The book is better than the film but does not need to be

8 September 2026

Emily Wilson, Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, in the United States, has lashed American film director Christopher Nolan’s recent adaptation of The Odyssey, in a recent London Review of Books article.

Wilson, who translated the version of the Odyssey, a poem traditionally attributed to ancient Greek poet Homer, used by Nolan, was less than impressed by the screenplay:

I was humbled to learn that Nolan has read at least the first line of my translation of The Odyssey into iambic pentameter. In at least one interview, he cited my version of the first line of the poem: ‘Tell me about a complicated man.’ But I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script.

Stern stuff. Another of Wilson’s comments, in regards to book (or literature) to film adaptations, also caught my eye:

Adaptations needn’t and shouldn’t follow the original with anything like the exactitude of a translation.

In other words, there’s no need for filmmakers, who adapt a book to film, to follow the source material to the letter. A point-of-view many directors would say makes sense. In the same way perhaps cover songs shouldn’t be carbon copies of the original, but rather re-interpretations.

But try telling that to the fans of a book, who are often appalled by the screen version. The book-is-better-than-the-film people. But how might Nolan have fared with Odyssey had he taken the story in a different direction? Even though it can be argued his is not a faithful adaptation.

RELATED CONTENT

books, Christopher Nolan, film, literature, poetry, screen adaptations