The Iliad is an epic about anger, a chain of furious anger,
that kills hundreds of men and women. The story explores where it comes from,
and what's needed to break it. While Troy, often straying from
its brilliant source material, is about what exactly? I remember being moved
by the end of The Iliad, when Achilles finally cries with Priam, but was left confused when
he did the same in Troy. Within this essay, I'm going to look at how the writer
drained their meaning of its meaning, Since The Iliad begins with
his falling out with Agamemnon, and ends with Hector's burial, that's my boundary here too. Achilles is endlessly fascinating. He's a proud cry-baby,
but also the Trojan War's most lethal warrior, with a temper unlike any other. In Homer, his quarrel with king Agamemnon
happens at the height of a plague. It's caused by Apollo,
who's punishing the Greeks after the king has refused
a ransom for a slave girl. In Troy,
where the gods are not active agents, there is no plague, but they do tie the argument
to Agamemnon's theft of Briseis. Without the plague, however,
the idea of ransom is not established. It's an enormously important
code in Homer's world. In fact, The Iliad opens with a ransom refused, and closes with a ransom accepted. After Agamemnon's theft,
Troy also skips Achilles' prayer to Zeus. In it, he asks for the war to be turned
in favor of the Trojans. He hopes the death of Greek warriors
will make Agamemnon regret the insult of taking Briseis. Omitting the prayer is a bizarre choice,
even without god s because it reveals that it's
not just his ability with spears that make Achilles so powerful. Even though he is absent and
inactive most of the poem, he's the agent controlling the Trojan War almost like a sorcerer. In fact, one could say that he's the one
really attacking the Greeks, using words. Is there no one else? Hector is just Zeus' tool
to give Achilles what he wants. Troy does not establish this,
giving us a less compelling story. Frankly, it makes Achilles
a more boring character too, and instead of wanting his allies dead,
we find him fearing for their safety. Get them in line! Him even being there, by the battlefield,
is a contradiction to what he said before. But the men are ready. We stay till Agamemnon
groans to have Achilles back. This is what he should be limited to,
staying in his tent, waiting for Agamemnon to come begging
for him to rejoin the battle. That's how he'll regain the honor he lost,
when Agamemnon took Briseis from him. He'll want the girl back. He can have the damn girl. Now, we need to talk about
what's called the choice of Achilles. Troy decides to establish it here. If you stay in Larissa, you'll find a wonderful woman,
you'll have sons and daughters, but when your children are dead,
and their children after them, your name will be lost. If you go to Troy,
they will write stories about your victories for thousands of years. The world will remember your name. But if you go to Troy,
you will never come home. The reason Achilles can choose
between two fates is that his mother is a goddess,
and his father a mortal. But in Troy, where his father is dead,
he's lacking a motivation to go home, making the choice less compelling. They've also made it a choice about going to war,
instead of about leaving the war. That makes the choice less relevant
for the film's central conflict. It also makes it feel like he's already decided on picking the short warrior
life remembered by history. In a thousand years
the dust from our bones will be gone. Yes, prince, but our names will remain. While in The Iliad, much of the tension
comes from Achilles' reluctance to choose. In Homer, after the greeks have been pushed back,
three men are sent to Achilles on behalf of Agamemnon. That tells us Achilles' prayer to Zeus is working. Odysseus presents bribes,
including Briseis, but even whole cities. He can pick one of Agamemnon's daughters too. They seem willing to do
anything to appease his anger. It's as if they're a cult,
offering gifts to a god they worship. I need you back. Greece needs you. But in Troy, the bribe is minimal. They've even given Briseis back to him already,
before Odysseus tries to change his mind, and he's even taken her back,
which he doesn't in the poem, and he shouldn't because
Briseis is not the real issue. Even the film suggested otherwise earlier, when Achilles was told he's
an unimportant warrior, someone not worth remembering. This is the real reason
for the famous rage of Achilles. My name will last through the ages. Your name is written in sand,
for the waves to wash away. With Achilles' rejection,
Hector is free to wreak havoc, setting several ships on fire. But this is an attack on Achilles' choice
about whether to go home or not, which is why they're forced to act. In the film, they've not included
Achilles' second prayer to Zeus either, when Patroclus takes his place. In the poem, he begs Zeus to let Patroclus
drive back the Trojans then return to him unharmed. That desire mirrors the choice of Achilles,
but he's asking for both glory and a safe homecoming. Before he left,
his mother revealed that's not possible. In Greek myths you do not
become famous without sacrifice. For your glory
walks hand in hand with your doom. In Troy, Patroclus is depicted as the naive
inexperienced cousin. Put down your spear. But I'm ready. You taught me how to fight. While in The Iliad, the older, more equal
Patroclus is therapon to Achilles. It's an old Greek word,
that can mean both ritual substitute and attendant. He's an attendant by being Achilles' charioteer.
His most trusted warrior, and someone who can lead him to safety,
when he's in danger. It's no surprise then, that Achilles thinks of Patroclus
as someone who can help him escape his own fate, but that's lost on us in Troy,
when the armor is stolen and not given. He does, however, act as the substitute
by leading the Myrmidons and wearing his armor. Actually, one could say that
Patroclus becomes Achilles by doing so so. When the ritual substitute is killed it's a way of saying that
Achilles' fate is sealed. With his cousin dead,
the choice has been made for him, and he will die too. In Homer's world, everything that happens
is a result of what came before. When they refrain from having Hector
steal the same armor from Patroclus, the film is unable to develop
this theme of identification and substitution. In fact, I doubt the writer was ever aware of it. As mentioned,
by having Hector kill Patroclus in Achilles' armor he is symbolically killing Achilles. If he then took and wore the same armor
he'd become Achilles too, but in Troy, he doesn't. That means Achilles does not receive
a new armor from the gods either. It would have signaled a kind of rebirth,
which we find in the poem. There, he finally enters the battlefield
dressed in gold, and when he does,
the Trojans are so frightened that many fall on their own spears
at the mere sight of him. Achilles has finally taken on the form
of the creature that history has remembered, the one that does not sail home. But when the film skips the new armor the confrontation with Hector
does not become a visual representation of Achilles fighting Achilles. It would have hammered home the idea
that he sacrifices himself for the Greeks. Here, they miss out on dramatic irony too,
when they won't let him pierce Hector's heels. As you know, Achilles will die from an arrow
in the same spot. It's as if the mutilation comes back to haunt him. Building on this mistake, Troy also skips the prolonged
abuse of Hector's corpse. Apart from this brief moment
after Patroclus death, we never really feel the full range of his Anger. It's as if he let go of it
with the death of Hector, replacing it with a death wish. But in the poem,
it would only get worse. Now, the power of the meeting
between Achilles and Priam comes from the idea of identification,
that I mentioned. In the poem,
Priam hopes to gain sympathy from Achilles by making him think of his father, Peleus. He does mention Peleus in Troy too,
but it's as if the writer doesn't know why. He makes a distinction between them,
and not a parallel. I knew your father, but he was lucky not to live long enough
to see his son fall. Instead of this, he should have focused
on what they have in common, which is that Priam and Peleus are both fathers
mourning sons that won't return from the war. That's what can bridge the huge gulf
between Achilles, the raging wild man of the tents, and Hector, the family man,
protecting the city. Here, Achilles is keen to point out
how different they are. There are no pacts between lions and men. He says something similar in the poem too. Despite facing his own armor so to speak,
he's not yet able to identify with Hector, which the lions and men-analogy alludes to, but it seems the writer of Troy's has failed
to see the subtext here, making him remove the helmet,
suggesting this is about Hector. Now you know who you're fighting. It's not, and I think the irony of doing this
is completely lost on the filmmakers here. I thought it was you I was fighting yesterday. In the scene with Priam, Achilles should finally be
able to see himself in Hector. By watching Priam cry over his son's body Achilles can picture himself
dead in his own father's arms. That's what made him cry in Homer. The tears, to some extent,
are selfish. But even if they are, this is how he's able
to relate to his enemy and their suffering. That's what finally makes him let go
of his famous anger. A long-lasting cycle of revenge is broken,
and the ransom is accepted, but in Troy, the theme of identification
and sympathy is absent. Not only was there no exchange of armor,
but Achilles' father is dead, and we never even see Priam crying over
Hector because the body is outside the tent. Reading Homer's poem in my early teens, I remember wishing it
included the death of Achilles because he was my favorite character. But it makes perfect sense
now that it's not included. We don't even need to know if,
or how Achilles dies because the events of the war have,
in some sense, already told us. The burials of Patroclus
and Hector are substitutes for mourning the coming death of Achilles.
