I went to see The Odyssey again. This time in the way that Christopher Nolan intended: on a 70mm IMAX screen. Thank god I watched it on a regular screen first. The 70mm version is loud as fuck. But I finally see what Nolan was trying to do. The Odyssey is like a spiritual sequel to Oppenheimer. The theme for both films is “man who sacrificed his soul and the future of humanity for temporary victory” or some shit like that. Presumably there will be a third installment to make a complete trilogy.
The question is what will the subject be of this hypothetical film. At this stage in Nolan’s career, he has carte blanche. There’s not a subject under the sun that he can’t make a film about. The only constraints are the ones that Nolan places on himself. So this third film will likely be about a historical or pseudo historical event. The theme has to be the same as the prior two films.
Oppenheimer was about the development of humanity’s most destructive weapon. The Odyssey was about placing the most important story in western literature within the context of the Bronze Age collapse. For the latter, Nolan clearly read Eric Cline’s 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Due to his research on this issue, Cline has reached the status of a celebrity scholar. Nolan knows all these pop scholars, whether they be in history or science. So the events of The Odyssey happened over 3000 years before Oppenheimer. Can anyone think of an event between 1177 BC and 1945 CE that would fit Nolan’s sensibilities?
If he doesn’t know him already, let me introduce the auteur to Bart D. Ehrman, the (retired) James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman might be the most famous biblical scholar to have ever lived. He brought textual criticism of the Bible to the mainstream and no doubt every New Testament scholar granted a Ph.D in the last 25 years was influenced by him. But thanks to Ehrman, biblical studies is a hot HOT topic on YouTube, Reddit, etc. But as far as the New Testament goes, perhaps the biggest debate is the one regarding the “Synoptic Problem” which dissects how the first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are related to one another. It a subject that riles the passion of many scholars where having the wrong opinion might get you killed in some universities. And in part due to teaching skills and charisma of Ehrman, even armchair scholars like myself can explain their position on the Synoptic Problem in pedantic detail.
Not to say that Nolan should make a movie about the Synoptic Problem. But the contradicting details described by all the Gospels does sort of fit the director’s propensity for exploring time and memory. While another Jesus movie might not be worthwhile, even if it is directed by Nolan, the most interesting details about the development of early Christianity are the moments immediately after Jesus’s death. The “Christ” didn’t create Christianity. His followers did. And what the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, says is that none of Jesus’s followers understood his message.
This includes the apostle Peter, who many believe created the Church. Peter would be the main character in this hypothetical film. The story starts with him in hiding after the events of the crucifixion (which we only catch glimpses of through memory cuts). He wishes to live in obscurity before he’s dragged back into the mess by James, the brother of Jesus, who successfully kept “The Way” going in Jerusalem. We see the stoning of Stephen and the persecutions of Saul, played by Tom Hardy. Peter goes around “evangelizing” around Palestine before Saul reappears with a new “gospel” and the plot unfolds. Peter loses his way with James and the Jerusalem church and he finds himself in Rome with Saul where he experiences the great fire of 65 AD. Saul is mercifully beheaded. Peter is crucified in the garden of Nero. While on the cross, he remembers Jesus’s crucifixion and the “message” (whatever the fuck that is) becomes clear to him. The historical subtext is that even though “The Way” (Christianity) ultimately prevailed over Rome, it helped unleash religious hatred and persecution over the next 2000 years, which is (probably) antithetical to Jesus’s actual teachings.
Things like the resurrection and miracles of Jesus are handled with an air of indifference. Some people recall him performing them. Others like James say he was only doing good works. Only Saul (or Paul) believes in the total divinity of Jesus. During his “Road to Damascus” event (shown in quick memory cuts), Saul does seem to gain an inexplicable and mysterious insight into Peter which taps into his guilt over fleeing from Jerusalem during Jesus’s crucifixion. But unburdened by this guilt due to Saul’s “insights” and designation as an apostle, Peter feels “born anew” and is slowly torn from the Jerusalem church and towards Saul’s “gentile mission”.
Some say that this story would be too controversial for a studio to back. But I say if every one of your movies makes a billion dollars, then you have every right to make whatever the hell you want. And if Christopher Nolan wanted to make this story, he could. And should, goddamnit.
