is more important than fame after death. Tragically, he realizes this too late. It takes Achilles’s interactions with Hector, then Priam, to understand that a life with Briseis will bring him happiness. But deciding to be with her is what leads to his death. Choosing to have a family gets him killed. Why? The myth and the film make it seem like only lonely, dead people are remembered for the ages. It’s bleak, but perhaps it’s a good lesson for people to learn: if your sole focus is your lasting name, then prepare for death and misery. For Achilles, he simply realized his error too late. His name is remembered, but as Hector might ask, so what?

Hector tells Achilles when they first meet that eventually they’ll all be dust, so what’s the point of fighting for the glory of it? This is a common theme regarding people who strive to make a lasting impact on this world (“Ozymandias” comes to mind). Try as hard as you like, but eventually all will be forgotten. I wish this film took that a bit further because, some day, it’s possible that everything will be forgotten. I don’t bring this up to bum people out. I see this as even more reason to enjoy those around you. Who gives a fuck if they tell stories about you for a couple thousand years? Will knowing that you’ll be remembered by strangers long after your death fill the void that you’re missing by being alone?

Striving to be remembered by people I will never meet seems so stupid to me. Perhaps this is why no one in the future will remember my name, but at least the people I love know it now.

Troy, the Director's Cut: Now with Baby-Throwing!

Due to the amount of money movies like this cost, creative control is usually taken away from the director in the interest of getting a short, action-packed, PG-13 rated film into the theaters as fast as possible. If a director is lucky, they’ll be given the chance to finish the movie later for a home video release. The best example of this is Kingdom of Heaven, the director’s cut of which is a wholly different, and exponentially better film. Now it’s almost a requirement that a movie like Troy receives the extended or director’s cut treatment. 

There isn’t a Kingdom-level change to Troy with Wolfgang Peterson’s director’s cut, but it is a much better movie. It’s longer, which allows the war to sink in with the audience and characters, but more importantly, it’s much more brutal than the theatrical cut.

Normally, I just like gory action movies more than bloodless ones. I want a bit of realism with the action, but it’s more than just adding “Oh, shit!” moments like legs being hacked or heads being smashed. It’s about war being presented in a miserable light. 

Hector talks to Paris about he knows nothing about war and death, and in the theatrical cut, the audience doesn’t either. With the director’s cut, we learn how horrific war can be. The action scenes are visceral and stay with you much longer than before. And one new element is deeply disturbing.

If you didn’t hate most of the Greeks already, the sack of Troy should push you over the edge in this new cut. It’s bad enough to see defenseless people of all kinds killed, but rarely does a film show what happens to babies during such a situation. There are multiple babies ripped from their mother’s arms and thrown. It’s shocking to see. It’s rare for a war movie to have much of an effect on me these days, but Troy did. These newly brutal scenes make Hector’s dialogue mean something this time around. Not only does Paris learn what Hector meant; the audience does, too, thanks to this director’s cut.

Why Do I Own This?

I bought this when it first came out because I was a fan of the theatrical cut. When I saw the director's cut as part of a 3-pack (along with 300 and the final cut of Alexander), I bought it again. I'm just a fan of epics.

Random Thoughts

“Boagrius!” 

I was in college when this came out, and my Humanities professor was against this movie for the Brad Pitt casting alone. He claimed that Pitt was way too small for the role. I don’t hold the source material so sacred, but I get it. It’s hard not to slightly hate Pitt for being so cocky in the movie. If he was a foot taller and bulked out (you know, like Boagrius), I would feel differently. Still, I’m okay with Pitt in this movie, but overall it’s not a fitting role for him. I found Eric Bana as Hector much more suitably cast.

Eric Bana’s reaction to Orlando Bloom claiming he’ll die fighting is fucking perfect. I can best describe it as incredulous disgust.

It’s strange how much crossover there is with this cast and Braveheart (Brian Cox, James Cosmo, Brendan Gleeson). All these Scottish dudes suddenly became Greek and Trojan.

Orlando Bloom acting like a little tough guy is the funniest part of this movie. I wish Eric Bana would slap him around a bit and shut him up.

“Immortality! Take it! It’s yours!” I’ve never liked Pitt’s line delivery. I think it’s because he is just too laid back most of the time, both in real life and as a character. I can’t believe the dude who’s always snacking in Ocean’s 11 when he talks about gaining immortality through battle.

Pitt making Garrett Hedlund stay back with the boat is a bit of a metaphor for Hedlund’s career. It seemed like he was meant to be the next Pitt at some point in his career, then...it just didn’t happen. He never left the boat.

Ajax’s little announcement when he lands on the beach is a bit silly, but when you’re that badass with a warhammer, I guess you can say stupid shit sometimes.

Eudoros’s complete shock at Achilles’s defiling of the temple is a really great piece of silent acting. Pitt’s chest thumping followed by, “Huh?” as a taunt is a little less effective. 

I wish they would have made a version of The Odyssey with Sean Bean. Not sure how exactly it could be done in the same vein as this movie with how they portray the gods as invisible or nonexistent, but I would have liked to have seen what they came up with. 

Apparently the director’s cut is much more interested in nudity, as well. There are a lot more butts and boobs in this movie. The brutal war stuff is more effective, but the nudity helps, too.

"It is no insult to say a dead man is dead."

Agamemnon is definitely in the running for shittiest cinematic king. "I didn't touch the girl! But I did hand her off to a pack of horny, ill-tempered soldiers."

The odd thing about this movie is that I kind of hate everyone involved except for Eric Bana and Sean Bean. It's weird to watch a war movie told more from the perspective of a villain (the Greeks, and Achilles, at least until he grows a heart after talking to Priam) rather than the hero (Hector).

"I want to taste what Achilles tasted." Agamemnon really wants to be eskimo brothers with Achilles. Weird…

..