#18: Troy: Director’s Cut (2004/2007) April 16, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, War, 2000s, adaptations, 4 stars, 2008, alternate & director's cuts, Historical , trackback
A lot of people didn’t like Wolfgang Petersen’s big budget version of The Iliad. I can’t remember the specific criticisms any more, other than that some friends who’d read the poem found this to be simply laughable. Personally, I quite enjoyed it — it may not be classic art like its source, but the theatrical cut of Troy was a more than passable example of swords-and-sandals entertainment. If not an epic, despite its running time, it was quite fun.
This director’s cut adds almost half an hour of new material, which is about a 15% increase in length — enough to justify a new number here, I feel. That said, I can’t spot most of what’s new, undoubtedly because the last time I saw Troy was in the cinema almost four years ago. Rose Byrne’s character seems to get more screen time, which in turn helps flesh out Achilles; and, based on what it says in IMDb’s trivia section, Trevor Eve’s role has also increased. He’s still a minor character, but as an advisor to King Priam the reinstating of his scenes means there’s more politics on screen. And I believe there’s some extra nudity too — quite why that couldn’t be in the R-rated theatrical cut is beyond me, but there you have it.
What this reveals is that, on the whole, Troy hasn’t changed much. If you know it well enough to spot the differences then you surely already like it, in which case I expect you’ll like this cut too. Despite the length and additions (which, in some extended cuts, can throw things out of kilter) it feels well paced, taking time to build character and plot in between the action sequences. Some of the characters have (relatively speaking) complex motives and actions — I expect we have Homer to thank for that — while several of the action scenes are fairly impressive — due more to the Hollywood production team.
If you didn’t like Troy first time round, I doubt you’ll be swayed now. Some of the script is very clunky, dragging the performances down with it, and if you didn’t like its level of faithfulness then that hasn’t improved either. Mind you, compared to the 1997 TV version of The Odyssey, which opens with a twenty minute version of this tale, Troy seems like high art.
This score is one higher than I gave the theatrical cut (not reviewed here). I’d attribute this more to generosity and lowered expectations than the added material.
Comments»
There’s quite a bit different in the DC (I watched both versions within a few months of each other not so long ago): it’s TONNES more violent and bloody, Ajax actually has some sort of character and purpose (a rival to Achilles) and there’s much more character development - a lot more is made of Hector being one of the best warriors in the world, for example, and Odysseus mentions this to Achilles to goad him (I’m pretty sure that isn’t in the theatrical version). There’re a lot more references to the gods, too. One of the main criticism of the film is, unlike Homer’s tale, the gods don’t have any direct influence. Petersen (I think pretty wisely, considering it all would’ve ended up like Clash of the Titans) dealt purely with mere mortals, quite a few of whom (Achilles, no demigod he in this version, Hector, Agamemnon) don’t believe in the gods at all (whereas, in Homer iirc, Agamemnon throws one of his own daughters over the side of his ship as an offering to the gods for a favourable wind to Troy).
Also, the DC looks a far bit better on DVD than the TC.
Thanks for pointing these out.
I did wonder if the DC was more violent, but as the rating hadn’t gone up here and it was already an R in the US, and obviously I couldn’t remember, I didn’t bother to mention it.
I agree that the absence of the gods is a good thing. I remember people getting annoyed about it when it came out, but it made me more eager to see it as it seemed an interesting decision. It’s one of the reasons I’m ultimately glad they didn’t do The Odyssey as a sequel — while I still like the idea of Sean Bean doing that, you’d have to make far more changes to remove the fantastical elements from that story!
Speaking of Mr. Bean, he gets a fair bit more to do in the DC too - he gets a whole new introduction, iirc, for a start.
The other thing that irked people (and the only real thing I remember from me Classic classes, apart from ye olde daughter over the side bit) is that Agamemnon does NOT get stabbed in the throat by a bint during the fall of Troy.
I think the DC is a far better version of the film, btw. It really opens it up and adds a lot more character. The only thing that spoils it is where they’ve re-cued Hector and Achilles’ fight with a bit of Danny Elfman’s score from Planet of the Apes, which ruins it. You don’t get to hear the extended tiiiiiiiiiing of Achille’s sword after it glances off Hector’s shield or anything like that. Plus, that hectic bit of tribal drumming was actually the best bit of James Horner’s score.
I was indifferent to Tory when I saw it at the cinema, but I’ve come to like it quite a bit on DVD. Things like how endlessly noble and likeable Hector is annoy me, though, however much I like Eric Bana and however great he is in this (and he is great). He’s far too modern a notion of a family man and it plucks him out of the surroundings a bit, like he’s put there as a sounding board for a contemporary, rational mindset refuting all the gods-bothering, seersaying claptrap that goes on around him.
It’s funny: as the Hector-Achilles fight approached I was thinking I remembered it had a good bit of score, only to be disappointed. I assumed it must be memory cheating, but if it’s been changed that might explain it.
My feeling about Hector was that his endless nobility and sense of duty was actually his character’s flaw. He forces himself to follow the blatantly misguided decisions of others even when he disagrees — he’s not really ordered to do those things, more concludes he probably ought to. For me this negates what I suspect is the filmmakers’ intended view of him: that he’s a sensible man forced to do things he disagrees with. His obedience also directly leads to his death — if he hadn’t led the attack on the Greek’s camp he wouldn’t have killed Patroclus and Achilles wouldn’t have come after him — which seems to me an indictment of his decisions and resulting actions.
Paris, on the other hand, may be an insufferably wimp, but his common sense in when to run away means he lives. It’s not really the same of course, as Paris runs away not because he disagrees but because he’s afraid, but it does mean he gets to be with his lover, obviously the outcome Hector would have liked.
(This isn’t a criticism of Bana’s performance of the part, incidentally — he’s probably best thing about the whole film. And I’m certainly not trying to say Orlando Bloom or Paris are better! It’s just my view on Hector’s character.)
Of course, if Paris hadn’t “run away” with Helen to begin with, then no-one would’ve died! And, by the end of the film, Paris has resolved to fight in the best way he can, with a bow. And he does so fairly bravely. It’s pretty brave of him to challenge Menelaus to single combat in the first place, considering he’s a such a wuss. Historically, Paris was considered cowardly for his killing of Achilles with a bow, but I don’t think the film presents him thusly.
I don’t think the Hector of the film is shown to be weak in his actions, in that he has a strong sense of duty to his country, his men and his king/father. Rather, that he’s willing to die for them, and there’s nothing he could have really done to nullify those decisions anyway, other than raise his voice in protest. The tragedy of the film is that Priam blindly believes in the gods, and follows the counsel of the priests (including Nigel Terry, still with dodgy accent) rather than of his own son and generals. In the DC, Terry’s character meets an appropriately unpleasant end, too, beseeching his gods.
Sean Bean Entertainment…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page and have to say thanks. nice read …
I can’t remember why I didn’t like the film when it came out, but I didn’t.
Possibly Achilles wasn’t enough of a bastard, I don’t know. Did they make out that he was actually in love with Briseis? If so, that probably annoyed me. If Ag got killed at Troy, that almost certainly annoyed me. Achilles still being alive by the time of the wooden horse, that annoyed me. And as for Patroclus being his “cousin”, well, let’s just say RTD wouldn’t have written it that way.
The answer to most/all of those questions is “yes”. Though I think Achilles is pretty bastardly myself, but the film does make a number of attempts to redeem him.