And now, Homer is silent. History, as usual, is written by winners. And the Iliad is the story of the winners. But there is another side of the coin: the history of the defeated. Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida was written, let’s say, on behalf of the Trojans without gloss and embellishment, so characteristic of the vain Greeks. Shakespeare clears at his own discretion the heroic rhetoric of Homer’s original and strips away all the “divine” justification for his actions, forcing the human essence of each character to see through the gilding of mythical glory. And therefore, peering into the faces of eminent heroes, it becomes as if not in itself from what lies behind the opening images. Oh, terrible! Here, a moment ago, ardent love turns into a vulgar betrayal, a majestic and heroic act - a vile cowardice when you can attack an unarmed person, betraying the memory of the one for whom you wanted to be victorious. Amazing Achilles, are you?
However, shattering all myths, the play, in many ways imperfect, secondary (it can be frankly heard verbatim quotes and paraphrases of other Shakespearean works) and somewhere devoid of the multidimensional psychological “justification” characteristic of Shakespeare, is surprisingly consonant with today’s concepts of “post truth” and “fake news”. Demonstrating situations to “public opinion” as they appear only from the right angle is its purpose. The cunning Ulysses (aka the famous cunning Odysseus) is the main creator of these events and their interpreter, a kind of Itachian Frank Underwood - or rather his wife Claire, since here Ulysses is a woman for whom there are no other moral principles but profit. Not personal, no, but military-political. She won’t stand for the price and win every game. And what a price if playing with other people's weaknesses, you can simply rearrange the figures on the board, promising some what they want to hear, and pushing others to do what is required. The basics of political technology! And by and large, everyone in this game becomes hostage and cannon fodder of the general idea of Ulysses - to remove Hector and then Troy will fall, because he is her support, especially with his strength and such useless ideas of good and evil. The Trojan horse move has not yet been invented, but it is always possible to sacrifice the figure of the one whose death will be the trigger for the suspicious Achilles. It is not necessary to be an oracle in order, having gone through all the vices of the best of warriors, to understand that neither vanity nor pride is his weakness.
Chosen by Gregory Doran, the style of Mad Max, mixed with the antique armor of the heroes, is an ominous hodgepodge of a dystopian world with recognizable everyday realities that make them even more convex and hyperbolized. And let Agamemnon look more like a pagan god in a ceremonial coloring than a military commander, but by and large he is just a status figure - to chat, meaningfully play with his face, depicting the work of diplomatic thought, wave his hands and only. The course of history, he is not able to change, no matter how he jumps. To paraphrase Cressida’s famous words that “all lovers swear to do more than they are capable of, and do not do a tenth of what they can do,” the same can be said of politicians, for in war and in love all means are good, so they as one swear to do the impossible, and then do nothing simply because it is not in their power.
Shakespeare, stunned by the absolutely non-canonical version of the murder of Hector, as if signing the sentence of all Greeks. But this is already the pinnacle of dishonor, and before that the defector Trojan Kalhas (Doran also has a female character), who chose her own daughter Cressida for the exchange of prisoners, strongly emphasizes the anti-Greek trend chosen by the author. Cressida, who has only to step into the camp of the Greeks and be kissed by them, follows the same path of dishonor - all her vows are forgotten, and the betrayal of Troilus is a matter of three minutes. Oh, it's a pestilent Greek anthrax that decomposes the beautiful souls that got there. Shakespeare thus reinforces his chosen tactics of moral contrast in this war, and presents his version of events.
Behind this created smoke screen of the famous story fades and blackens all the ancient brilliance of weapons, military glory and sublime love, but at some point the specific weight of the “post of truth” becomes critical, and then suddenly you cease to believe the stories of sly craftsmen and under the onslaught of an avalanche of re-reflected images of the Iliad suddenly appears the familiar image of a crafty political strategist, allowing you to realize that all this is just a play of light and shadow of a legend that anticipated the famous games of big politics.