Troy – The Director’s Cut [REVIEW]

The Trojan Wars have been one of the most prolific stories through the ages. Despite ongoing debate whether or not this war really happened (our only real sources being Homer’s poems), there is no doubt it left its mark in history. As such this has been a favorite subject for Hollywood to exploit. There have been several adaptations of Homer’s work done in the past 20 years with mixed results. Perhaps the most well-known is 2004’s epic Troy, a movie that has largely been forgotten by the public despite the star power involved.

Directed by Wolfgang Peterson and starring a buttload of famous actors of the time Including but not limited to Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, and Dianna Krugger. Troy was an attempt to put a grounded realistic spin on Homer’s Iliad. Focusing on an authentic bronze age reimagining of the Trojan war rather than the mythological narrative that is typically read as.

Theatrical Release vs Director’s Cut

It is important to emphasize that I will be diving into the director’s cut of this movie as that was the film that I grew up watching. I haven’t seen the original version in theaters (being 10 at the time) and only recently saw the theatrical cut. To summarize I hated it for a number of reasons that will be addressed. So in this article, there will be brief comparisons between both cuts whenever I can.

Much like Kingdom of Heaven, Troy was a potential masterpiece undone by studio meddling. Despite the R rating, it was heavily timed down with its depictions of violence and sex (again half the reason we watch these movies). This was brought into the foreground when the directors cut and it was the kind of brutal watch that would perfectly pass today, but considered too much back then. This comes along with an even longer destruction sequence of the city, displaying the true brutality of ancient warfare.

Another major difference between these two versions was the use of soundtracks. The original cut utilized a number of musical instruments that would fit in that time period. This would have given this an immersive feel except for one problem, the poetic singer wouldn’t stop singing. It is common in a lot of these sword sandal epics to often have these female vocals in the background. It’s often done to super dramatize the moment when a character is in pain in deep thought. that stuff can be very effective if used sparingly, but in the theatrical cut, this movie overuses it even in scenes that aren’t necessary. 

The director’s cut soundtrack is very different in its compositions that make the viewing much more tolerable. for one there is a full orchestra and even recycled scores from the composer James Horner from other films including tracks from Braveheart and even Planet of the Apes. To its credit non of these additions are too distracting as they fit in with the scenes depicted.

Here is a difference in soundtracks during Achilles and Hector’s duel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UTb7VKTCcw&t=6s

Characters

Despite this story having somewhat rudimentary characters and story, it managed to balance all those best elements well. One story element that carried the whole story was the rivalry between Achilles and Hector. The marketing predominantly features Brad Pitt’s Achilles and Eric Bana’s Hector in the starring role and they did not disappoint. Both are very well-developed characters with clear motivations and have some strong connections. Despite only meeting twice both characters have a reputation that precedes them that makes their connection hit. This makes their fight all the more heartbreaking as you’re not entirely routing for either of them to win.

Achilles is motivated by seeking glory and prestige but does have a strong sense of honor and values. This has caused him to be in conflict with king Agamemnon who’s only interested in conquest. Achilles never wanted to be a “tyrants mercenary”. Despite often fighting Agamemnon’s battles, Achilles never agrees with his ethics and would disobey Agamemnon on more than one occasion.

“Imagine a king who fights his own battle, wouldn’t that be a sight”

Achilles

While Achilles is motivated by glory Hector is driven by protecting his city and family, always reminding his soldiers to do the same thing. in a way hector is the only real good guy in the film as like Achilles, he has a strong sense of honor and lives by a moral code. he is also very pragmatic often coming in conflict with his brother and father for allowing Helen to stay and his traditionalist father who prefers the council of the god Apollo.

The movie has no shortage of good characters, however, One thing I couldn’t get into, however, was the romance between Paris and Helen. Needless to say, this is not Orlando Blooms best role as Paris just comes off as a very bland and weak character. I wouldn’t mind so much except for the fact that Paris never takes responsibility for any of his actions. From leading Helen back to Troy to running away from his fight with Menelaus, even with Hector gone, Paris never really changes as a person. Curiously in the theatrical cut, there was a scene where Paris exhibits regret for running away from the fight that does reveal that he is at least not spoiled, but in the director’s cut, that scene wasn’t included making Paris more unlikable.

There isn’t much to Helen either, just the beautiful, but bland love interest. In truth, they are more or less side characters in their own story, however, because they are boring figures I actually don’t mind too much as more of the focus is given to Achilles and Hector.

Fun Fact: Brad Pitt Hurt his Achilles tendon late in production forcing the studio to halt for several weeks. Definition of irony.

Other Characters

As for the Antagonists, there is more depth to them than what is usually given other run-of-the-mill antagonists. Agamemnon is in many ways a stereotypical arrogant conqueror, but Bryan Cox does everything he can to make him both slimy and funny. Even his brother Menelaus has a brutish sense of honor always respecting Hector as prince even if he was his enemy but despises Paris’s cowardice not just for stealing his wife, but for his during their duel.

I also cant not mention Ajax who steals every scene he’s in and perhaps the most badass line in the entire series.

There is one character that blows my mind. in this movie king Odysseus. Not because he’s a well-written character, but because he’s played by Sean Bean and he doesn’t die?

Hollywood “Straight-Washing“

While many of these changes might understandable there was one change in the movie audiences today would find controversial. One such element that was changed was the relationship between Achilles and his fellow man Patroclus. In the original story, they were lovers, or at least that’s what Greeks perceived their relationship as such. Homosexuality and bisexuality have always been common in ancient Greece, however American christen doctrine understandably has discouraged such depictions. As such Much of American cinema has been very reluctant to touch on this issue in the blockbusters. Only in the past decade have such open relationships are widely accepted now.

Hollywood especially back then was still leaning conservative and was generally reluctant to have homosexual protagonists especially in their action period dramas that tend to have a primarily male audience. Today It is likely that Having Achilles having a homosexual relationship would be more accepted, but if they made the cousin route today they would be accused of Strait washing basically turning a supposedly homosexual. It’s a minor plot issue in the film but is a subject worth discussing these days.

Action

This film has more than its fair share of battle sequences, and much of it isn’t CGI. It’s true that they use photoshop imposing techniques to make a few hundred extras look like a hundred. And considering that this film is 18 years old it’s amazing how much it aged well.

My favorite of these scenes was the Reverse D-Day sequence where the greeks land on the beach and there meet with machine gun– I mean – arrow fire.

The great thing about these fight scenes is that there aren’t a lot of closeups or rapid edits that make it impossible to see what’s going on. Back when Hollywood knew how to shoot action correctly.

Demystifying the Legends

 One crucial aspect of this film compared to other adaptations was the complete absence of the gods. The intention behind this is that the filmmakers want something that is closer to real life. We don’t relate to god’s debating who side to empower as much as Hector knowing he has everything to lose if he dies. This means that the gods are not there to help the Greeks or Trojans like in the original poem. Instead, the gods have more of an omnipresence. Characters like King Priam and the priestess Braces have a strong belief that the gods favor the vulnerable. In contrast to the Greeks like Agamemnon believe the gods back theirs down to the fact that Achilles is a seemingly divine warrior prodigy. 

Even legendary events were changed to fit a real setting. For example, it was Achilles’ heel that became his downfall as his mother dunked him into a magical spring to make him invulnerable to blades. Only his heel wasn’t touched which was why Paris’s arrow was able to kill him. The movie makes no mention of that event and instead has Achilles simply be super skilled. When Achilles’ heel gives way, it’s not a poison arrow that kills him but rather more arrows that hit him in his chest that he pulls out. Conveniently, he dies right before the other Greeks find his body with the arrow still in his heel, clearly intending to give birth to a legend.

Warfare, and Realism?

Well Time to put on my professor glasses for this one. One major element I do appreciate was attention to detail on how bronze age warfare was fought. Most of the fight was spears and shields. Only those of wealth or great standing carried swords as they were expensive. It is important to note aside from Achilles no one is wearing the distinctive chest armor and even that horsehair crest helmet as that particular style likely wouldn’t exist for another 800 years. In short Greeks in this time period wouldn’t have looked like Leonodus’s Spartans.

Another feature that is pretty accurate is that although you see Trojans ride to battle and indeed put pride in their horses, they never actually fight on horseback. Keep in mind this was back before stirrups and saddles were invented, at most they just have a blanket. Horses back then were still small and didn’t have the strength to carry their rider for long distances; more often horses were used with chariots for elite warriors that would ride to battle and fight on foot. Just like swords, they were of high status would only be used by the elite and this was shown in the film where chariots are used as command platforms.

If they wanted 100 percent accuracy there would have been elements that may not have made the film look as awesome. only a 3^rd of their armies would have been armored in one form or another as men of status lead from the front. Population density and density and resources are also important  Considering the manpower involved. According to modern estimates, It is unlikely that there would have been 50,000 Greeks coming ashore; more accurate numbers would be somewhere around 5000 if they were going entirely by ship. Which does lead to another slight problem with the movie, well from a military perspective. They also never really mentioned the resources and food it would take to muster such a force. it’s strange because this is a siege, matters like food and water are important in such matters.

The film is admirable for its attempts to add realism to these armies but nothing is 100 percent perfect when it comes to “accuracy”. However, I am willing to push that aside if the battle scenes are well made and thankfully they are.

Alterations

Like any film adaptation, this has its fair share of changes quite a lot in fact. One major change was the fates of its characters. Crucial characters like Menelaus, Ajax, and Agamemnon die in the film when in fact they all survive and return home. 

For some of these changes, I can understand for the purpose of fitting in its more realism. For example, in Paris’s duel with Menelaus, defeating an already weak Paris and attempts to walk away cowardly. In the Iliad as Menelaus attempts the final blow with the Goddess Aphrodite took pity, blinded Menelaus, and carried Paris off to the sky. If they did something like that it would look silly and would not at all fit with the film’s grounded realistic tone.

In this version Paris crawls to his brother Hector, Menelaus demands Hector step aside, Hector refuses and impales Menelaus with his sword, brotherly love at its best

Agamemnon also dies differently here. At his moment of triumph when troy was being sacked he was stabbed in the neck by his captive Brisas.

Sidenote: the real Agamemnon was murdered by his wife in his bath as revenge for sacrificing his own daughter.

This leads us to the ending with the Trojan Horse. Achilles dies under very different circumstances in the movie. Achilles does get killed by Paris but he’s shot in the heel first then shot several more times in the torso that was the fatal blow. Achilles plucks the arrows and dies with the one arrow left in his heel conveniently discovered by the Greeks. The movie ends with Odysseus’s narration reminiscing on what he experienced.

The ending was also very different for Paris and Helen. Curiously in this film, Paris was not killed in battle (which was before the Trojan horse was built) Instead Both of them survive and escape with Aeneas fleeing the city along with what’s left of Troy’s survivors fleeing into the mountains. Helen also did not escape with the survivors. She was taken back by Menalus and was taken back to Sparta and the two later reconciled in the Odyssey.

My best guess is that Wolfgang Peterson made those changes because he wanted to go for the conventional route where the antagonists have to die to satisfy the audience. However, this does kind of strip the theme of the original story in that no one is safe in a war.

Conclusion

The director’s cut of Troy is a fascinating film to dissect. However, from the critics’ point of view, the story in it is too conventional and sacrifices maybe 1 too many literary changes for it. Still to this day I considered this to be a forgotten piece of history that is slowly being looked back on for history buffs such as myself. It’s a wonderful piece of nostalgia emulating the epics of the past in both its cinematography and its characters.