Troy and the New Paganism

So, I just finished watching Troy, which I had avoided since it came out, figuring it was likely garbage; however, I finally decided to watch it and found it to be kind of interesting. I was particularly taken with the film's approach to paganism. Obviously, the conceit of the creators was that the Greek gods do not exist and that the people who worship them make ridiculous decisions based on reading the innards of animals, portents, and visions.

Now, I actually tried to see this as some sort of oblique criticism of Christianity, but it really doesn't work. The film seems to be legitimately criticizing paganism (which surprised me). Perhaps it was intended as a broader critique of 'religion', but it really doesn't work on that level either. I found it to be fairly cogent in its presentation of the bleak and hopeless character of paganism (and most non-monotheistic religions). This pleased me to no end, but the film also misses out on a few significant elements of the materialist vision of paganism.

Considering that we exist within in a new paganism (particularly in our entertainment industry), I figured that they must have some semblance of an understanding about what paganism is. But I was surprised by both what they missed and what they hit.

First, let me say what I mean by the New Paganism. I do NOT mean the sort of wicca-wannabe-aesir-loving-new-agers; I do mean idolaters. Pagan gods were simply personifications of human desires; the gods of our society are money, sex, power, etc.

Hollywood certainly understands idolatry (as does the banking industry and most other Modernist innovations and ideologies), even if they don't necessarily have any insight into why it is problematic. The idolatry of Troy was nicely presented and the characters seemed to be fairly conscious of their materialist paradigm.

In general, the film embraced idolatry and materialism, even managing to capture some of Homer's attempts to skewer and criticize the system (however, lacking the gods within the story, this becomes much more difficult). The one place where I feel the film failed is in its understanding of Achilles' reaction to the death of Patroclus.

For some reason, the film decided to fudge Achilles' (and Odysseus') complicity in the death of Patroclus and managed to undercut the pagan significance of Achilles' rage. The significance of Achilles’ rage at Patroculus' death was that Achilles had a brief moment of realization that the pagan ethos was not sufficient. That death in battle was not glorious for its own sake; however, his response to this was to make Hector die in battle, compounding Achilles' culpability and making the resolution of his conflict even more impossible to attain.

Now, we need to view this from a moral (and ultimately Catholic) morality; Homer clearly understands that there is something seriously lacking in the so-called 'heroic' code. Plato picks up on this and loves Homer for realizing the limitations of the heroic code, but condemns him for being unable to offer any sort of meaningful alternative.

Plato himself can only proceed to a certain point in trying to resolve the problem of Achilles, because he has no conception of original sin. Plato would argue that Achilles did not fully realize that what he was doing was 'wrong'; however, I would argue that Achilles DOES seem to understand that there is something wrong about the heroic culture, but has no real alternative. Plato can only offer a myth to explain what he sees as the basis of a moral universe, but lacks the revelation of Christ.

Even though Plato would come to influence much of what Catholics would come to say about morality, Plato's own morality falls short because of his isolation from the revelation of Truth on the Cross.

So, without a sense of what Achilles actually did not understand, it is difficult for the creators of the film to adequately justify Achilles' rage.
Even though I kind of respect the creators' decision to forgo present the gods as real, in doing so, they fail to take into account the metaphysical complexities that Homer was attempting to personify by using the gods.

The reason that the film feels so empty (especially at the end) is that it rejects the metaphysical implications of Achilles' rage and so fails to truly express Achilles' grief. This is a grief that can only be truly expressed by one who has not had the benefit of the revelation of Faith, but has realized the lie of his own metaphysical and ethical suppositions.

Because our new paganism has no metaphysics, it is even more hopeless and nihilistic than traditional paganism. Traditional paganism allowed for the imagination of metaphysical alternatives (and so for meaningful despair, I suppose... maybe just active despair), whereas the new paganism does not allow for any genuine metaphysical consolation and so generates a truly nihilistic despair, and acedia, that not only crushes our moral instincts, but causes us to despair even that those instincts exist.

This could probably be more coherent, but I am trying to get my ideas hashed out on a Saturday morning as I get ready to bring my kids to soccer practice. I am sure that others could offer meaningful criticism that I might incorporate into a more polished revision.

I will continue to think on these topics as well.