Director Christopher Nolan’s take on Homer’s epic poem, “The Odyssey,” created the kind of cultural buzz few films can deliver.

Be careful what you wish for, as a wise soul once said.

Said buzz started months ago, and it hasn’t let up in the days leading up to the film’s release date – July 17.

Much of it centered on the film’s cast. Few complained about Matt Damon as Odysseus, the tortured hero at the center of the story. No, the kerfuffle erupted around two performers in the large ensemble.

Lupita Nyong’o and Elliot Page.

Nyong’o is an Oscar-winner, but she’s playing a character typically portrayed by white actresses – Helen of Troy.

We knew nothing about the character brought to life by Page, a trans performer, for the last few months. That didn’t stop social media voices from declaring Page would portray Achilles, a figure known for his warrior prowess.

Page is five-foot-one and, to be frank, doesn’t present as physically intimidating.

Did it matter that we didn’t know what role Page would play until recently? Apparently not, if you listened to the web-based squawking over the casting decision.

Much of the noise has come from the cultural Right. Think The Critical Drinker, The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh and others.

The Odyssey Looks Awful. Here’s Whyhttps://t.co/Wt34srUTAU

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) May 13, 2026

Now, with the film set for a global release, it’s time to ask the obvious question.

Did conservatives shoot themselves in the foot, or did they bring up valid points about the production?

The answer is easy. Both.

Casting calls took on a decidedly woke edge in recent years. Gender swaps. Race swaps. Some casting decisions happened for diversity reasons above all else.

It’s one thing for “Hamilton” to radically shake up the usual casting choices. That was partially creator Lin-Manuel Miranda’s creative point. America is a melting pot, and the nation’s founders didn’t reflect that at the time. They still paved the way for the diversity we see all around us now.

Other recent casting decisions felt forced, inorganic. We suddenly sat through period pieces where the on-screen diversity took us right out of the story.

That’s a mistake.

Nolan has built a career and reputation for putting story first. His 2012 superhero epic “The Dark Knight Returns” rejected early woke-ism while portraying the Occupy Wall Street movement as cruel and corrupt.

How could that Nolan succumb to woke casting decisions? The cultural Right felt confused, if not betrayed.

Still, assuming Page’s role before it became clear proved a mistake. Conservatives still struggle in the pop culture arena, so an unforced error is a terrible look.

So is decrying Nyong’o as not being beautiful enough to play a woman whose “face launched a thousand ships.” The actress is undeniably attractive, even if some may find her less beguiling than others. 

That’s true of any actress. Beauty, like art, can be subjective.

To make matters worse, some used awkward freeze-frame images of Nyong’o to suggest she wasn’t beautiful enough for the part, another clumsy attempt to push that narrative forward.

The Right’s pushback on Page’s casting made more sense.

The slight performer doesn’t conjure heroism on an epic scale. Page’s trans activism makes the actor’s appearance distracting, something a period piece should work to avoid at all costs.

Some movie goers also struggle to watch Sean Penn or Jane Fonda due to their extreme off-camera activism.

Nolan deserves a little blame here, too. He ignored the Achilles rumors for far too long, when he could have easily explained them away months ago. More recently, he shared how he downplayed the culture war squabbles over the film, focusing on the movie first and foremost.

Christopher Nolan Says ‘Odyssey’ Backlash Over Casting and More Is ‘Irrelevant’ and He’s Learned Not to Worry: ‘Remember, I Spent 10 Years Dealing With Batman’ https://t.co/21AhMaGDuF

— Variety (@Variety) July 10, 2026

That’s smart, on paper, but it’s also dismissing those who genuinely want “The Odyssey” to soar.

For every rabble rouser looking to start a fact-free fight over “The Odyssey,” there are others who want the best out of Hollywood and are frustrated by what the’ve seen of late.

They deserve to be treated with respect by the industry. When they’re shut out, ignored or just called racist, everybody loses.

And that only pours more fuel on the next culture war clash.

The post Did Conservatives Jump the Gun on ‘The Odyssey?’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

If you want a clue to the basic reason behind Trump’s capitulating “Memorandum of Understanding,” just read his attempted justification for allowing the Iranians to keep their ballistic missiles:

“I mean, they have to have some, because other people have some. . . . I’m saying that if other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some.”

True, the reference to “other countries” was to other despotisms in that region. But the whole point of this nominal war was to eliminate a significant threat to America. And Iran is the nation posing that danger. It is Iran that is dominated by an ideology that regards America as the “Great Satan” which needs to be annihilated. It is Iran that is spearheading jihadism across the globe. It is Iran, therefore, that needs to be defeated and disarmed. Yet Trump is concerned about being “unfair” to Iran by removing its arsenal of ballistic missiles.

An effective foreign policy must make moral discriminations. It must identify the nature of a country that is an enemy, and the nature of a country that is a friend. Merely looking at a country’s weaponry cannot guide us. Nuclear bombs in the hands of Iran or North Korea are very different from nuclear bombs in the hands of England or France. Just as the guns possessed by criminals call for a very different evaluation than do guns possessed by the police.

But Trump is incapable of making such moral evaluations. Whatever the conflict—Ukraine vs. Russia, Israel vs. the Palestinians—he cannot understand which side deserves our support and which our condemnation. And even when it comes to Iran, he does not comprehend the fundamental moral distinction between that nation and ours.

Instead, he sees only two haggling parties that need to come to some agreement. What he sees is an opportunity to impress the world with his deal-making skills.

This amoral approach to Iran has, predictably, led to disaster. Trump engaged in a war that will not result in the categorical defeat of an enemy and the irreversible removal of its ability to threaten us. He does not grasp the reason Iran is a threat. Instead he declares that he has achieved a change of regime in Iran, because “we’re dealing with different people than anybody’s dealt with before.” The fact that they hold the same ideas—the same theocratic, America-hating ideas—means nothing to him. Because ideas, particularly ideas of morality, mean nothing to him.

“[The] development [of law] during the last hundred years has become increasingly one of the destruction of justice by 'social justice', until even some students of jurisprudence have lost sight of the original meaning of 'justice'. In substance this has meant that the individual ... has become increasingly subject to the commands of authority....
    "This totalitarian trend appear[s] under a moral guise. It is indeed the concept of ‘social justice’ which has been the Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has entered.”

~ FA Hayek from his 1976 book Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice [pp 135-6]

We will know that the reparations debate is morally serious when this question is a part of the mix: How much does Ghana owe the USA? Why? “The Ashanti Empire (1701–1901) in modern-day Ghana was a prominent participant in the slave trade. Enslavement was primarily fueled by warfare, where the empire acquired captives from rival […]