I didn’t bother to see the film when it came out, but I spent an afternoon watching the DVD and enjoyed it for what it is. It was not called, “The Illiad”, it did not purport to be. It was meant as an entertainment based upon the work of Homer and Quintus Of Smyrna. As that, I found nothing at all wrong with it. The producers have chosen to edit the gods out of it and to concentrate upon battle scenes and sexual relationships, a pragmatic decision made for obvious reasons and the result is a more contemporary popular amusement with a most un classical attitude toward love and marriage which is more in accord with contemporary mores. I understand the reasons for this; the work is not meant as history, but rather as present day entertainment. For historians, there are distinct benefits. If nothing else, the sheer magnitude of the visuals is elucidating. Reading the numbers is not the same as seeing the entire horizon dotted with Greek ships. This visual aid helps in understanding the numbers. The scope of the battle scenes reveals the numbers better far than any written record could. Details may be anachronistic within their context, but are still useful to a historian’s understanding. When the Myrmidons form the classic Roman tortuga with their shields, they anticipate a military maneuver by a thousand years, yet who is to say that this never occurred before the Roman’s adopted it? I for one, am happy to see just how this works. I reiterate, this is not intended as accurate history, but rather as entertainment. Watching the advancing tortuga was very entertaining to me even if it seemed somehow out of place at Troy. The film presents some perspectives which are interesting and contribute to some long standing arguments. Debates about the relationship of Achilles and Petroclus have raged for centuries and are not always strictly rational. Later writers aver that the relationship was a homosexual one. This is never stated in Homer’s work and those who wish to hold to this view dismiss that simply by saying that it was to be, “understood”. It seems to me to be of little more than prurient interest. It is of primary importance to the plot that Achilles loved Petroclus; how he loved him is not. The producers of, “Troy”, show Petroclus as an orphaned cousin of Achilles who is younger and less experienced. Achilles has taken the young man under his protection and assumed the father role in this relationship. The young man is vulnerable and endearing and any sort of father would love him very deeply. Unless one has some sort of ax to grind, I see no reason to argue with this perspective and no evidence to argue contra. The point may have some relevance to homosexual activists, but it has little importance to this story and the producers have I think, done well to eschew the sensationalism rather than exploit it. I cannot however, agree with the view of heterosexual monogamous love presented in this film. It is, I think anti historical. For a man to excessively love any woman , wife or mistress, was at the time considered an effeminacy unbecoming a man and a point of ridicule. When rallying the Trojan soldiers, Hector exhorts them to love battle, love their country and love their woman, it presents a view of heterosexual love never dreamt of before the 12th century. I have never been convinced that Paris greatly loved Helen nor that the abduction of her as a possession, was the real cause of the Trojan war. This film very pragmatically I think, takes the view that there was much more to it than that. It is the view of the authors that the entire thing comes down to Agamemnon’s lust for power and influence and this idea is not easily discarded. Agamemnon here, and in Homer is the heavy. The whole Briseis affair is unnecessary as Achilles hates Agamemnon from the start. The fight over the possession of Briseis only turns the already existing hatred to the rage which is at the center of the plot. As the character of Achilles is presented, any king over him would be in trouble from the start and as Agamemnon is understood, any disobedience to his authority would be intolerable. Herein lies the whole story. It has been set up from the beginning and awaits only the unfolding of the inevitable. The writers of ”Troy” understood this well; it is the engine which drives the entire tale. I watch these epics about the ancient world for the visuals. I don’t expect to find the same accuracy I would demand in an academic history and sometimes as in this case, I am rewarded with an interesting viewpoint of the subject. If you take it for what it is it can be enjoyable.