Note: So I guess I made the mistake of posting this piece on Reddit (you know, the forum for informed and nuanced discourse) and pretty much got downvoted to oblivion. As expected, the discussion revolved around the contentious issue of Helen’s historicity, entirely missing the point of this piece, namely that I will see the movie, I will probably like it, and casting a black woman (Lupito) to play her really doesn’t bother me that much.
I also caught flak for comparing the evidence for a historical Helen to that of Jesus (but I am not backtracking on this). While most historians agree Jesus existed, we know very little about him, and his life has been highly romanticized. There are no records, artifacts, or documents (Roman or otherwise) we can point to for evidence. Everything written about him came decades after his death. His existence is based entirely on conjecture and a careful reading of the New Testament. As for Helen, it was once widely assumed that the Iliad was entirely mythical—until the ruins of Troy were discovered in Asia Minor. Now, what we know of Helen comes from Greek oral tradition, and nothing was written about her for centuries. Given the gap between when Homer sang the Iliad and when it was written, and when the authors of the New Testament wrote about Jesus, we can be more confident about Jesus’ life. But still, what we know is mostly conjecture and does not constitute evidence.
But even if we were to agree that Helen was entirely fictional, she would still remain an important part of my heritage and culture, just as Jesus, real or imagined, is an important part of the Christian faith.
Finally, to address a bit of silliness here: someone pointed out how Helen was born from a swan egg, and that her father was (allegedly) Zeus in the form of a swan. While this is obviously untrue, I believe it is no less true than the claim that a man walked on water and that he rose from the dead. The Bible, IMO, is largely a myth of the Jews, just as Homer’s works represent the myths of the Greeks.
This debacle led me to cast yet another pod (The Historicity of Helen, below) to clarify (hopefully) my point, although I am sure very few Redditors will listen to it because social media has taught us to reduce all arguments to right- or left-leaning soundbites.
As a storyteller of Greek descent — specifically Spartan — who’s studied Ancient Greek history at the graduate level, I feel I have unique insight into this matter and would like to add my two drachmas to the discussion surrounding Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film.
The controversy surrounding this film has liberals and conservatives tied up in knots, and given our hyper-political climate, this comes as no surprise. The main issue, of course, involves race and gender, the casting of Lupito Nyong’o as Helen of Troy, and, to a lesser degree, trans person Eliott Page as Achilles (edit: this was an internet rumor and it turned out to be false). Manosphere influencers are stumbling all over themselves, crying “woke!” while liberals claim that the casting shouldn’t matter because Helen was not a real historical person. Then there are the moderates caught in between, accused of racism for preferring people of Greek ancestry to look as if they could be Greek.
For all I know, Helen of Troy (originally from Sparta) may be my great ancestor. She is no more or less historical than Jesus (again, I am not saying Jesus did not exist; I am saying the evidence for both is oral tradition and dubious written sources coming decades after the fact), yet she is being talked about as if she were Spider-Man. Yes, Homer’s epic tale features many fantastical elements, like giant Cyclopes and bloodthirsty mermaids. But it also involves many real-world locations (Sparta, Ithaca, Troy) based on a real-world culture (my own). The fact that my culture is so often dismissed when it comes to matters of representation, treated as an exception to appropriation, has long annoyed me. Liberals are outraged when white people don kimonos, but never bat an eye when a non-Greek person parades around in a chiton or peplos.
As a student of history, I can tell you that history is far muddier than most people realize. It’s like trying to piece together a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle with only 100 pieces. So while we may never know for certain whether Helen was a real person or not (though I do believe she was based on a real historical person), we can know with certainty that she was not black, mainly because the ancient Spartans were the MAGA of Greece: conservative, racist, and violently territorial. No Spartan would ever have accepted a black woman as their queen.
That being said, I am not raging over Nolan’s casting choices, since The Odyssey, if the trailer is an indication, is rife with inaccuracies. For me, the biggest flaw is the director’s use of a Viking longboat in place of a Greek penteconter. Given the enormous budget of a film like this, I simply don’t see why he couldn’t have paid a shipbuilder to recreate this ancient vessel. The real reason, I think, is that Nolan couldn’t tell the difference and figured his audience wouldn’t either.
Would I have preferred a lighter-skinned Helen? Sure, but only because I prefer to see my ancestors represented faithfully, or at least the way the Greeks imagined the mythical heroes and heroines who defined their civilization. But Homer’s Odyssey is not the story of Helen; it’s the story of a man on a boat. So when right-wingers, taking a sudden interest in history, ignore the boat to complain about the actors’ skin tone, we can only assume their real motive has nothing to do with yesterday’s history and everything to do with scoring political points for today.
The Art of Storytelling 
Leave a comment