“The Odyssey” is magnificent, but far too amenable

I agree: the world does not need more “Odyssey” takes. But I must exorcise myself of mine, and I will take this space to do it:

The best thing about Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” is simultaneously the worst thing about it: its amenability to different points of view. It’s an ideological Rorschach test of a film, and to me that makes it both brilliant and deeply disappointing.

Like “Interstellar” (still Nolan’s best film, I think, but one that makes the same mistake) “The Odyssey” is as rich with moral conflict and masculine turmoil as it is with spectacle. It broods a lot on every other civic issue of the day: Immigration. War. Gender. Aura farming!

But it also seems to refuse, at every step of the way, to take a definitive, clear-cut stance on many of the real-world issues it broaches. The movie offers itself up as a multi-purpose allegory, but mostly declines to tie itself to the mast of any specific worldview. And for such a masterfully crafted, star-studded, inevitably successful movie… I think that’s a damn shame.

On immigration, one could choose to read “The Odyssey” as an indictment of modern-day xenophobia. When it’s revealed that “the people of the sea” were — spoiler — Odysseus and his men all along, the movie seems to caution against an overinflated fear of outsiders. Worry instead, the movie suggests, about those of your own who have been driven wayward into war and violence.

But simultaneously, the slimy suitors in Odysseus’s palace are the perfect examples (to which a right-of-centre stance on immigration will no doubt point) of maladaptive immigrants. They’re the overstaying guests abusing the normative hospitality of their hosts, refusing to assimilate to the Judeo-Christian values of Itha-meri-ca.

On gender, we get the same choose-your-own-moral-of-the-story dynamic. Through the stories of Penelope and Circe, Nolan’s “Odyssey” is ostensibly feminist. Enraged by Telemachus’s overeagerness to ascend to the throne, Penelope reminds him that she’s been serving as ruler in Odysseus’ absence. Circe sees through men’s disguises, then rightly punishes them for their inherent gluttony.

But the movie’s treatment of both arcs makes them susceptible to opposite readings. Anne Hathaway’s unrestrained rage, straight from the Claire Danes school of acting, will no doubt read to some as female hysteria, a gendered tantrum. Why could the movie not have shown her governing Ithaca instead of just saying that she did, so as to leave no room for doubt in her claim?

The movie also fails to commit to Circe, mainly in its sympathy for Eurylochus and his men. As they arrive at her hut, they’re almost docile and reassuring. They give no outward indication of their rapacious past, just before a witch decides to punish them for it. A viewer with the wrong sensibilities could read this, too, as a form of female hysteria. It leaves room to doubt what I think the scene’s core message is and should be, indisputably: that men are pigs.

Lastly: the titular character’s fate. Matt Damon’s Odysseus spends half the movie reflecting on his sins: his warmongering, his trickery, his pride. And then, without sufficient penance, he gets a hero’s homecoming: the glorious opportunity to vanquish his wife’s suitors and sail off into the sunset with her. The movie gives Odysseus his redemption, even if he does nothing to earn it.

Surely all of this was deliberate. Movies more commonly err by being too didactic, and directors by speaking through their characters. It seems Nolan’s “Odyssey” tried to avoid this by accommodating as broad a spectrum of opinions as possible, calibrating his work into a stew of generalities.

And that’s fine — perfect, even — for a blockbuster, a money-maker, a summer movie that launches a thousand thinkpieces and gets people talking about important things. Despite all my feelings, I’m still talking about it here! From the view that movies should be very widely open to interpretation, Nolan’s “Odyssey” is pitch-perfect.

But is that what movies are for? In our age of constant discussion, in which the clash of opinions is simply the ambient noise of everyday life, do we need a movie that’s better at kindling debate than at taking a clear stand?

You could argue for the former, and say that by making itself amenable to so many worldviews, Nolan’s “Odyssey” makes an effort to bring people into dialogue who would otherwise be insulated from each other. Valid! I take that point. Such movies are worth making.

It’s just that Christopher Nolan is far too good at making movies to make that sort of movie. He’s one of the world’s greatest living filmmakers, and one with a real gift for making films people actually watch. He’s ultra-committed to craft (his disavowal of CGI is world-famous) and he’s got enough industry pull to put half of Hollywood’s star power in one credits reel. Is it too much to expect the same level of commitment, the same courage, to making a movie with a clear politics?

Maybe. If it is, then we at least got a contemporary IMAX epic that pulled people into cinemas, and then after, got us talking about things that matter. But we can, and should, always expect more.