Nolan has pulled off one of the greatest tricks in cinema history. Odyssey contains a hidden and ingenious meaning that I haven't seen anyone notice yet and that totally blew my mind.
To fully understand The Odyssey, we must start with the very outrage sparked by the casting of an African American Helen and a trans man as a soldier. While it didn't offend me, I admit it initially startled me and made me feel uncertain.
Would Nolan really bow to this trend and "modernize" an ancient story at the cost of controversy and historical inaccuracy? That Christopher Nolan? Or did he just do it to bag another Oscar? In certain circles, he was fiercely cursed and pilloried, a sentiment stoked even by high-profile figures like Elon Musk.
But the film was released and garnered overwhelmingly enthusiastic reviews. The aforementioned characters had only marginal roles, and the movie itself contained no progressive propaganda; instead, it offered a balanced story about a hero, the salvation of a kingdom, loyalty, and courage. And many people (myself included) breathed a sigh of relief after the first reviews (and a personal trip to the cinema).
However, something still didn't sit right with me. Was Nolan just messing with us the whole time? Why alter the myth so much if it ultimately had no meaning...? (For instance, Helen's ethnicity has zero impact on the story. Similarly, Nolan didn't necessarily have to cater to the Oscars with his casting—ethnic diversity in casting represents only one of four criteria, of which Best Picture nominees must meet at least two since 2024. And maybe he doesn't even care about another golden statuette). Why did he emphasize in the film that Agamemnon conquered Troy for trade? Why does Helen have a scarred face? Why does her actress play a dual role?
And we are talking about Nolan here—a man who doesn't do things at random. A director who, with surgical precision, tells stories backward, out of order, and within multiple dreams at once. A man who made a film about illusionists that doubles as a trick played on the unsuspecting viewer. There is a grander ruse at play here. When Magnus Carlsen sacrifices a piece in a chess match, you don't say, "He doesn't know what he's doing, he's definitely going to lose, I'm stopping rooting for him." And yes, The Odyssey contains a twist that changes the meaning of the preceding story at the very end... but Nolan didn't stop there.
Some reviewers noted that the film is a bit of a metaphorical Trojan horse: it poses as one thing (progressive and controversial) but is actually another (relatively traditional and high-quality). This analogy holds true, but I haven't seen anyone reveal it in all its glory yet. So, let’s break it down.
Because Nolan is playing games with us the whole time once again.
And he isn't afraid to take much riskier steps than ever before.
You see, the entire main plot of the film is a metaphor for the film itself and the discourse surrounding it—a commentary on the film within the film itself! It’s one of the most meta things I’ve ever seen. And masterfully executed.
This is best seen in the conquest of Troy, or rather, what precedes The Odyssey. Let me show you the main elements of this analogy and how everything fits together like a jigsaw puzzle:
- Odysseus = Nolan. Trickster, but with a good heart.
- The Trojan Horse = This film (meaning not only is this film metaphorically a Trojan horse, but the horse inside the film is also metaphorically this film).
- The Trojan War = The culture wars.
- City of Troy = The audience.
- Helen = Lupita Nyong'o. She plays herself, but represents ethnically (and otherwise) diverse casting in general. The same goes for Elliot Page.
- Agamemnon = Modern Hollywood. A faceless, voiceless machine.
- Menelaus = People who believe in the necessity of balanced casting in any film, e.g. the Academy of Motion Picture (maybe that's why he has bald head?).
Menelaus needs to rescue Helen, and Agamemnon launches a military expedition (seemingly to help him). Odysseus/Nolan is forced to join this mission (incorporating balanced casting), even though he doesn’t see much point in it. By participating, however, he exposes his home (creative freedom) to threat and disparagement (the internet storm). And so Nolan builds a horse (this film) that ends the war and dupes the Trojans.
In the story itself, the Trojan horse has these qualities:
- It frees Helen. It is part of the war, yet at the same time, it attempts to end it.
- It allows Odysseus to continue on his journey.
- It appears one way from the outside, but the opposite is true inside.
All of this applies metaphorically as well. The film:
- Does what is desired from the standpoint of the Oscars, Hollywood, and culture. It pretends to be a tool of the culture war, but at the same time, it tries to end it by exposing the flaws of both sides and offering a balanced middle ground.
- Allows Nolan to tell the more meaningful part of the story—a heroic tale, the restoration of a kingdom and family, and a moral lesson.
- Looks like something controversial and progressive from the outside, but inside sits Nolan and the second half of the story (the previous point).
The horse is finished, and we’ve received the first trailer. Elliot Page is immediately crucified in it (literally), but the trap is set. The horse is dragged into the city despite the criticism. The film's release approaches. While Odysseus risks his life during the conquest (Nolan his reputation), Agamemnon reaps the victory without trying very hard. Seemingly another win for modern Hollywood. After conquering Troy, Odysseus separates from Agamemnon and tries to return home—he still has The Odyssey itself to tell. (We will return to this journey in a moment.)
But the entire conquest was just a front—Agamemnon didn’t actually care about Helen. The whole time, it was primarily about making money and building influence (trade routes). And as a consequence, he pays for leading the war with his life—could Nolan be hinting that modern Hollywood will collapse? Or that progressive films aren't successful because the audience they are tailored for doesn't actually care about them?
Helen doesn't exactly get a happy ending either: she returns to a dysfunctional relationship, both of them feel awkward, and she ends up scarred (most likely an allusion to the pillorying of the actress herself—much like Page). It’s as if Nolan is saying to Menelaus: "You got what you wanted. Are you happy now? Did it actually help?" pointing out the counterproductiveness of artificially balanced casting. If Nolan is Odysseus, then his wife (and his films' producer) Emma Thomas represents Penelope... to whom Helen sends an apology for being subjected to all of this.
If the film is a Trojan horse, then so far I’ve mainly discussed its exterior. What is hidden inside? Nolan telling a story about the journey home, about returning to peace and harmony. For Odysseus also represents Western society. On one hand, he was dragged into long and senseless (culture) wars. On the other hand, he himself caused misfortune (countless wars, colonization, weapons—let's remember Oppenheimer), and this is exactly what prevents him from returning to the life he had before all the fighting, back home. He was at war for so long that he threw away basic moral rules—Zeus's law—(much like we resort to slander, attacks, demonizing, and breach of trust). He then repeatedly experiences the same thing on the islands he visits. He only returns home when he repents, forgives himself, forgets the past, stops blaming himself for his moral decline, and decides to accept responsibility and fight once again to restore a functional order. And, of course, resists the alluring call of the sirens.
On a more personal level, the film is about a functional family (the loyal and patient Penelope versus the vengeful Clytemnestra on one side, and the unfaithful Helen on the other, symbolically played by the same actress) and about passing the torch to the next generation, which will hopefully rule more wisely and peacefully.
Nolan and the entire cast deliberately let themselves be targeted just to make fools out of the critics and ultimately emerge triumphantly victorious. This plan is illustrated by one of the opening scenes of the film, which seemingly has no significance and is never referred back to later (which, with Nolan, should tip off any viewer). In it, Telemachus fences with his teacher and receives a piece of advice: put yourself in a vulnerable position and draw the attack—that is how you overcome your opponent.
The film was also criticized for the absence of Greek actors. Nolan cryptically reflects this in a scene where Odysseus's crew plunders a village. The only Greek actor in the film asks the group in Greek: "Are you people of the sea?" "No, we are Greeks from Ithaca," replies an actor of Indian ethnicity in English. The scene feels straight out of Monty Python, missing only a laugh track. Nolan admits a certain irony regarding the whole film here. It’s as if someone asked him, "Wait, you're making a progressive version of the Odyssey?" "No, this is an authentic, conservative adaptation," a foreigner replies in a foreign language. It is, and it isn't. Is this Homer's Odyssey? It is, and it isn't. It is an Odyssey that reflects the world of 2026.
I firmly hope that Nolan doesn't align with the character of Odysseus in everything—that he isn't going into exile just yet and will continue to build Trojan horses, spectacular both inside and out.
…A war… a man… a thought… a trick.
// Props to Jonathan Pageau, who inspired this interpretation
