The first image from Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey movie isn’t historically accurate, and that’s fine

Look, there aren’t many people on Earth more excited about Christopher Nolan’s movie version of The Odyssey than I am. So when the first photo of Matt Damon as Odysseus was revealed on Monday, I (and many history buffs on X) have to admit I was a little bit disappointed by what I saw: a very bland image of a recognizable actor in an obvious, boring, and inaccurate costume. But my bigger lingering question about the photo is this: does it actually matter that this image kinda sucks?

First and foremost, the answer is probably no. I’ll give you plenty of reasons why, but the biggest one is that first looks often aren’t indicative of a film’s final appearance. For example, the first photo released from Robert Eggers’ slavishly period-accurate, and absolutely gorgeous, Nosferatu looks pedestrian — and no less boring than this photo of Damon. This is a publicity still designed to ensure that when accounts like Discussing Film tweet some tiny update about the latest celebrity to be cast in The Odyssey, they have a photo to put in their post. That’s it! It’s not a trailer or a poster, and it’s not at all indicative of the look or feel of the final film. 

But even if the image doesn’t end up looking as dynamic or well lit as we can hope the movie will be, what about the far nerdier concern? What about the fact that Odysseus’ armor here is clearly from a period long after Homer’s tale was supposed to have taken place? There are no two ways around this concern: it’s true. But as someone who was also momentarily disappointed here, take it from me: it’s OK.

[Ed. note: The rest of this post gets really nerdy, and if you’re only here because you want to know whether or not you should be worried about The Odyssey, then you shouldn’t be and you can move on. But if you want to know the nerdy reasons why, then here you go.]

Christopher Nolan is one of our best and most venerable nerds, but he’s an entertainer more than he is anything else. Nolan isn’t as carefully devoted to recreating the details of the past as a director like Eggers. And while he may love history, he loves stories and films more, and he knows that the iconography of Greece on film has a very certain ahistorical flair many filmgoers will be expecting. 

When you say Greek soldier, most people are expecting a hoplite, or something similar. It’s going to be a guy with a breastplate (probably bronze or iron), a short skirt of some kind, and a crested helmet with a small short sword, a shield, and a spear. We’re talking about 300 with fewer bare chests, or Brad Pitt in Troy. What they’re not expecting is the bulky panoply style armor that was worn at the time. And that’s probably the right decision, unfortunately. 

The armor that Odysseus would have likely worn at the time of the Trojan War was undoubtedly cool, but it’s probably not the best choice for a movie version of the story. It was heavy and designed for close proximity fighting. It wasn’t really suited for the kind of action we can probably expect from Nolan’s film — and it probably wasn’t designed for the kind of action in the original Odyssey either. It’s an epic poem, not a historical text, after all. 

All these details aside though, the historical accuracy of the movie isn’t nearly as important as the movie’s accuracy to the spirit of the original story. Even more importantly, though, is that Nolan has probably earned the benefit of the doubt. He’s a brilliant writer and director, one of the most talented filmmakers working today, and he got people into theaters for a biopic of Robert Oppenheimer that made nearly a billion dollars. He hasn’t missed yet, and everything about the production of this movie that’s come out so far, from the star-studded cast to the mechanical puppet cyclops, has me incredibly excited. And I’m not letting one little picture ruin that enthusiasm.