First the author tries to convince us that Homer's entire saga was written to illustrate the follies of war. Perhaps. I would rather say that it was written to illustrate the irrationality of man and utter humanity of the Greek gods: they started the war because of a petty argument over beauty. If you end the story where the original Iliad ends, she might have had a point. If you include Troy's capture, it highlights man's shrewdness. If you then tell what happened to Agamemnon (who was murdered by his wife on suspicion of adultery with a captive war slave) you can think that it is a great tragedy to die like that. If you include Ulysses' epic story, it becomes a tribute to steadfastness and an unyielding resolve never to give up despite very grim odds.
Then she complains that the movie does not convey the same meaning as the story would in ancient times---unfortunately, that is inevitable. Times have changed. We simply do not believe in the Greek gods any longer, for example. We do not know how it felt to have a historical enemy as the Trojans (and later on, the Persians). We are no longer a society in which war plays an important part. In addition, the argument falls flat on its face when she tries to involve The Passion of the Christ: that story would have conveyed a completely different meaning in the first century, namely of freedom from Roman oppression for the Jewish people. So why should the Iliad be rendered true? (She also has some really weird ideas about the Iliad and Odyssee forming the cornerstone of Greek identity, thus Greek democracy, and thus our modern society. I think she is overestimating their influence considerably.)
And then the most perverse, most revolting argument in the entire essay is unleashed: since Troy was the product of Hollywood, its original meaning was perverted as per usual. Thus a golden opportunity to start a national debate on the 'follies of war' was missed, and thus to learn from historical mistakes, and thus to critically evaluate the Bush administration's handling of the entire post-9/11 situation. This includes the Iraq invasion. In fact, this argument was the sole reason she wrote the essay. Would she have included The Passion's original meaning to this debate, I wonder. Yes, you definitely need to be a 'Jungian psychotherapist' in order to come up with such a chain of cause and effect. You really don't need to ride on the crest of a Hollywood movie wave to start national debates.
I am a little curious why you pointed us to that article, though. Everyone knows that movies (especially Hollywood ones) very rarely follow the book or historical facts to the letter. So...?
